The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 03/26/1991 71 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BUSINESS MEN iNG MARCEI 2S, 1'l ..;S 3Q P PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item TIGARQ CIVIC ENTER:<>::`:_`': <<< should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). Ifno sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning TIGARD, C)REGtJ t 97223 of that agenda item. Wslloes Agenda items are asked to ba two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set fora future Agenda b contacting either the Mayor or the C Administrator. • STUDY SESSION (5:30 P.M.) • WORKSHOP MEETING - UTILITY AND FRANCHISE COMMITTEE (6:00 P.M.) - Rate Adjustment Recommendation - Rate Structure Inequities Discussion - Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions Status Report - Committee Work Plan for Next Year (Council Discussion) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. 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: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 12, 19, and 26, 1991 3.2 Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Agreement with Beaverton for Replacement of an Existing Sanitary Sewer Crossing at Scholls Ferry Road; Authorize Expenditure of Funds from the Sanitary Capital Improvement Projects Account for the Project 3.3 Authorize Staff to Advertise for Bids for "Year Two" Park Levy Projects 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: Bid Award for Dartmouth Street Phase I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 1 4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007 VARIANCE VAR 90-0011 WAVERI: CONS-1 1Z' UC B ION/GRAND1%IE (NPO 6) An appeal of a Planning commission approval of a Subdivision request to allow division of a 2.4 acre parcel into 10 lots between 7,500 and 10,400 square feet in size. Also approved was a Variance to allow less that 25 feet of public street frontage on two proposed flag lots and a Variance to Code Section 18.164.030 (g) (1) to allow a 65 foot centerline-to-centerline separation of intersecting streets whereas the Code requires a minimum centerline separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: East side of SW 97th Street and approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 11 BA, tax lots 100, 106, and 107) • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council 5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0013 VARIANCE VAR 90-0037 LAU1T/DE HAAS (NPO #6) An appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a Subdivision request to divide an approximately 2.05 acre site into seven parcels between approximately 8,554 and 12,025 square feet in size. Also approved was a Variance to Code Section 18.164.030 (g) (1) to allow a 65 foot centerline-to-centerline separation of intersecting streets whereas the Code requires a minimum centerline separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: 14110 SW 97th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 11 BA, tax lots 101, 105, & 111) • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 2 J ( PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-=3 HEDRICK (NPO #8) A request to annex a parcel of approximately 0.7 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) LOCATION: 7970 SW Spruce Street (WCTM 1S1 36CA, tax lot 2100) • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council - Resolution No. 91- and Ordinance No. 91- 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0006 DE HARPPORT (NPO #3) A request to annex one parcel and portions of three other parcels consisting of 4.53 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to the City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) LOCATION: South of SW Walnut Street and west of SW 112th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 3AC, tax lot 400, and parts of 501, 900, and 1000) • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council - Resolution No. 91- 1 and Ordinance No. 91- r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 3 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0007 COOK (NPO #3) A request to annex two parcels consisting of 4.97 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). ZONE: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) LOCATION: South of Walnut Street and west of 135th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 413D lots 400 and ' 1500) • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council - Resolution No. 91- 12 and Ordinance No. 91-0"I 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0008 BACON (NPO #3) A request to annex two parcels consisting of .89 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) LOCA T ION:: 12025 and 12035 SW Rose Vista Drive (WCTM 2S1 3CC, tax lots 1000 & 1100) • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council - Resolution No. 91- i. and Ordinance No. 91-C!b 10. SECOND READING: ORDINANCE NO. 91-04 An Ordinance amending the buffering and screening standards of Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code. 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 13. ADJOURNMENT cca326.91 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 4 Council Agenda Item T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 • Meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson (arrived 6:20 p.m.) Joe Kasten and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ron Bunch, Senior Planner; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Jerry Offer, Acting Senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. NOTES FROM STUDY SESSION • Agenda Review - Staff advised Council on following agenda items: - Non-Agenda Staff Distributed to Council a proposed resolution appointing Phil Westover to the Budget Committee. This was considered by Council during the business meeting under "Non-Agenda Items." - Council received written request by Marlin J. DeHaas to hear testimony relating to both public hearings for Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 5 before making their decision on each. (See letter dated March 25, 1991 which is filed with the Council packet material.) Legal Counsel, Ken Elliott, advised that separate public hearings would be advisable in order to maintain a clear record of the proceedings. • Utility and Franchise (U & F) Committee Workshop Members Present from the U & F Committee: Chair Gerry McReynolds; Committee Members CeCe Dispenza, Mark Irwin, Don Jacobs, Mike Meinecke, Tom Sullivan, and Eldon Wogen. Ex- Officio Members Present: Mike Leichner of Pride Disposal and Larry Schmidt of Schmidt's Sanitary Service. Also present: Lee Kell, Legal Counsel (for Haulers); Jim Coleman (City's Legal Counsel for Solid Waste). City Staff: Loreen Edin, Administrative Services Risk Manager. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 1 Chair McReynolds reviewed a committee report on 1990 activities. (See memorandum from Gerry McReynolds to City Council dated 3/25/91 which has been filed with the Council packet material.) Chair McReynolds noted the evolvement of the Committee since its creation several years ago. Because of some of the changes which have taken place, he suggested a reexamination of the Committee's scope and role would be in order. He advised that the Committee desires that their responsibilities, relationships and direction be clearly defined by the City Council. Another concern outlined was that the Committee developed financial reporting and a review process a few years ago and it needed better definitions and instructions to assure consistent reporting among the haulers. The audit requested would review allocation techniques and procedures along with establishing that the proper franchise fees have been paid. It was recommended that the audit be conducted by an independent firm. There was discussion on the areas of concern and future goals and role of the U & F Committee. Included in the discussion were the benefits that would be gained by an audit of the solid waste haulers' 1990 financial reports. There was discussion on the areas served by the haulers and the profit margins afforded each of the haulers in their areas. The desire to put into place a fair system to the haulers was discussed. Another issue which has been controversial includes the construction waste issue. This concerns private haulers vs. the franchise haulers cleaning up debris from construction sites. Council discussed the range of issues that were coming before the Utility and Franchise Committee. Chair McReynolds referenced his concern with regard to the City's emphasis being changed from licensing and protecting the citizenry to one of avoiding risk and liability. Mayor Edwards advised that the work and accomplishments of the U & F Committee members has shown him that the Committee is worthwhile. He placed value on the input and concerns expressed by the Committee. The Mayor said a review was needed to determine if the Committee is being asked to make policy decisions which, he felt, were outside of the Committee's responsibilities. He commended the group on their response to the issues, sometimes volatile in nature, which have been brought to them. The Mayor advised that items listed in Chair McReynolds report with regard to future direction contains items he would also agree the committee should work on over the next year. He mentioned he could think of several other issues which the Committee may want to review. Every one of the goals listed was time consuming. He noted he believed an audit as outlined by CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 2 Chair McReynolds was necessary. City Administrator advised that the view of staff has been one that the U & F Committee is the administrator of the solid waste ordinance. At times, issues take on a broader perspective than originally thought. It is difficult, in some instances, to draw the line between when an interpretation of policy is being made or when, in fact, new policy is being established. New policy would be directed to the Council for their consideration. Risk Manager Edin advised that there have been times over the last year when legal interpretation advice was sought from the City's legal counsel. Discussion ensued on the evolvement of the U & F Committee and their role as the administrators of the solid waste ordinance. Councilor Johnson commented on the activity of the last year and situations experienced by the Committee. She suggested that, perhaps, a more formal process for hearing ( i . e. , public hearing type process) matters concerning their realm of responsibility was necessary. This would include access to the City Attorney's office for assistance. City Administrator advised that it would need to be affirmed if the Committee was the administrative board for the Solid Waste Ordinance. Mayor Edwards agreed with Councilor Johnson in changing the formality of proceedings for the U & F Committee. He noted that Council may not have the time to deal with all issues. As with the Planning Commission, it may be time to establish an appeal process to Council if an issue is disputed at the U&F Committee level. Discussion followed. City Administrator advised that it would not be difficult to prepare a rough outline of proposed scope of U&F Committee and report back to Council. It was noted that the Committee, at its March 18, 1991 meeting, voted unanimously to recommend no solid waste increase based on the 1990 annual report review. A pass-through rate increase will be recommended at a future date to reflect increased dumping fees from METRO effective July 1, 1991. Administrative Services Risk Manager Edin briefly reviewed the Solid Waste Ordinance Status Report. (See March 25, 1991 memorandum from Loreen Edin to Mayor and City Council which has been filed with the Council packet meeting materials.) i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 3 MEN 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA C James Nicoli, Engineer for Lewis Bacon, referenced an annexation request (see Agenda Item 9). Mr. Nicoli registered concern over the process and problems encountered ! by Mr. Bacon who was annexing because of septic tank failure and the need to connect to the sanitary sewer. City Administrator advised he had no first-hand knowledge of Mr. Bacon's situation. It is the City's usual practice to work to resolve health situation problems as quickly as possible. He advised he would investigate and report back to the Council. • Steve Pfeiffer, attorney representing Triad Tigard Ltd., referenced his March 26, 1991 letter to city council. (Mr. Pfeiffer's letter has been filed with the Council packet material.) In this letter, Mr. Pfeiffer requested that council reconsider the Arbor Heights Apartment development request. The Mayor noted that Mr. Pfeiffer had been working with City Attorney Tim Ramis who was not present at the meeting. After discussion with Council and Mr. Pfeiffer, the Mayor advised that the Council would discuss the situation with the City Attorney. The City would respond to Triad's request for reconsideration within the next few weeks. 3. CONSENT AGENDA a. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve the following Consent Agenda Items: .1 Approve Council Minutes: February 12, 19 and 26, 1991 .2 Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Agreement with Beaverton for Replacement of an Existing Sanitary Sewer Crossing at Scholls Ferry Road; Authorize Expenditure of Funds from the Sanitary Capital Improvement Projects Account for the Project .3 Authorize Staff to Advertise for Bids for "Year Two" Park Levy Projects .4 Local Contract Review Board: Bid Award for Dartmouth Street Phase I b. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007 VARIANCE VAR 90-0011 WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION/GRANDVIEW (NPO 6) An appeal of a Planning commission approval of a subdivision CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 4 request to allow division of a 2.4 acre parcel into 10 lots between 7,500 and 10,400 square feet in size. Also approved was a Variance to allow less than 25 feet of public street frontage on two proposed flag lots and a Variance to Code Section 18.164.030 (g) (1) to allow a 65-foot centerline-to- centerline separation of intersecting streets whereas the code requires a minimum centerline separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: East side of SW 97th Street and approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 11 BA, Tax Lots 100, 106, and 107) a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. c. Staff Report by Planner Jerry Offer: On January 22, 1991, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for Subdivision approval by Waverly Construction Company's for a ten lot subdivision south of McDonald Street and east of SW Mountainview Lane. NPO #6 has appealed the decision citing concerns related to the granting of a variance to Code Section 18.164.060.B which requires that all lots created through the subdivision process have a minimum of 25 feet of road frontage (lots 2 and 5 of the preliminary plat would each have 10 feet of road frontage) and the granting of a variance to allow a 65 foot intersection offset along SW 97th Avenue whereas Code Section 18.164.030.G states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. Factors cited by the Planning Commission in approving the subdivision and variance requests included a 1980 Planning Commission approval of an identical preliminary plat for this property and the installation of sanitary sewers corresponding to that plat approval through a local improvement district. The property owner has since been assessed for the sewer improvements. Staff and the NPO had both recommended denial of the requested preliminary plat approval and variances. Staff's recommendation was based partially upon a preference for a plan submitted by the applicant for Planning Commission review on July 10, 1990 that showed how the subject site could be developed without requiring variances to Code standards. In addition, the July, 1990 preliminary plat proposed utilizing the existing sanitary r sewers on the site. The Planning Commission reviewed l' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 5 that proposal and had continued the hearing indefinitely. The present proposal was submitted in response to the continuance. d. Legal Counsel Elliott reviewed the request on a change in hearing procedures (see Study Session comments on Page 1). He advised it was his recommendation to hear and decide on the two items separately. e. NPO Testimony: Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6, noted the issues which prompted the appeal of two land use decisions before Council. (Ms. Carver referred to written notes; these notes have been filed with the Council packet meeting material.) f. Public Testimony: • Jim Long, 14270 S.W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223 advised he signed in on the testimony sheet, but declined to testify at this time. • Marlin DeHaas 9450 S.W. Commerce Circle, Wilsonville OR 97070 referred to his letter requesting the two issues be heard before making a decision on either one. Mayor advised that legal counsel has advised that each issue should be heard separately. Legal Counsel Elliott reiterated that the decisions for each will be rendered in order. Mr. DeHaas advised that their development would be affected by what happens to Mr. Waverly's request. Mr. DeHaas recounted the history of the development and the interrelationship between the properties referenced in Agenda Items 4 and 5. A plat was completed in the early 19801x; however, the plat was never filed because of monetary problems and the economy at the time. The Lautt subdivision was planned as part of a Local Improvement District (LID) sanitary sewer project for this area. Mr. DeHaas presented Council with a map showing the planning for the LID. The City at the time of the formation of the LID encouraged the property owners, who had undeveloped property, to come up with a development scheme for the entire area. This was done in order to know where to build the sanitary sewers and to assess the property owners properly. Assessments have been paid on sanitary sewer since the LID formation. The Lautt's have been paying based upon the proposed lot configuration. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 6 } In response to a question from Mr. DeHaas, Legal Counsel advised the Council has the option to consider the evidence and open up the issue to a "de novo hearing" which they have elected to do. Council asked several questions about the LID formation and assessments. Mr. DeHaas responded that the LID and lot configuration were directly related. City Engineer advised that the lots were being treated as large parcels now. The LID estimated the number of lots which could be subdivided and used this for the basis of assessment. • Aase B. Otto, 14200 S.W. 97th, Tigard, OR 97224 testified she bought the subject property in 1978. She recounted the history of the LID and financial conditions which prevented the construction of the subdivision. She said she had been advised by the City to "get in on making the plans" or when the time came to subdivide the lands, she might not have sewer access. The cost of the LID was a little over $25,000 for the improvement to the street (SW 97th); the City also took five-feet of width of the total frontage. Assessments were based on the number of lots. She said she has been paying for 10 sewer lines which are in the ground on her property. Her house, also on the property, is not hooked up to the sewer lines. Total cost for the LID was about $52,000. She advised she was now behind on the assessment charges and owes $66,000. Ms. Otto disputed the assertion by the NPO that there is no undue burden to redo the subdivision. The plat which was completed, but not recorded, was done at the urging of the Planning Commission at that time. She said she had a different plan for the property at the time which included a cul-de- sac formation. The Lautt"s and Ms. Otto worked together on a plan which reflected the transportation preferences by the City at that time. Ms. Otto referred to her variance request and noted other developments which were developed similarly (including flag lots) to what was being proposed. With regard to the configuration of the development, Mrs. Otto explained trees had been planted around the perimeter of her home. She CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 7 f advised of the importance to her for this subdivision to go through, noting Mr. Waymire had signed an earnest money with her in February of 1990. In response to a question by Councilor Johnson concerning a plan submitted by the applicant, Ms. Otto advised she found it to be unacceptable although staff preferred this layout. She noted her concerns being saving trees, a narrow driveway serving six houses, and more pavement required on the property. Also, complicating the issue, there is another home which has an access easement across the property. • Tom Burton, 302 Tigard Plaza, Tigard, Oregon advised he was the engineer on the project. He advised he drew the plan mentioned by Mrs. Otto as being unacceptable. This plan conformed to the City requirements. While it would have worked, it would have required some modification to the sewer. Mr. Burton referenced the situation of the property owners wherein their development plans have expired; however, payment for the LID continues. He said he felt the city owed it to the property owners to honor the agreement and allow them to develop their original plan. The original plan would include the offset street (Rhonda Court) and the request for flag lots. Mrs. Otto's house would be one of the flag lots. In addition, she has made improvements by planting shrubs and trees based on the original layout. In response to a question from Councilor Johnson, Mr. Burton confirmed that the parcel could be subdivided with the same number of lots which have been used in the sewer assessment without requiring variances. He noted it would require some private driveway-type of layout and modification of some of the sewer services. Discussion on sewer services followed. Mr. Burton indicated that it was his understanding that sewer services were in place (constructed to the various lots). g. Recommendation by Community Development Staff: Deny the subdivision and variance requests and direct staff to prepare a final order. h. Lengthy discussion followed. Included were comments on the fairness issue to the property owner because of the situation of the LID, review l CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 8 of variance criteria by Legal Counsel, and concerns about construction of sewer hookups which may already be in place. Comments included the premise that the current Council should not be bound by expired agreements, documents, and/or decisions made ten years ago. After comments by Councilors and discussing the criteria upon which to make a decision, Council asked if the applicant would be willing to waive the 120-day decision deadline for this development. This request was made to allow the applicant to work with Engineering staff on conceptual plans and to revise the subdivision plans. Of concern to Council was the offset street design and associated safety problems experienced by this configuration in the past. Continuity of development of the area, referring to a recent development proposal (Castile) near this property, was also discussed by Council. Mr. Waymire, after conferring with the owner, Mrs. Otto, advised they would waive the 120-day response period time limit. Legal counsel and City Council, after discussion, determined the best course of action would be to continue the hearing item to a date certain. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to continue this public hearing to April 23, 1991. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 5. APPEAL PUBLIC HARING: SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0013 VARIANCE VAR 90-0037 LAUTTLDEHAAS (NPO #6) An appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a subdivision request to divide an approximately 2.05 acre site into seven parcels between approximately 8,554 and 12,025 square feet in size. Also approved was a Variance to Code Section 18.164.030 (g) (1) to allow a 65-foot centerline-to- centerline separation -f intersecting streets whereas the Code requires a minimum centerline separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: 14110 S.W. 97th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 11BA, Tax Lots 101, 105, & 111) a. Public hearing was opened. t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 9 b . There were no declarations or challenges. C. Summation by Community Development Staff: Planner Jerry Offer reviewed the staff report. He advised this proposal did not request flag lots. Of concern to staff is the proposed access to 97th Avenue which would include an offset intersection. d. NPO Testimony: Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6 which was the appellant in this case, advised of the NPO's concerns with the development. She advised the NPO did not find fault with the configuration of the development; however, when taken with the Grandview development, there would be 17 lots. There could be as many as seven new access points to S.W. 97th. (See her written comments filed with the packet meeting material.) e. Stuart Kendall, Attorney, P. O. Box 1708, Lake Oswego, Oregon advised he was representing Mr. and Mrs. Lautt on this issue. He advised the question of fairness to the applicant should be considered by the Council. He also noted the legal question as to whether or not the LID improvements constituted a partial construction of the subdivision. He referred to the economic conditions present in 1980-81 which precluded the development of this subdivision. He cautioned against consideration of other layout proposals as no other proposals had been previously suggested or considered for this property. The financial burden to the property owner has been extreme. In addition, Mr. Kendall noted an existing private easement right to cross the property. f. Marlin DeHaas, 9450 S.W. Commerce Circle, Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 advised he was representing the Lautts. He noted he was troubled by the process and stated once again that he would have preferred that both hearing proposals be heard before the Council deliberated on the decision. Mr. DeHaas noted that the sewer laterals were in place and referred to plans which indicated this. Mayor Edwards restated the hearing process to be followed as advised by the City's legal counsel. Mr. DeHaas referred to the Planning Commission approval in 1981 which included the offset street. He advised that the current Planning Commission had CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 10 considered the issues carefully and requested that l their decision be upheld by the City Council. He appealed to the Council to consider the merits of the proposal. Mr. DeHaas noted that the development as proposed would not require to tear up the street for improvements where another configuration might make this necessary. g. Recommendation by Community Development Staff was to not uphold the Planning commission's order approving the subdivision. The staff did not think the variance criteria have been satisfied. No evidence has been presented as to why S.W. Rhonda Court could not be shifted northward to align with Elrose Street. Mr. Offer advised staff recommended that the City Council continue review of the development if the applicant was willing to work with staff and the developer of the property to the south. h. Rebuttal: Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6, outlined the NPO process and advised the applicant had not availed themselves of the opportunity to review their development with the NPO. Ms. Carver referenced earlier testimony that the appeal was submitted very late in the time line allowed. She explained to Council the procedure followed by the NPO; the process was not extraordinary. i. John Fullmer, requested an opportunity to address Council. He noted his concerns with continued access to his property. He confirmed that there is a gravel driveway easement for access to three properties in the subject area. Mr. Fullmer advised that access to 97th Avenue would be an improvement to access available now to the homes in the vicinity of the proposal. j. Public hearing was closed. k. Each Councilor commented on the variance request concerning the offset street. Council discussed the concerns for safety and the need to review street proposals with this in mind. Other offset streets now existing in Tigard confirm the safety issues. Council discussed the fairness issues with regard to the property owner. Several Councilors indicated they would prefer to wait to make a r`. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 11 decision on this issue if the applicant would agree to work with staff and the adjoining property owner to see if some of the problems could be addressed. 1. Mr. Kendall advised that the Lautt's agreed to waive the 120-day decision period deadline. M. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to continue the public hearing to April 23, 1991. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANjiUMATION ZCA 91-0003 HEDRICK (NPO #8). A request to annex a parcel of approximately 0.7 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) LOCATION: 7970 SW Spruce Street (WCTM 1S1 36CA, Tax Lot 2100) A neighbor of the Hedricks advised that the Hedricks requested this application be withdrawn because of a misunderstanding over the process of selling their property. Mr. and Mrs. Hedrick were not present. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to continue this public hearing to April 9, 1991, to give staff an opportunity to check with the Hedricks as to whether they wished to proceed with annexation. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0006 DE HARPPORT (NPO #3) A request to annex one parcel of three other parcels consisting of 4.53 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential 6 units/acre) to the City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) LOCATION: South of S.W. Walnut Street and West of S.W. 112th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 3 AC, Tax Lot 400, and parts of 501, 900 and 1000) a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. c. Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the staff report submitted in the Council's meeting packet. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 12 :k n~ d. NPO Comments: Lou Ane Mortensen advised she was representing NPO 3. The NPO voted unanimously that the subject property be maintained as low density. e. Public Testimony: i • Dale DeHarpport, 6655 S.W. 158th, Beaverton, OR advised he was the applicant and is a building contractor/developer. He advised he concurs with the recommendations contained in the staff report. Mr. DeHarpport concurred with the NPO 3 recommendation for zoning at R-4.5. In response to a question from Councilor Johnson, Mr. DeHapport advised he was the applicant, not the property owner. He said he had earnest money on the property, subject to the approval of a preliminary plat by July. All four property owners have signed the petition to annex the property. f. Recommendation by Community Development Staff: Based on consistency with the appropriate criteria, Associate Planner Acker advised Community Development Staff recommends approval. g. Public hearing was closed. h. Consideration by Council: • RESOLUTION NO. 91-11 A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (ZCA 91-03) (DEHARPPORT) Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt Resolution No. 91-11. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. • ORDINANCE NO. 91-05 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91- 06) (DEHARPPORT) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.- Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 91-05. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 13 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0007 COOK (NPO 43) A request to annex two parcels consisting of 4.97 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). ZONE: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) LOCATION: South Walnut and west of 135th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 4BD, Lots 400 and 1500) a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the staff report submitted in the Council's meeting packet. d. Public Testimony: • John Lewis, 13390 S.W. Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon recommended zoning at R-4.5. He reviewed development occurring around this property. He said there was a sewer running into the development and asked what the connection requirements are for the neighborhood to be on this t line once it is in place. He also advised this area is in the Beaverton School District which brings up issues of school capacities. Mayor Edwards responded that Mr. Lewis' points are valid; however, it would be more appropriate to testify at the Boundary Commission. The City's role, at this point, is to approve whether this is to go to the Boundary commission for a formal hearing on annexation. Councilor Johnson advised the City is required, in this instance, by agreement with Washington County to annex the property at the closest zoning available which is R-7. She noted Washington County was required to maintain a certain average density inside the unincorporated area which is in the urban growth boundary. She advised she disagreed with the zoning assigned by the County to some of the properties. Mayor Edwards advised he thought it was important for Mr. Lewis to testify at the Boundary Commission. Councilor Eadon advised that all the property CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 14 surrounding, ruhin}~ is in the County, is zoned by ( the County at R-6. Councilor Johnson noted that if the neighborhood has concerns about zoning on property still in the County, they should register those concerns with the County now, prior to a development and : annexation proposal. The school district issue (Beaverton School District and school overcrowding) did not enter into the annexation question advised Councilor Johnson. City Administrator advised before any development would take place, plans would be routed to the School District for their review and comment. City Administrator suggested staff visit with Mr. Lewis after the meeting about the policy with respect to extending the sewer line. • Bruce Jamieson, 13585 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon testified that he lived on the north side of Walnut Street, between this parcel and S.W. 135th Avenue. He advised access to the property must be provided by Walnut Street or Fern Street. He noted the additional 35 lots and increased traffic this would mean in front of his home. Mr. Jamieson, advised they would be able to hook up to sewer once associated fees were paid by the individual property owners. He said he did not want to be annexed to the City of Tigard. (He confirmed that he would not be annexed to the City if the Council approved this annexation proposal.) Mr. Jamieson advised he did not want to see the property developed. Mr. Edwards reiterated that the development of the property was not being discussed at this hearing; rather, the question was whether to send the proposal to the Boundary Commission for annexation. He suggested that Mr. Jamieson testify at the Boundary Commission to register his concerns for the record. Councilor Johnson advised the annexation issues for the City is to determine whether or not services can be delivered to the area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 15 e. Community Development Staff Recommendation: Associate Planner Sohn Acker advised that staff recommended that Council adopt the proposed resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. f. Council consideration: • RESOLUTION NO. 91-12 A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "All AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (ZCA 91-07) (COOK) Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve Resolution No. 91-12. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. • ORDINANCE NO. 91-07 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91-07) (COOK) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt Ordinance No. 91-07. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0008 BACON (NPO #3) A request to annex two parcels consisting of .89 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) LOCATION: 12025 and 12035 S.W. Rose Vista Drive (WCTM 2S1 3CC, Tax Lots 1000 and 1100) a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or or challenges. c. Summation by Community Development: Association Planner Acker advised the property owners of the two parcels requested annexation. He advised property owner, Mr. Bacon, is experiencing problems with his septic system and needs to hook up to the City sewer. Mr. Acker reviewed the Staff Report submitted to the City Council CITY COUNCIL ;MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 16 in their meeting packet. Councilor Johnson asked if there were no comments from the Police Department about delivering police services two lots down inside the neighborhood. Mr. Acker confirmed there were no objections from the Police Department. City Administrator advised .similar situations have occurred in the past; the Police Department has indicated that they can provide service even though they must leave City limits to reach the newly annexed areas. This would pose no problem to the emergency dispatching agency. There was brief discussion on the fact that current policy is to wait for requests to annex to the area. Councilor Johnson referred to Mr. Nicoli's concerns over the health hazard (see Visitor's Agenda). She asked whether it was imperative to forward this issue to the Boundary Commission at this time to address the sewer connection. City Administrator responded that typically, if there is a health hazard, the City would initiate a remedy through a non-remonstrance agreement process. The City encourages completion of the total process as quickly as possible. d. Public testimony: • James Nicoli, 12750 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon advised the request for annexation was only before Council because Mr. Bacon was told he had to annex before the City would consider letting him hook on to the sewer. The City advised Mr. Bacon, that he could hook up prior to completion of the annexation. This information was told to Mr. Bacon eight or nine months ago; raw sewage has continued to go back onto the City residents' property. Mr. Nicoli advised Mr. Bacon did go to his neighbors about annexation. Mr. Nicoli noted Mr. Bacon has been upset about damaging neighbors' property. He said Mr. Bacon indicated he was dissatisfied with the City's response on this issue. Mr. Nicoli requested Council review the process on this situation and how Mr. Bacon was treated. City Administrator advised staff would review this situation and make a report back to Council. r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 17 City Engineer, in response to a question from Mayor Edwards, advised that the Community Development staff has been working on the interim sewer connection. Associate Planner Acker advised that Mr. Bacon submitted a nonremonstrance agreement in order to commence the process for a sewer hook up. James Shelton, 12015 S.W. Gaarde Street, Tigard, Oregon testified that approximately four years ago he attempted to annex the development. He said it was not the City's fault and advised several meetings were held on annexation. The majority of the neighbors voted not to annex. Mr. Shelton advised that two years ago raw sewage, from septic systems was running across lots which were next to his property. The septic systems are failing. He said he worked with the City and he is not annexed into the City; however, he signed a non-remonstrance agreement with regard to annexation. He said it cost him about $7,000 to hook up to the sewer. An LID was proposed in the area two years ago and the cost, then, would have been $6,000. The City has known about the situation through his attempts to annex and the LID proposal. He recommended the city allow these people, who were now requesting annexation, to hook up to the sewer. He also recommended that the City go to the neighborhood to see what is taking place. Mr. Shelton confirmed, in response to a question from the City Administrator, that the raw sewage problem has been running for an extended period of time, far beyond the time frame of this issue. This has been a problem for at least four years. Annexation attempts were made four years ago and then again two years later. He reviewed, in some detail, the history of the annexation attempts and the City's assistance received. Mayor Edwards asked if the sewage problem had been reported to the County. Mr. Shelton talked to the County person who certified the septic system. The County employee advised he was aware of the problem but did not think it was that severe. The County did stop a sale on property in this area and required a repair to a septic system. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 18 Mr. Shelton advised property owners on the low side of the hill have experienced problems. Some people cannot use their back yards because of the odor. People above the properties, who contribute to the problem, have declined to participate in the annexation and LID attempts to correct the problem. Councilor Eadon asked if City Administrator would include in his report a list of options available to the homeowners and the City if there is an existing health problem. This would include the County Health Department's role in resolving this problem. Mayor Edwards noted he was concerned that this was area in the County which has been an ongoing problem. He expressed concern that the City was being accused of unresponsiveness when, in fact, this situation may have been resolved several years ago. He said he wanted to review the staff report to review the allegations that Mr. Bacon was unfairly treated. Mr. Shelton said the City of Tigard worked very well with him in drawing up the necessary documents to get his problem resolved. • Mr. Nicoli readdressed the Council. He said that when Mr. Bacon realized that his sewer was failing, he called the County. The County told Mr. Bacon to do something about the problem immediately. It was then that Mr. Bacon came to the City and for a period of six months, he was unable to progress. Mr. Bacon then received a second letter from the County requiring him to hook up to the City sewer line. Mr. Nicoli advised it was after Mr. Bacon tried to work with the City that he came to Mr. Nicoli for assistance. Mr. Nicoli has worked with County and they extended the time limit to resolve the problem as long as work continued toward that end. Mayor Edwards advised that he wanted verification from staff of the process over the last six months. If there has been a problem, Council wants an investigation as to why it occurred. e. Public hearing was closed. f. Councilor Schwartz commented that the Rose Vista CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 19 area has discussed annexation over the years since ( he served on Council. The residents have been resistant in annexing. He said he has never experienced that the City has turned away an annexation request. To receive sewer, however, a property must annex; therefore, he would like to know if Mr. Bacon did, indeed, come to the City several months to request sewer service, but was told he had to annex and then elected not to proceed. g. Council consideration: • RESOLUTION NO. 91-13 A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "All AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (ZCA 91-08) (BACON) Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve Resolution No. 91-13 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. • ORDINANCE NO. 91-08 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE i CHANGE (ZCA 91-08) (BACON) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to approve Ordinance No. 91-08. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 10. SECOND READING: ORDINANCE NO. 91-04 a. ORDINANCE,NO. 91-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING STANDARDS OF TITLE 18 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. b. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve Ordinance No. 91-04. The motion was approved by a majority vote (4-1) of Council present; Councilor Eadon voted "Nay." 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS: a. RESOLUTION NO. 91-14 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING PHILIP WESTOVER TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 20 Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor l Schwartz, to approve Resolution NO. 91-14. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. b. City Administrator advised he wished to visit with the Council on calendar items. Council consensus was to direct staff to proceed with review of the possibility of caretaking and running the County°s Metzger Park. The County would pay the City for this service. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:56 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: Mayor, City of Tigard Date: ccm326.91 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1991 - PAGE 21 Schwartz, to approve Resolution NO. 91-14. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of council present. b. City Administrator advised he wished to visit with the Council on calendar items. Council consensus was to direct staff to proceed with review of the possibility of caretaking and running the County's Metzger Park. The County would pay the city for this service. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:56 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City corder Att std % Mayor, City of Tigard ~ Date: 1/ -7 a_3 ccm326.91 { CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 1991 - PAGE 21 ti C '~V/R~ f M~ A PUBLISHING T I MESS COMPANY P.O. BOX 370 Legal 7910 PHONE (503) 684-0380 NOt1C t BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ❑ Tearsheet Notice City of Tigard e PO Box 23397 e ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Tigard, Or 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION . = STATE OF OREGON, )'K COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- r Judith Koehler being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the fi.gard Times a newspaper of general circy tion $s defined in ORS 193.010 a •c:~oc;fi . and 193.020; published at Qar in the ` , ' QJQlaid ounty an t - th raid ='1ng~L ~!1-03 & 91-0006 { a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the r entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and consecutive in the following issues: ) March 14, 1991 Subscribed and swor to before me this 14th day of March 1991 Notary Public for Oregon My Commiss( xpires: 44~ AFFIDAVIT PUBLIC HEARING The following will be consideredfby the Ttg td CUY'Councit on March 26,199 1, at 7:30 P M.; at Tigard Civic Centel; Town', Hall Roomy 1312 S.W. Hail Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Further info'rma"tioti maybe; obtained from the Communitv Development Dirertor`_or;City;Recorderat;! the same location or by calling 639-4171.. You are invited to sup iiti! written testimony in advance of the public hearmg;;:wntten.and oral; testimony will be considered,at the hearuig:The:public hearingawilt-be; conducted in accordance with the applicable Chaptei;l8 32 of;the Tigard? Municipal Code and any-rules of procedure adopted-by the Council and, ,at City Ball available ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-(003 HEDRICK, NPO #8) ' A request to annex, a'parcel of approximately 0 7.acres to,the Cnty of Tigard, and to change the zone from :Washuigton Coimty'R,5 (Residential,` 5; iiii6/acre) to City'of Tigard R-4.5.(ResidentW 4:5 _untts/acre) ZONE:• Washington County R-5; (Residential; S'uniis%acre);LOCATIONr,7970 S.W:`Spruce Street (WCTM 1S136CA, tax lot 2100) 7.6 NECHANGE ANNEXAT r% ZCA 91-0006 DE HARPPORT (ALPO #3) A request to annix;one parcel and 06rtions of three other parcels consisting of 4.53 acres to the City. of Tigard and to change the'zone from Washington County R-6 .(Residential, 6 units/acre) to'ihe City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential,:4:5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington.C6unty::k=6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) LOCATION^South`of SW Walnut Street.and West of S:W. 112th AYe tue(WCTM 2S'1, 3AC; iax 1ot400, and'parts of 501, 900, and 1000) : ; ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATIONYZCA 91 0007 COOK (NPO #3)'A request_to;annex two parcels consisting of 4.97 acre s to the City of T~gard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (R es idential,:6 units per tore)'_to City of Tigard R-7. (Residential, 7 units per acre)..ZONE: Washington County R-6 (Residendal, 6. units/acre) LOCATION: Sout10 WalnutStreet and West of.135th Avenue (WCTM 2S14BD.taz_lots 400 and 1500): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0008 BACON (NPO #3) A request to annex two parcels consisting of .89 -acre to the Cityof Tigard ; and, to change the zone from Washington County R-S, (Residential; 5 units/acre) to City of TigazdR4.5 `(Residential; 4.5 units/acre): ZONE: Washington County R-5 (Residential;'Sunits/acre) LOCATION: 1225 and 12035 S.W. Rose Vista Drive (WCTM 2S13CC, taXlots 1000 and. 1100). SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007. VARIANCE VAR 90-0011 WAVERLY CONSTJGRANDVIEW (NPO #6) An appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a Subdivision request to allow division of a 2.4-acre,0arcel into 10 lotsbetween 7,$00 and 10,400 square feetur size. Also' approved was it Variance to allow less than 25 feet of public, street frontageon two'proposed flag lots and a Variance to Code Section 18.164.030 (g) (1),to allow a 65-foot centerline-to- ~l centerline separation'of 300feet.4 en it is necessayihat''iriter§ecting streets form staggered intersections: ZONE: R-4.5_.(Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION:: East side of S.W. 97th Street and approximately 400 feet south of S.W. McDonald street (WCTM 2S1 I IBA, tax lots 100, 106, and 107) SUBDIVISION SUB 90 0013, VARIANCE VAR 90-0037 LAUT rM HAAS(NPO #6) An appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a Subdivision, request to divide an approximate )y;2;05 :acre site. into seven parcels between ` approximately 8,554 and. 12,025' care feet in size Also approved was a Variance to Code:Sect,on t$~$4,,030. (1) to allow;;a 65 fo centerline-to-centerline.separaiidfi' . intersecting streets wherea§ the Code requires a minimum centerline separation of 300 feet when. it is necessary that intersecting streets form sta gercd intersections ZONE R 4:5 (Residential; 4.5 un:sfgcrrl At10& 1~t110 W 97th Avenue (WCTM2S141BA-tWW108t fit nayc. w4 M. 910.. Pubhsh Mat+Ch~f , Y l.. - f~ TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 - Notice TT 7915 T BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 r Legal Notice Advertising S ° City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice PO Box 23397 ° Tigard, Or 97140 ° 0 Duplicate Affidavit i ° ° AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ° 1F COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, I, Judith Koehler being first duly sworn, depose and saylbat ll awn hhe~ASdve_rtising Director, or his principal clerk, of the g a newspaper of general circulwn ads defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at g in the C;i~y ~otnicieeite ce 26, 1991 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and consecutive in the following issues: ;t. March 21, 1991 ac Subscribed and sworn before.me this 21st day of March 1991 } Notary Public for Oregon ? My Commission Expires: i/ AFFIDAVIT r f ` ' ar ~ ; ~exxr The follow'~~meetutgijghltght ale ppbir edfflc yaur Fuu agendas rttFy be obtaii,ie¢ frgtn the CdyRecoriler; 23~1''~5'WHa21~ Boulevard, Tigard,OVregon 97223, qr by calling 639-4171: M{"re'K ``'C1Z BUS11°lESS MEETIl~l(:" E Y r r"• MARCH A991 1TGARD CITY HALL T WN FALL{~ ~ ' ' "13225 S-W HALL BOULEVARD TIG RD ~DR~ ~`4. s r • Jr a a ~vis4 StfkSt ~r Study Meeting (Town Hall Conference Roof i),.( 30'Pfit1 f~ r u 3 r .x 9„/!, f, :r t i25r. xsM7 y`~+f 3T Workshop Ivfeeang with Utrlrty and Franchise Commrttee'(6 30 P~`M) r~'~,~.. Busyness Meeting ('Y'awn Hall} (730 P M6)' r r , r` 't ~4 Public Hearings , b ~ t , Appeal Public Hearing Subdrvrsion SUB 9t)X 0007,; Vrrance ~A~~ 90-001 Waverly'.Construction/Gi indvrew (NPO' 6)a Laca ion f I East.srcle of S W. "97th Street andapproxrmately 400 feet south of . S.W McDonald Street. r h; , b Ap' 1 Puiilic Hearing Svbdivrsit n SUB 901 13 Va to tee VAR 90-0037 Lautt/De Haas (NPO 6)"= Locatroti:-14110 S:lV 97tfi~ Avenue , ~a$g~Cge-P!~pezat~o (p~iP018)- Laca: trot; 7974 S Sn SEA .C,1~e' +wbai'XS r :j ,(}]q .:r a)C'r A''3~v 1~ •~i j", Zone Change Annexation ZCA 91.00.06- Ddlad port,,,- Locatton South of S M Waltiut-Street and *de fof S:VIr. l l th;-; . Avenue- ~ ,one Cliarlge Annexation ZCA 91-G007, Cook (NPO 3) Location ' South of Walnut Street and west oM 5th Avenue. 1 r Zone Change Annexation'ZCA~91 0008; (NPO,-3) Locatron 12025 and42035 S W. Rose~Vista Drive Second Readr40COrdrnance.!I~To 91 64 An,Ordrnanco amending e:;_ buffering and;§creerrrng standards of Title 28 of theTigard I ianicilial Code: Local Contrt Re~Srew. Floard Meeting Executive Sessron The Tigard Crty:Couneri;vrllsgo into` Eirecutrve session underihe provisions cif ORS 192 660 .E1) (e):` (1r) drs ss Labor relsUons, real property transactions; and ~Citrreint and panel ' rng litigation"rssues R ' '1" 915 Publ W' iith 21,1991: CITY OF TIGARD, OREr" AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF ORBSON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I: 1~ begin first duly sworn, on oath, de and say: That I posted in the following publi and co i a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 1- O S - which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the date of 1990. f 4 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. las 1~` ,aCorner of main and 0" VC tTigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. ( state Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon and sworn to before me this t date of- Apr ► 19-IL . w , C1'•• Notary. Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ke/CWPOST CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-0`I AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING STANDARDS OF TITLE 18 OF THE TIGARD MUNCIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 18.100, "Landscaping and Screening," provides for regulations to reduce the impacts that result from adjacent zones and uses of different types through the application of buffering and screening standards. WHEREAS, in certain situations the above buffering and screening standards have been found to be lacking in mitigating these adverse impacts. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds that amendments to Chapter 18.100 of the Tigard Municipal Code, identified as Exhibits "A" and 'B" are necessary to enhance community livability by further reducing the impacts that adjacent uses of different types have on one another. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 18.100 shall be amended as shown in Exhibits "A" and 'B". SECTION 2: In Exhibit "A" added portions are underlined and deleted portions are shown in [brackets]. SECTION 3: Exhibit "B" hereby referenced as the 'Buffering and Screening Matrix," Section 18.100.110, shall be adopted in its entirety to replace Section 18.100.130 'Buffer Matrix." SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this a b±' day of A.ic 1991 Catherine) Wheatley, City Recorde APPROVED: This day of O C,~190 erald R. Edwards, Mayor roved as to rm: Date RDINANCE NO. 91- 2 rb/bufford.69 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE T1GARll DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.100 Landscaping and Screening Sections 18.100.70 to 18.100.110 Pertaining to Buffering and Screening Note: Underline represents proposed new language [Brackets] represents language proposed to be deleted [18.100.070 Buffering, Screening (General): Use Prohibited in Buffer Areas] 18.100.070 BUFFERING AND SCREENING 18.100.080 General Provisions It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52). Buffering_ and Screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrix in this chapter. The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right of way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. 18.100.090 Buffering/Screening-Requirements A. A buffer consists of an area within a required interior setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in [Section 18.100.110, Buffer Matrix,] the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. B. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways, or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City. C. A fence, hedge, or wall, or any combination of such elements which are located in any yard is subject to the 1 conditions and requirements of Section 18.100.80. [D. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52).] [18.100.080 Buffering/Screening Requirements] D. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of the following: (All. At least one row of trees (with a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees] shall be planted. They shall be not less than 10 feet high for deciduous trees and five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting [and spaced as follows by size of tree.] Spacing for trees shall be as follows: [1.]i. Small or narrow stature trees, under 25 feet tall [and] or less than 16 feet wide [branching] at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart.[; and] [2.]ii. Medium sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. [3l.iii. Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. 2. In addition at least 10 five gallon shrubs or 20 one gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1000 square feet of required buffer area. 3. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn, groundcover, or spread with bark mulch. E. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: 1. A hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four foot continuous screen within two years of planting, or; Drd 2. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen six feet in height within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn, ground cover or bark mulched, orb 3. A five foot or taller fence or wall shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. F. Buffering and Screening provisions shall be superseded by ° the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.102. G. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of regMired fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual `grade-of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval [B].F.Fences, and Walls. 1. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director; 2. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; and 3. Chain link fences with [or without] slats shall qualify for screening. [only in conjunction with evergreen plant materials at the same height or taller than the fence.] However, chainlink fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. [C.]I.Hedges. 1. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Subsections 18.100.090.B.1 and 2; 2. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with Or another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence or wall when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and 3. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.102. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84- 71; Ord. 83-52) 18.100.100 Screening of Refuse Containers Required. Except for one and two family dwellings any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, narking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. rb/lsbuffsc.rb7 C Rte vv 4 y EXN►1~" " ReaVY mr Parking tot' PROPOSED USE, tightIndustrial Use Industri q.54 Industri 50 or more ~mmerpat al pads U s se TRM . -2 Mowe' & Ilse Spaces Spaces BUFFER MA Atia ed Dwelling Urxts Rome protesswnal Units -A Stories or More Packs & . Uses Attached Dwerring Sub(WJ10ns 10 5 20's 's Fjcisting j story R-20 R-44 30'5 40 ~ Abuttitlg use ~ R-4U R.7 R-12 20's District R-20 20's 20'5 of Zoning li R-7 R-12 15's 10's 10's 10's 40's 20's 30's - 10'5 FaOY 10's Iv s 165 10 5 20's 10's 20's 1 Detached Single R_q 5 AV s 10's 40's R 2, R-3. or R1. 5, 0's 15'5 30's 10,s i0's t 20's R7 IT 15' 24's 20's Units 0, p• to' 14's i0's Attached pwetD grids R42 10. 10' 40's R-7 1 Story 10's t0's 20's 30's Units' i0s 10's _20s_ • Attached Dwe1G09 10's 10's 20's 2 or more stones, toys 10's 20' Ft-20, R-40 Dtstocts i0's 10's 0' p Pac & 10's 10's 10 s 10'5 Ws 10's 10's ks' Mobile Nome 10's o' 10's i0s 10s 10 0 subdrnsion in anY iat & PD~ana1 10's 1p's 10's 20's AT 0' p• ~mmetC 20's 20's 20's ses. CM , , CPI 080 U CG 20.0's Districts 20•s 20's s 2 25s 25's 255 25's 24' 20' p• 20's 25.s 25's 5 40'5 0' W Pack 25'5 2'`.s 255 4o's 40' o' o tndustn 40'5 40 s o. 0' Ught tndustnat 40'5 WS 'W's 405 10'5 10's 0 s 10 5 tieavY Industrial i4's 10's t4' p' AnY pariun9 lot With 4 - 50 10's 10's 10's t0•s 'i0's i0's ~ aces . t0's iv s Pare btwith 50 or 10,5 iS 10's 10's $creenin~ Matrix more s p s Propos seCc on 8.100.110 , Q nts [dew Categories • Represe teed .s in~ccates screening reclu keBUFFMATXS CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91- Q5 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91- 06) (DEHARPPORT) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has received a request for annexation signed by all owners of the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on March 26, 1991 to consider the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and WHEREAS, on-March 26, 1991 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 most closely conform to the Washington County zoning designation while also maintaining consistency with Tigard's land use designation as provided in the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan for WCTM 2S1 3AC lot 400 portions of lots 501, 900 and 1000 as shown in exhibit A. Current Zoning PrOUOSed Zoning Wash. Co.. R-6 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 u n Ck61 OUS vote of all Council members p,r gsgnt after being read by number and title only, this ~(J = day of -ftwi let q 1. C erin heatley, City Record APPROVED: This day of , 991. R, Edwards-, or A ved as to C' ttorn y Da tBt~' A COR t o.. - - - _ t1~ E s w 2S 1 3AS . st. A_55 Tw A1r so 127c R09 H0 y .114 any 100 S 1 ~a s, ~sy7ee p W s 200 2 4 Ac 0.33Ae. -o Trr xH ~ < 300 _34 AC 4w 9 40 t♦ N M • 79 ~ N et = Y et- s 00 w sO 500 is Ra ~ .EgO r. pTMSi .h•SiEISO ~ /O.OOAc 501 202 Joann /.59 Ac. • M f Y ai N O w a, as9•IS'w w ' r pp 8 -000H 71.12 r 502 .J7Aer ` e: ~ r .z ~ x ~ t SMCOR-R.E.YCYICHEIi s S00•SO'N 760.1' _.sK"TS~M 1 as/asl ` s ~s ~ s s Rs•N'w Togs, Iw s'lrST R!9? as9b7 E IOa.7 «N caa awns O~©L} Ill' 00 600 va. MIXER s ~ c n ~ 7;fAc 2.32AC - 0.91Ac. ^x,',4" .,A M sr•~61. ISO' 'YP••a 700 a~ • • Z "SAC. SEE MAP ei 1 ss9•Or'E Y 9 ~ O 2S I 3BD _ o p N 1500 w o c N t °o .34Ac. ~ 11s --7 b o + r 2~ -70 w o R : r SS9 se 11Z x 97-- 46'E II5' 1501 s o+•cs'N 1 so' ° 1100 _ •34Ac. too' so S 67•+S'N 196 _ 1 83AC M S7.4fi E 100 - 1300 1401 1 A as.~s 1200 a51Ac. 22Ac Sn 0.46Ac. 01503 N 4 ;p N N N o .34Ac. f¢ff • o ~a iq is ~ N H = N N N S. N e .li N - N N 10. + CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-jD~Z_ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91- 07) (COOK) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has recieved a request for annexation signed by Helen Cook, who is the owner of the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on March 26, 1991 to consider the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 1991 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding the annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in Section 1 below is that which most closely conforms to the Washington County zoning designation as provided in the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map/Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 2S1 4BD/400 & 1500 Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7 Current Plan Designation Proposed Plan Designation Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard Low Density Residential Section~2: The property meets the definition for a developing area as defined in Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the annexation final order with the office of the Secretary of State. PASSED: By LA rl CL /1.1 MOC.AS vote of all Council members present after Ak7Ch being read by number and title only, this al l-th day of Cath mine Wheatley, City Recor r APPROVED: This o~ f day of , 1991. Gerald R; Edwards, Ma#or A liwed as to ~ f l2~ C A to rid D e t i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91- 08) (BACON) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has received a request for annexation signed by all owners of the subject parcels; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on March 26, 1991 to consider the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and WHEREAS, on•March 26, 1991 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 is that which most closely conforms to the Washington County zoning designation while also maintaining consistency with Tigard's land use designation as provided in the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map/Lot Current Zoning Proposed Zoning ' 2S1 3CC/1000 & 1100 Wash. Co. R-6 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 Url6Ln'l (Y)01A-A vote of all Council !members present after day of being read by number and title only, this Qj -6" "lam-tU1 IGkI C `zi+I *ne Wheatley, city Recor r APPROVED: This day o , 199. Gerald , Edwards, Mayor A Irio ved l~ YTi C torn ' Da e AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: 3/26/91 (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 & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED ~5 lcu L i E~e12 Cv.v.ri~c-riunJ C~ J1 o~n~~ Ark, s Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: 3/26/91 APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007 VARIANCE VAR 90-0011 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION/GRANDVIEW (NPO 6) PLEASE. PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS (For Subdivision) (Opposing Subdivision) 14 270 w a7 it] r-n Z o • ii ~~r.Y v 2z 3 ~ rf so td/. GoMMf✓Lc+ Cj. G c ,sir,/~ 4K For.. r Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE- 3/26/91 APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION 90-0013 VARIANCE VAR 90-0037 = LAUTT/DE HAAS (NPO 6) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS (For Subdivision) (Opposing Subdivision) S'u ~fe V1 d 471 F0 13 0x 7os e o ~ 7a 7- Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE : 3/26/91 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNXATION ZCA 91-0003 HEDRICK (NPO 8) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS (For Annexation) (Against Annexation) O v W A P J. /1 r'V l ,Yld ® I Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE : 3/26/91 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0006 DE HARPPORT (NPO 3) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS (For Annexation) (Against Annexation) L ~eI Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 DATE: 3/26/91 PUBLIC BEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXAION ZCA 91-0007 COOK (NPO 3) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS (For Annexation) (Against Annexation) r 132vc T,~mi.ri i35 SW T /ALri,v7~ { Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 DATE : 3/26/91 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0008 BACON (NPO 3) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS (For Annexation) (Against Annexation), ~iAMt s , L ~ r l'Zot`~ S w , Gtil~.i42L l UTILITY AND FRANCHISE MRRSHOP f MEMORANDUM 3/26/91 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON s TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Loreen Edin, Admin. Services Manager, e DATE: March 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Rate Adjustment Recommendation The Utility & Franchise Committee, at its 3/18/91 meeting, voted unanimously to recommend no solid waste rate increase based on the 1990 annual report review. i i - i r• City, of Tigard Utilities & Franchise Committee TO: City Council, City of Tigard t FROM: Gerry McReynolds, Chairman Utilities & Franchise Committee SUBJECT: Committee Report on 1990 Activities ACTIVITIES 1. The committee addressed the private [non franchised] collection of garbage in apartment complex's by maintenance personnel and dumped into compactors. Health, safety and compliance problems were the main concern. Phil Grillo, City Attorney's office, wrote an opinion inter- preting the ordinance that private collection was not allowed. Much discussion followed concerning compactor siting, installation, compatibility, repair, maintenance, safety, health hazards and overall operation. Tigard does not have any rules, regulations or procedures governing compactors. 2. The committee with the City Attorney developed an ordinance regulating the installation, use and operation of compactors. The draft ordinance was submitted to staff for review and submission to the city Council. The ordinance gathered dust in the staff's "to do" baskets for seven months [frustrating to the committee] before being merged into the general solid waste ordinance. 3. Coy Humphrey, Code Enforcement Officer, cited a construction clean up company with their private garbage truck used to haul solid waste. The contractor accompanied by the attorney from the home builders association appeared before the committee arguing that the ordinance was unclear and allowed such activity. Phil Grillo, City Attorney, interpreted the ordinance to disallow private haulers from hauling and disposing of construction waste. 4. The committee, after two events requiring the city attorney to interpret and define the intent of the Solid Waste ordinance, studied the ordinance in detail and determined it was outdated, unclear and -conflicting in many of its sections. The ordinance was written and adopted in 1977. The committee, without the help of the city attorney [budget constraints], proceeded to update the language and clarify the existing ordinance. The hauler's attorney [hired to_ represent them before the committee] assisted in the language clarification. The updated ordinance has been reviewed by staff and the city attorney's office. Some policy and risk questions have been raised and will be addressed by staff. `h Utilities & Franchise Committee Report Page 1, 03/25/91 r , City of Tigard Utilities & Franchise Committee 5. The committee has asked the haulers for additional information on the annual reports to show the impact of recycling on both residential and commercial service costs and profits. The attached analysis show that commercial service is subsidizing the residential service. Recycling seriously affects residential service costs and profits. 6. Tigard's three franchised haulers are different in size. The service mix between the haulers differ. Schmidt's customer base is nearly all residential while Pride has the majority of the commercial accounts. The formula used to set rates is based upon combined averages. The present rate structure was developed years ago, when disposal costs were based upon volume and not weight as it is now. The city sets the rate for a single residential can. Other service increases have always been based upon the single 30 gallon residential can. 7. The committee has reviewed the rate structure. Attached is the proposed rate structure stamped "DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only - Subject to Revision" for your study. The committee wishes to add a 20 gallon "mini" can service rate to aid the senior citizens who may not fill a 30 gallon can each week because of recycling efforts and reduced needs. The intent is to make each type of service to stand alone and be profitable. Politically this action may not be desirable by the City Council because the residential rate would need to increase approximately $2.55 or to a rate of $13.60 per can. The committee is still fine tuning the new rate structure in an effort to make it revenue neutral. Metro indicates that dumping fees will increase as of July 1st. Hopefully the committee will submit the new rate structure for consideration at the same time. CONCERNS 1. The committee is concerned about its ever changing role in Tigard's City Government. It seems the committee's responsibility to City Council and the citizen have changed along with the interface with City Staff. The committee desires that our responsibilities, rela- tionships and directions be clearly defined by the City Council. 2. The committee developed financial reporting and rate review process adopted a few years ago needs better definitions and instructions to insure consistent reporting between the haulers. An audit of the 1990 reports would assist the committee in 'gathering information to write better instructions. The audit requested would look into allocation techniques and procedures along with establishing the proper franchise fees have been paid. Politically, the audit should be conducted by an independent firm. r Utilities & Franchise Committee Report Page 2, 03/25/91 City of Tigard Utilities & Franchise Committee 3. It appears the City's emphasis has changed from licensing and protecting the citizenry to one of avoiding risks and liability. If this is indeed a change of policy, the committee should be made aware of these changes. f FUTURE GOALS 1. The committee in the past was charged with some broad goals and objectives. Based upon those goals, the following are the tasks we see facing us for the next year: a. Finish the Solid Waste Ordinance. b. Complete the fine tuning of the "Rate Structure". C. Continue upgrading the financial reporting requirements. d. Develop a "Yard Debris" program. e. Develop a "Hazardous Waste" program. f. Revisit the "Stryofoam and Plastics" problems. nities g. Improve recycling through better education and opportu- . 2. The Solid Waste Ordinance, as being presented, leaves procedures and processes to administrative rules adopted by the City Administrator. The committee should be involved in the development of those administrative rules. COUNCIL ACTIONS NEEDED 1. Adopt the Solid Waste Ordinance revisions as presented by the Committee. 2. Provide direction in dealing with the disparity between the haulers and rates charged for types of service. 3. Provide long term goals and objectives for the committee. 4. Provide funds for an audit of the Solid Waste Haulers 1990 financial reports. Utilities & Franchise Committee Report Page 3, 03/25/91 0 3-c-ter j City of Tigard Colid Waste Disposal p { p~PO SONLY Comparison of Current 8 Proposed Rates Residential Rates Current Proposed % Rate Rate Change One Can $11.05 $13.60 23.08% Proposed rates also include $1.00 premium for each can that is not placed at Two Cans $21.20 $26.20 23.58% curbside Each Additional $10.15 $12.60 24.14% On Call Service 54.75 57.00 47.37% Commercial Rates One Two Three Four Five Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed r Of Cans Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate One Can $11.55 $13.85 20% $22.40 $27.70 24% $33.45 $41.55 24% $44.50 $55.40 24% 555.30 569.25 25% Two Cans $21.90 $26.18 20% $42.40 552.35 23% 563.40 578.53 24% $84.60 $104.71 24% $104.70 $130.88 25% Each Additional $9.35 $13.15 41% $18.70 $26.30 41% $27.85 $39.45 42% $37.10 $52.60 42% $45.90 565.75 43% DRAFT 04SCUSSIO*PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECTTO REVISION Container service-Loose One Two Three Four Five Container Size Current Proposed Current Propose;: Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed 11.71 23.42 35.13 46.84 58.55 one Yard $65.35 $47.70 -27% $123.39 $93.00 -25% $179.44 $138.40 -23% $183.75 ERR $229.10 ERR Each Additional $45.35 ERR $88.45 ERR $131.55 ERR $174.65 ERR $217.75 ERR One And 1/4 577.63 $59.35 -24% $146.07 $115.75 -21% $212.20 $172.15 -19% $277.03 $228.55 -17% $335.97 $284.95 -15% Each Additional $71.33 $56.40 -21% $134.57 $110.00 -18% $196.00 $163.60 -17% $256.03 $217.20 -15% $310.97 $270.80 -13% one And 1/2 $89.72 $70.95 -21% 5174.84 $138.35 -21% $253.77 $205.75 -19% $327.04 5273.15 -16% $399.61 $340.55 -15% Each Additional $84.32 567.40 -20% $159.84 $131.45 -18% $235.77 5195.50 .17% $302.88 $259.55 -14% 5369.31 $323.60 -12% Two yards $118.69 $92.95 -22% $228.49 $181.25 -21% $330.98 $269.55 -19% $426.37 $357.85 -16% $520.27 S446.15 -14% E u Additional $110.59 $88.30 -20% $208.49 $172.20 -17% 5297.98 5256.10 -14% $382.17 $340.00 -11% 5465.37 5423.90 -9% Three Yards $160.24 5136.95 -15% 5306.88 $267.05 -13% 5442.42 $397.15 -10% 5567.67 $527.25 -7% $699.70 5657.35 -6% Each Additional 5151.24 $130.10 -14% $291.88 $253.70 -13% 5424.52 $377.30 -11% 5555.66 5500.90 -10% 5684.70 5624.50 -9% Four Yards $201.68 5179.35 -11% 5385.88 $349.75 -9% $568.66 $520.15 -9% $737.44 5690.55 -6% $898.44 $860.95 -4% Each Additional 5193.68 $170.40 -12% 5377.88 $332.30 -12% $556.66 $494.20 -11% 5729.34 5656.10 -10% 5887.54 5818.00 -8% Five Yards $240.23 $220.15 -8% 5469.49 $429.30 -9% $691.80 $638.45 -8% $906.83 5847.60 -7%51,105.37 51,056.75 -4% Each Additional 5235.03 $209.15 -11% $454.17 $407.85 -10% 5669.30 $606.55 -9% $878.93 5805.25 -8%51,090.37 51,003.95 -8% Six Yards $273.68 5259.25 -5% $534.16 5505.55 -5% 5788.64 $751.85 -5%51,032.92 $998.15 -3%51,273.60 51,244.45 -2% Each Additional 5267.58 $246.30 -8% 5522.16 5480.30 -8% 5770.54 $714.30 -7X$1,003.32 $948.30 -5%$1,235.60 $1,182.30 -4% Eight Yards 5343.77 $325.50 -5% $669.85 $634.75 -5% 5985.72 $944.00 -4%51,293.79 $1,253.25 -3%51,590.47 $1,562.50 -2% Each Additional 5335.50 5309.25 -8% 5653.85 $603.05 -8% $961.92 5896.95 -7%51,261.89 51,189.75 -6%$1,550.47 51,484.45 -4% Proposed rate schedule also includes a premium for Saturday pick up of commercial loose containers Container Service-Compacted One Two Three Four Five Container Size Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Or rd $153.91 5119.25 -23% 5289.77 $232.55 -20% 5420.90 $345.80 -18% $549.63 5459.10 -16% $666.37 $572.40 -14% Tw`o Yards $254.06 $232.40 -9% $490.34 5453.20 -8% 5712.00 5673.95 -5% $919.46 $894.75 -3%$1,124.04 51,115.50 -1% Three Yards 5345.36 $342.40 -1% $663.71 5667.70 i% 5960.00 5992.95 3%51,235.19 51,318.25 7X51,524.61 51,643.50 8% CRAFT OiSMftG:: PURP0RS O#Ly SUBJECTT0 REVISION ' s; s. Drop Box Service-Loose i Drop Box Size Regular Service Occasional Service Regular Service Occasional Service Twenty Yard BoxCharge 88.80 99.40 Charge 106.55 119.30 s Demurrage 4.70 4.70 (per day Demurrage 4.70 4.70 + Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee 4 Thirty Yard BoxCharge 108.70 119.80 Charge 130.45 143.75 s Demurrage 6.20 6.20 (per day Demurrage 6.20 6.20 f + Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee Drop Box Service-Compacted _i Under 20 Yds 102.00 Minimum + Disposal fee 20 yards 106.80 (5.35/yd) + Disposal Fee 30 yards 140.65 (4.70/yd) + Disposal Fee 40 yards 161.45 (4.35/yd) + Disposal Fee OISCUSS1ON PUfIFOSES 614LY SUBJECT TO HEWMN Misc Rates Current Proposed Court Apartments Rate Rate 5 or more units O stop per week 7.00 12.00 Two stops per week 14.00 24.00 Three stops per week 36.00 Four stops per week 48.00 Five stops per week 60.00 Extra Garbage per Can 3.20 3.85 Call Backs 8.25 10.00 Bundles, boxed refuse, or bags equiv amt of one can 3.20 3.85 Return for pickup of inaccessible can 8.25 10.00 Extra distance per foot after first 100 0.01 0.01 Reinstatement fee delinquent accts 15.00 01~ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Loreen Edin, Administrative Services Manager DATE: March 25, 1991 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Ordinance Status Report The Utility & Franchise Committee has reviewed and updated the Solid Waste ordinance. City's Legal Counsel, Jim Coleman, is currently drafting language revisions agreed upon at the last Committee meeting. This language will be reviewed by the Committee and forwarded to the Council for consideration by the end of April. This memo will highlight Committee proposed language changes, policy issues for Council consideration, and process changes recommended by Staff. CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE • All Sections - Cleaned up incorrect names, titles, addresses, and made references gender neutral. • Definitions - Deleted "compensation", added "curbside", "customer", "solid waste management" and modified "service". • Who Can Haul What? - Cleaned up language throughout ordinance to better define who can haul solid waste. • Allows only residential waste to be hauled by generator. • Requires commercial and multi-family waste to be hauled by franchisee. • Exempts from the franchise materials that are source separated by the generator and sold at fair market value to a third party hauler. • Defines who can deposit or remove material from containers. • Liability Insurance - Updated to require $1,000,000 limit with indemnity provisions added and the City named as additional insured on haulers' policies. • Recycling Encouraged - New language added to explain State law mandates. • Notification To City - New language requiring haulers to notify City if customers don't meet container or compactor requirements. • Compactor Rules - New language requiring a site permit for compactors. Language also requires annual review of compactor operation and site visit by staff. • Penalties - Changed from misdemeanor to civil infraction & added as infractions references to new sections of ordinance. PAGE 2 OF 3 SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE STATUS REPORT MARCH 25, 1991 POLICY ISSUES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - Identified by the Committee, City's Legal Counsel and City Staff: • Franchise Term - Does the City desire the ordinance be automatically renewed for a 10 year term each January? The ordinance provides for automatic renewal of the franchise on the first of January of each year for a 10 year term, unless the Council acts to terminate further renewals. The Council has the choice of (a) creating a set term for this franchise, (b) eliminating the automatic renewal provision, (c) exercising its authority to stop the automatic renewal effective next January 1st, or (d) leaving automatic renewal as currently stated. An option that could also be employed would be continuing the automatic renewal provision subject to the City reserving for itself the ability to initiate amendments as it deems necessary to the ordinance language. • Rate Setting Process - Does the City wish financial reviews of the haulers' business be a method for obtaining information for the rate setting process? The ordinance provides for the use of audited information to determine if the computation of the franchise fee is accurate, however, there is no such provision for the rate setting process. • Haulers' Ability To Bill Owner - Does the City wish to continue allowing haulers to bill the owner of a multi-unit rental for services provided to the occupants of the facility? The ordinance provides the owner of a multi-unit rental be billed and primarily responsible for the services. City's Legal counsel has advised that "this arrangement creates a potential problem with this charge for solid waste disposal services being classified as a tax for the purposes of Ballot Measure 5." • Compactor Annual Inspection - Does the City need to engage in annual notification and inspection of compactors? The ordinance draft provides for ongoing notification and inspection by the City of all compactors. By creating such a regulatory program, the City is assuming a new tort liability exposure. The program is not required by law and it is optional whether the City chooses to actively involve itself in the regulation of compactors once the siting permit is issued. r PAGE 3 OF 3 SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE STATUS REPORT MARCH 25, 1991 • Penalties - Does the City want to classify a violation of this ordinance as a civil infraction? The ordinance draft provides for a change from a misdemeanor to civil infraction. The civil infraction process still has, ' under ORS authority, the ability to maintain criminal sanction for the few offenders who do not comply. This process would+ relieve the City of the financial burden of court appointed counsel, trial by jury, and burden of proof on the City of "beyond a reasonable doubt". w PROCESS CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY STAFF' z • Non-Profit Collection Permit Process -.Delete permit process for non-profit, charitable, and civic organizations to collect and recycle waste on a non-regular basis. The process is very time intensive for staff and the applicant. This change would bring ordinance language into conformance with current practice. • Administrative Rule Approval - Change process for adoption of administrative rules from City Council to City Administrator, or designee, with appeals of staff decision going to Council. This should streamline the process and still allow Council review of appeals. • Annual Report Adoption - Delete ordinance reference to annual report form as attached "EXHIBIT B". This form will change periodically as the County's annual report and the industry changes. This could be adopted by administrative rule. .le/ms:sword 1 Hauler City Of Tigard 2 Financial Summary - Franchised Garbage Haulers 3 For The Years Ended December 31, 1990 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total 1990X Drop Boxes Dperating Revenue 327,776 595,856 804,668 1,023,720 2,752,020 1,126,972 Operating Costs 273,658 385,707 612,792 793,942 2,066,099 793,942 Indirect Costs 146,938 207,118 266,320 267,713 888,089 267,713 420,596 592,825 879,112 1,061,655 2,954,188 1,061,655 Net Revenue (92,820) 3,031 (74,444) (37,935) (202,168) 65,317 -28.32% 0.51% -9.25% -3.71% -7.35% 5.80% Residential Operating Revenue 679,257 830,141 1,066,829 1,092,545 3,668,772 1,366,108 Operating Costs 417,327 570,662 683,057 770,711 2,441,757 770,711 Indirect Costs 217,323 247,522 248,479 292,428 1,005,752 292,428 634,650 818,184 931,536 1,063,139 3,447,509 1,063,139 Net Revenue 44,607 11,957 135,293 29,406 221,263 302,969 6.57% 1.44% 12.68% 2.69% 6.03% 22.18% Residential Recycling Operating Revenue 21,472 34,588 27,259 20,063 103,382 20,063 Operating Costs 31,457 61,667 116,923 132,672 342,719 132,672 Indirect Costs 11,987 28,419 36,858 81,493 158,757 81,493 43,444 90,086 153,781 214,165 501,476 214,165 Net Revenue (21,972) (55,498) (126,522) (194,102) (398,094) (194,102) -102.33% -160.45% -464.15% -967.46% -385.07% -967.46% Net Residential 3.23% -5.04% 0.80% -14.80% -4.69% 7.85% Commercial Operating Revenue 1,060,043 1,307,602 1,699,500 1,942,189 6,009,334 1,724,640 Operating Costs 412,386 516,810 743,529 828,578 2,501,303 828,578 . Indirect Costs 337,460 363,653 410,733 324,985 1,436,831 324,985 749,846 880,463 1,154,262 1,153,563 3,938,134 1,153,563 Net Revenue 310,197 427,139 545,238 788,626 2,071,200 571,077 29.26% 32.67% 32.08% 40.61% 34.47% 33.11% Commercial Recycling Operating Revenue 0 0 0 52,468 52,468 52,468 Operating Costs 0 0 0 76,417 76,417 76,417 Indirect Costs 0 0 0 58,687 58,687 58,687 0 0 0 135,104 135,104 135,104 Net Revenue 0 0 0 (82,636) (82,636) (82,636) -157.50% -157.50% -157.50% Net Commercial 29.26% 32.67% 32.08% 35.39% 32.80% 27.49% Total Net Oper Revenue 240,012 386,629 479,565 503,359 1,609,565 662,625 Other Revenue 1,052 6,121 8,519 8,869 24,561 8,869 Total Revenue 241,064 392,750 488,084 512,228 1,634,126 671,494 :r Costs Interest Paid 85,983 118,581 99,738 107,304 411,606 107,304 Net Operating Income 155,081 274,169 388,346 404,924 1,222,520 564,190 Profit Percentage 7.42% 9.88% 10.77% 9.78% 9.69% 13.12% STOEL RIVES BOLEY Visitors Agenda JON ES & GREY ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 2300 STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204.1268 Telephone (503) 224-3380 Telecopier (503) 220-2480 Cable Lamport Telex 703455 Writer's Direct Dial Number (503) 294-9523 March 26, 1991 Mayor Gerald Edwards and Members of the City Council City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Arbor Heights Apartments STR 90-0004/PDR 90-0002 Triad Tigard Ltd. Dear Mayor Edwards and Fellow Councillors: As you know, the above-referenced residential project came before the City Council last fall on appeal from Planning Commission approval. The Commission's decision to authorize this project, which encompassed 364 residential units on 27.2 acres, was rejected by the City Council based upon findings adopted on November 26, 1990. Pursuant to these adopted find- ings, the Council concluded that the substantial reliance upon existing SW 109th Avenue as a primary access for the project, together with improvements to the portion of this roadway exceeding 12 percent in slope, would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and the Community Development Code. This determination was not appealed by Triad Tigard Ltd. The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council reconsider its earlier determination in light of subsequent revisions to the proposed site plan, including access modifications, and new evidence from the Oregon Depart- ment of Transportation regarding access options to Highway 99W. Since the Council's action in November, 1990, Triad representa- tives have met with City staff, ODOT representatives, NP06 and interested neighbors in an effort to develop alternatives for access to the project. We believe that this revised site plan addresses the concerns expressed by the City Council, while permitting residential development of the property under current designations. The revised site plan, a copy of which is attached for your reference, offers the following benefits: • SW 109th Avenue would be realigned through the site to permit a more direct connection to SW Naeve Street and Highway 99W. SLPP0790 17516/1 PORTLAND, BELLEVUE, SEATTLE. VANCOUVER. ST. LOUIS, WASHINGTON. OREGON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON MISSOURI DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY Mayor Gerald Edwards March 26, 1991 Page 2 This improvement, which would be constructed at Triad's expense, would eliminate any present or future use of the portion of SW 109th Avenue exceeding a grade of 12 percent. In addition, this revised alignment will substantially reduce any potential for local traffic through the Summerfield neighborhood. Finally, construction of this alignment will reduce the number of units in the project from 364 to 346. • The proposed realignment of 109th would be consistent with revised roadway alignment alternatives for the area now under consideration by the City Engineer. Specifically, this realignment would address the City Engineer's desire for direct north-south access through this area, and realignment and construction in conjunction with this project would permit devel- opment of the new street on this site, together with additional offsite improvements, at no cost to the public. • The proposed realignment would establish the SW 109th Avenue/Naeve Road intersection as the major gateway for the project and would permit a reduction in the number of proposed curbcuts on existing SW 109th Avenue from four to two. Taken together,'these modifications will increase the percentage of new residential trips utilizing Naeve Road as an alternative to SW 109th along the east boundary of the site. • With this revised alignment, SW 109th can be extended south of SW Naeve in the future to an existing signalized intersection with Highway 99W. We understand that this conceptual roadway alignment has received a favorable reception from the City Engineer as well as NP06 and interested neighborhood representatives. Finally, the Department of Transportation representatives have reviewed the City's request for further analysis of the use of the existing Beef Bend Road intersection for primary access to the project. We have been told by Lee Gunderson of ODOT that a new access from this site will not be allowed, and a letter SLPP0790 1751611 STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY Mayor Gerald Edwards March 26, 1991 Page 3 confirming the agency's position has been drafted and is expected to be available this week. Mr. Randy Wooley, City Engineer, has met with ODOT on this matter and can answer any specific question from the Council. With regard to the reconsideration process, we have reviewed this approach with the City Attorney, Mr. Timothy Ramis, and we are in agreement that the council remains free to reconsider its earlier decision at any time. We also agree, however, that any such reconsideration by the Council must be the subject of notice and an opportunity for comment to all parties to the earlier proceeding. Consequently, we believe that reconsideration must be undertaken in two steps, with the first step being a*decision by the City Council to schedule a time to hear our request following adequate notice to interested parties. At such time, the Council would hear testimony, including staff recommenda- tions, and decide whether to reconsider and, if so, the nature of its new decision. As an alternative, the Council may elect to remand the matter to the Planning Commission for- considera- tion of public testimony and a recommendation prior to Council action. Under either alternative, the substantial and, we believe, positive modifications to the site plan can be reviewed by the City and all interested parties without the need for a complete new application and the accompanying obligation of full review by City staff. Thank you for your consideration of this request for reconsideration. In the event that you have any questions regarding these modifications to the Arbor heights proposal, I will be available at the scheduled City Council meeting on March 26, 1991 and I would be happy to respond at that time. Very truly yours, S eV - ffer SLP : j -e cc: Mr. Timothy Ramis Mr. Pat Riley Mr. Ed Murphy Mr. Randy Woolley ( Mr. Ross Woods SLPP0?90 11516/1 r . ague r.~os i O KAMPE ASSOCIATES CrV e4GNEERS LAND SURVEYORS 9681 SW. CARMAN DRWE off LAKE 05WEG0. OREGON 97035 (503) 635b_ 1 AROM lk7OM APARiMOM MOM 2% "BI IW* n 9 a+ .-ct i N ~ i C♦M - i , J Y i + % I LITTI[• •ULL YT O ~ 1 ►awa ~ p ~ z a' D C~ s v O i I t O O = i . O n z 2s D a o ~ ~ an 0~0 RBOR HEIG TS. APAR EATS o ell ALTE~IVATIVE I.~NMENT i~ov J a;( CA y SCALE : r' _X400'± Y S.• ~ - ®R D = w 1 L L 0 w E BROOK QO s`1~• OeIGHS _ FARM a o ~ I ~ ~O VT i co o a) C f 1 CEN J of A .04 to, 2'• S. vi. 3 CAN 4:' cl v2-i -A -0 a - • Di w; li rE17-Y J] risam Too" ctnrcn Q ® la ~'J F ,!1 J $x'110 y - f ~1) Fa r 11 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: March 14, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Hiteon Sanitary PREVIOUS ACTION: Sewer Replacement PREPARED BY: _ City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O''/ ,b'' REQUESTED BY: City of Beaverton POLICY ISSUE Shall. Tigard enter into an agreement with Beaverton for replacement of an existing sanitary sewer crossing at Scholls Ferry Road? INFORMATION SUMMARY An existing sanitary sewer line crosses Scholls Ferry Road at Hiteon Creek near Englewood Park. It is expected that the existing sewer will reach capacity within the next 5 years and will need to be replaced. In order to reduce costs and avoid future disruption to the road, it is desirable to replace the crossing this year while Scholls Ferry is under construction. The existing agreements with the Unified Sewerage Agency provide that each city is responsible for maintenance and replacement of sewer lines within its jurisdiction. Approximately half of the proposed sewer crossing replacement is within Tigard and half within Beaverton. Beaverton is willing to take the lead in coordinating the crossing replacement. The attached agreement provides that Beaverton will work with the State to have the sewer line replaced as part of the highway construction project, with Tigard to reimburse Beaverton for half of the replacement cost. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Authorize execution of the attached contract and authorize funding for Tigard's share. 2. Delav sewer line replacement to a future year. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated project cost is $35,000 including design, construction and inspection. Tigard's estimated share under the agreement is $17,500. Funding is available in the 1990-91 sanitary sewer CIP budget, in the funding allocated for projects not yet identified. SUGGESTED ACTION That the Council, by motion, authorize the City Administrator to sign the attached agreement with Beaverton and authorize expenditure of funds from the Sanitarv Sewer CIP account for the project. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR F CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS This is an agreement by and between the City of Beaverton ("Beaverton") and the City of Tigard ("Tigard"), Oregon municipal corporations, for the construction of a sanitary sewer pipeline that will lie within the political jurisdiction of both parties. WHEREAS: Tigard and Beaverton find that construction of a new sanitary sewer to replace. that portion of the Hiteon Trunk sewer where it crosses S.W. Scholls Ferry Road in conjunction with improvements to that road by the State of Oregon, is necessary and desirable, practical and efficient, and each party has available funds to construct that part of the replacement line that will lie within its respective jurisdiction; and, Efficient construction of the sewer line with the road improvements requires one party alone to be accountable for construction plans and engineering and to reimburse the State for antounts paid to its contractor to construct the sewer line on the parties' behalf; now, therefore, in consideration of these premises, it is AGREED: 1. Upon execution of this agreement, Beaverton shall give the State notice to proceed to cause its contractor to construct c.273 lineal feet of 15" diameter sanitary sewer pipeline crossing S.W. Scholls Ferry Road, according to the plans and specifications already submitted to the State by Beaverton. CN 1 - IGA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS l r • 2. Tigard acknowledges receipt of a copy of those construction plans submitted to the State and approves them. Tigard agrees with Beaverton's estimate of the cost to construct the sewer line at $30,000. 3. Beaverton will act as liaison for all communication to and from the State regarding construction of the sewer line and will be primarily responsible to pay the State for its cost to complete it. Beaverton and Tigard shall mutually agree to any change orders to be submitted to the State's contractor on behalf of either Beaverton or Tigard in the course of construction. Tigard designates Beaverton as its agent in approving all change orders requested by the State s or its contractor in the course of construction; provided, that Beaverton shall not approve change orders requested by the State or its contractor that in cumulative total exceed 3 10% of the cost estimated herein, without Tigard's prior, express consent. 4 4. Tigard agrees to reimburse Beaverton for one-half of the cost to complete the work, including the cost of all preliminary and construction engineering done by Beaverton. Beaverton agrees to send Tigard an itemized statement of those costs at monthly intervals while the work is underway. All such statements shall be due and payable no later than 30 days after receipt. The costs to complete the work shall include work done by Beaverton employees to be charged at each employee's gross hourly wage plus 45% for fringe benefits in one-tenth hour increments, Beaverton's actual expenses for reproductions and similar costs, and 18% administrative overhead to be added to the subtotal of labor and materials costs. 5. Tigard shall be deemed to have an undivided one-half interest in common with Beaverton in the work done under this contract for which Tigard has paid its one-half share; 2 - IGA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS M_ - 0 ~.provided, that upon completion of the work, each party shall be. deemed to own and shall be responsible to maintain, repair and replace only that portion of the sewer line that lies within its political jurisdiction. 6. Beaverton agrees to' obtain and keep original drawings of the improvements "as-built" in its own records and to furnish Tigard with suitable copies of those drawings after they are received by Beaverton. The parties by signatures of their representatives with authority signify that each has read this agreement, understands its terms and agrees to be bound by them. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON by: CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON by: • Patrick J. Rena y, C' y A/ 'nistrator Larry D. Cole, Mayor Date- Date: 3 - IGA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3,3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26. 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: March 13, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Consent Calendar: PREVIOUS ACTION: The Council request to go to bid for second year Previousiv approved going to bid for ark levy im rovements. first year park levy improvements PREPARED BY: Ron Bunch. Sr Planner DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, CD Director POLICY ISSUE There are no policy issues associated with this action. This is consistent with the status report memo submitted to the council on its March 12th meeting. INFORMATION SUMMARY It is requested that the Council authorize staff to advertise for bid to implement "year two" of the park levy improvements. These projects consist of implementing the second phase of the Summerlake Park development, and building pedestrian and bike paths. The specific project bid awards will be submitted to the City Council for authorization. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1) Authorize staff to advertise for second year park levy improvement bids. 2) Not authorize staff to advertise for bids and require staff to request permission to go out to bid for each project. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost of these projects is $415,000. This is an approximate figure since no detailed design and working drawings has been completed for these projects. SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize staff to advertise for bids for "year two" park levy projects, as shown on the attached memo. rb/ccsumprk. yr MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director ' DATE: March 18, 1991 SUBJECT: Second Year Park Levy Improvements 4 1) Rennovation of Cook Park irrigation pumping system: Approximate Cost: $25,000. Several alternatives are being examined to rennovate the pump system at Cook Park. Completion is anticipated by June, 1991. 2) Second Phase of Summerlake Park Improvements: Approximate Cost: $200,000. This project will consist of the following improvements at the west end of Summerlake Park: - Four acres of landscape, irrigation and sitework. - Playground equipment. - Picnic areas and pathways. - Tennis and basketball courts. 3) Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths: It is planned to complete the following bike and pedestrian pathway improvements in 1991: - Durham Road/92nd Avenue Cook Park Connection Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvements. Approximate Cost: $60,000 - Fanno Creek path connection from City Hall to Main Street. Approximate Cost: $50,000. - Englewood pathway reconstruction: Approximate Cost: $80,000. rb/mccsumpr.326 C, t COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.`I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA OF: March 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bid Award for PREVIOUS ACTION: Dartmouth Street Phase I PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: O ICY ISSUE Award of construction contract for the Dartmouth Street Phase I Project. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Phase I project provides for revisions to the existing intersection of Pacific Highway and 78th Avenue, including traffic signal revisions, to accommodate the connection of Dartmouth Street extension. Phase I also includes construction of approximately the first 200 feet of the Dartmouth Street extension. The remainder of the Dartmouth Street project is to be bid as a separate contract after all necessary right of way is obtained. Bids for Phase I were opened on March 12, 1991. Seven bids were received, as shown on the attached bid summary. Clearwater Construction is the low bidder, with a bid below the engineer's estimate. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL IMPACT The portion of the project within the LID boundary ($57,523.00 of the bid amount) will be charged to the Dartmouth Street LID. The remainder of the Phase I work ($157,095.50 of the bid amount) will be charged to the Street CIP account; funding was included in a prior year Street CIP budget and has been carried over as a "project in progress". SUGGESTED ACTION That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with Clearwater Construction. dj/H:\engdoc\council\ss-ba-d.RH BID SUMMARY DARTMOUTH STREET PHASE I 3/12/91 Bid Opening CIP LID TOTAL BID Clearwater Const. 157,095.50 57,523.00 214,618.50 Copenhagen 156,524.00 62,407.00 218,931.00 Eagle-Elsner Inc. 152,960.00 71,434.00 224,394.00 ASC, Inc. 155,509.50 69,614.60 225,124.10 Construction Exc. 165,761.60 60,802.00 226,563.60 Fabricators, Inc. 160,450.50 76,186.00 236,636.50 Ken Leahy Const. 196,926.00 78,724.00 275,650.00 Engineers Est. (R.A. Wright 154,134.50 63,973.00 218,107.50 Engineering Inc.) t COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.:NO. C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: March 13, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Subdivision. PREVIOUS ACTION: P.C hras. on 7/10/90, Approval SUB 9 -0007 VAR 90-0011 Wav . 1 8 91 and 1/21/91 PREPARED BY: Jerry O r Assoc. Planner DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Mur» v, Comm. Dev. Dir. P ICY ISSUE 1. Is the City committed to reapproving a bdivision design approved more than ten years ago for which the approval has long been invalid? Sewer lines had been installed consistent with the earlier plat but no other development had occurred. 2. Should the City approve subdivision variances when development options exist which would not require variances? The requested variances would allow an offset intersection on a minor collector street and would allow two flag lots to be created with less than the minimum required street frontage. - - - INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 22, 1991, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for Subdivision approval by Waverly Construction Company's for a ten lot subdivision south of McDonald Street and east of SW Mountainview Lane. NPO #6 has appealed the decision citing concerns related to the granting of a variance to Code Section 18.164.060.8 which requires that all lots created through the subdivision process have a minimum of 25 feet of road frontage (lots 2 and 5 of the preliminary plat would each have 10 feet of road frontage) and the granting of a variance to allow a 65 foot intersection offset along SW 97th Avenue hereas Code Section 18.164.030.G states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. Factors cited by the Planning Commission in approving the subdivision and variance requests included a 1980 Planning Commission approval of an identical preliminary plat for this property and the installation of sanitary sewers corresponding to that plat approval through a local improvement district. The property owner has since been assessed for the sewer improvements. Staff and the NPO had both recommended denial of the requested preliminary plat approval and variances. Staff's recommendation was based partially upon a preference for a plan submitted by the applicant for Planning Commission review on July 10, 1990 that showed how the subject site could be developed without requiring variances to Code standards. In addition, the July, 1990 preliminary plat proposed utilizing the existing sanitary sewers on the site. The Planning Commission reviewed that proposal and had continued the hearing indefinitely. The present proposal was submitted in response to the continuance. The NPO's appeal form and minutes of meetings discussing the proposal are attached. The Planning commission's final order, the applicant's submittal, and the staff reports regarding both the current and July, 1990 proposals are also attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Affirm the Planning Commission's decision. Direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the decision. 2. Deny the subdivision and variance requests and direct staff to prepare a corresponding final order. SUGGESTED ACTION eny the subdivision and variance requests and direct staff to prepare a corresponding final order. CCSUM.ZC I'M iif+ I'M IN SE(A-10N I I T2-S F?lW WM WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 2S If SCALE I"= 100' CANCELLED TAX tDT N.%, 10x.10e,eopto1.70fsOD.]02 W SEE MAP 04.2M 1O• N Z sourmEi 9~QQ` 2s 1 20 .W C.C CORNER -74 CEO. glCNapp3p,1 Q 2V L/ ~Q O,LC. 38 5~C uTo•UNE GEORGE_ ,pICINRp9(~y~-,`r .T...°"f 1~JTTY. D~T_~1 -i• C.R. 430 L 1 14 6}SIH IIC29 9a 6)3115 Anii~,•wn eoo ° MCDONAI,'D, 803 804 9z.la °3eo60-, '`e ` Nee•as'sawa e2-30560 T e3-])el ° 6101 T p 97.96 6 e ~5~ T STREET y: .36Ae. ° f Ac. o .35Ae. ° 701 700 602• R•o : W R~=4400 500391 400 „ 4500 „ 4600-13J~ ~t].a ~iOdP" 'o ez-lo , /o.?JAC - .25.4c. oZ 19 .33Ae. .54Ac - °6100 - 630 6400 6500 6 J I t ^ L, W 1o7.5a 1 ° „ 2 ° WJ I t- I r 3 `Irl L` r. 103 t J 111 r\_- e i r~ 1 b ° 39 wa ^4300 ; a9.9r r /-1° "m x6200 8 3 _ c 62AC. r 4 )2 100 4800 118.34 • ul9'SCyfW ° p. Mee-i]Ioo' 50 18 tiR 7x,15 r' 2 ° 5 94 „ sz.zx 2600 10r4 e tio 306]. _ ' c 47007.]0 < 1- I A \l A 1 :J ~N 806 I P•tp`~ ~E? 1 4200 ` ° 4 L 95' w' ad (Set-340,071N, .72Ae. P 2800 4Y loo 17 L'^+ lulila 3 ZI izo eti'• 'o•E 200,021 o I G M1 u ` _ - _ PJ°691 N86.19'S6-W ) - 105 111 .09AC. 2900 ~'?~0 3 ei.ro lot.lo n m fzoooz) Kv, 2700 xa501 enso z ts99•-e'w 315) 3 4 is o" ' • , p .2/A 304 303 (CS. 18,499) 109 ' - Q a 2 i 4100 /C /BAC- I _ 91 ~N .17Ae. Neg. 5e'30•r o ^ S.W ' ° ^ ♦~r~^ ° (6 i T0199 _ '03 N R•2O A•20 V! I I ' 805 ► 53]r o 1 "•20 27 j i O 3W w .50S 50 ,9J 2a.9e 60.08 S 63.91 ea N/L EA .73AC. v\~ L ANZ '~y J B06B 5Q65 I I $O 25 0 q 4.19 5 1 i n V 19 CT RS.W. ~ ELROSE SEE ~ ~ F i 2S ® I ri-25 3100 9jR,m t1~~b see M6.84 75,59 zOy ,o°~, eza 66.61 a •ae'se E r'{~ I M6.84 6 7.6 a 3200 R.20 000 C) 6000 A.z W' rs.e7 I w' - / I U 1 C Ne9•3e'3or Ne9•se'4ei: 157.33 ° LE ° V 'zD I 5200 R•20 a I N ' 11` 8 12 Q 3001-- 02 I usczst i 7 901 100.0! ° O 5 4 J -.w. • p `R71°O= LL 24 SO / ee.cz W ° 9390 ^l • _•O b' /.00AC. 3300 _ < 3900 50 9326 ° td R•2o b+- 0 14 , 5900 a a400ti 5100 D a "R~ r e." " 1 Ne3•a~1p131p.09 8 W q.zo; ~i LL, :1 ^ s•• _ I! % 3 1x3.se s A•20 104;r 801 I 807 •o.oz 3800 / v " L) - It. 50 3 .N l../o 1° 79.50 93.90 .56Ac. I .57Ac. „ 3400 C6 13 x ysc, R. so _ ' u a \ - 8^ 'v BOO t L ° (n •i'5500~ 5000 2~ v L } • tr ; a . - 1 I'1 e l I 9 ,6A g~~- 5800 2 Tl - p II y Y ~tq i E 3600 3700 b J396 2.9' 7 4.1 9x.77 y -1 93.90 ;LI ? , 'P1rnr• y- A.-Ip , 5700 SGOO b „3500 0 11 12 „ - ° ~ - e 4900 t L N 'n:, ` (CS 6050) 10 o : 9 8 1 `,r 5 4 t . ]1x.12 N89.13'SiE • w ° M1,1•• ,,L~ 0 a usat 6p,3i a 5801» 5701'i601e7-~ n 4901 IPp.n~ -as sr9.53'E 1 ec:y ~ s.,3~.y .'•.x.•'. 900 1900 ,'en aiw1901 50.37 ° 9..21 e6 a6 ro I 1903 i 99.93 Uwu)E---- .d/A C. INITIaE 1800 30 _ LAN - 1• POINT - x.70/ OSO]-.v- • ` toaAc. • , 3 - 1 2 i \ ley NeYS3W ne is_ L 1zo 63.rr ~ ' N 1 so'UnLn r \ I \I I zs-► EA5gMEN C y NS ~ ~ 'h I ,•--25~ N I t\ _ 3 7 SCALE 1'. 1 Dot x ~T---~ \ YID 9 69 - 1910 _ _ - N81~seo~_'e- W RH N A• COURT3h \ .v.~.~c ieavvr \ 2a6A 9S6.LL' rro. sc~rnia ~ ~ _ _ ~ -aseo•- - H.9G' - B "x'07- \ K~ .zero' 9/oc bo.ao• L• ~/c.~<s.rr. ` {C(`4/(~j _qA0 10, lp 1, \ t 91 6 n d~ p I O~ 76165E 771a SE I(10395E CARVE DATA ~ ~5 'nom _ ~ 2 ~ \ 1.a. 6o•odo7' \ `7`i Q \ s• v'~9'o 'E ;1, a. 30.00 Z5 1.32.16 _ woe. o' 3 \ C•SD.Do \ta \ Q CO.Nal•SBOiE 1 \ N 2.a.91.20'sY -7974SC\ 88195{ n 1.11.09 O \ \ %n p C•2a.6x Cn.Naa•xl'x6•w y 110.00' rza. o \ i s7 X Q9lb. 3.a.a8.19'07- ` \ \ QB.00' ` 86./9 O 1.10.93 N~_ ` O U \ \ y C.27.93 C0•n45.1e'34•E ' + 7718 s.E\\ b r44 Sf.. 774. s.E `a 7656 Rf. LEGEND _ \ ~ ~ 2 \ \ ~ \ 2 \ \ . rwro e. ea.em.ea \ L7.527 \ •5.1 ve:W.an pee QB.t1J' 7.r ./er.p.. Ib.nc COe eupTON aw' - .J ° MOUNTAINV~EYL LANE_ PREL /M/NARY PLAT SCALE: /"=/00' -GRANDVIEW ACRES- APPL/CAN T.• ENGINEER. WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION BURTON ENGINEERING & 31835 S. W. COUNTRY VIEW DR. SURVEYING WILSONVIL LE, OREGON 97070 302 T'/GARD PLAZA PH: 694-5505 (HALL BLVD. B PACIFIC HWY. ) T/GARD, OREGON 97223 OWNER. PH.- (503) 639-6116 KENNETH WAYM/RE FAX 639-6117 31835 S. W. COUNTRYVIEW DR. WIL S'ONVILL E, OREGON 97070 PH.' 694- 5505 3 LAND USE DECISION APPEA FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Cede therefore sets out specific requirements for filing appeals are certain land use decisions. ~11Y®FT1~~R11110 The following for-in has been developed to assist- you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper OREGON form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. tt^^ l 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: S CJCi{iC t/I s l U ~'V D _Q© ✓I F' Ge) -o 0-/ ( 0 P r L/ 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: ~ !mod _ 1172= /~2 S QGL~2 cv dZc ~2 d.S 5~ lvYlGe~2G Ile s 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: 6. SIGNATURE(S/ p **-x-f-x-x-* x-xa(-X* x-x-x "-x-)(-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x X x x x x~t-x x*HHE x x x x x x x x x x x x~E x x x x ~t K x )t x x x x x x x x x x x )E x x x x )E FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: ( Date: /G Time: Approved As To Form By:~ Date: Time: Denied As To F rm By: Date: -Time: Receipt No. W' rJY,Lt?fJ oY7, Z /L Amount: xxxxxxx~txxx~txxatxxxxxxxxxx x~c xxxxxxxxxxxx ETx~c-xxxxx xxxxxx-xx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x.x*,X.X-X -x-x-X* 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 NPO #6 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 11, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:31 pm. Members in attendance were: Carver, Dillin, Kasson, Mitchell, Pasteris and Wilson. Crow was out of town and Clinton, Davenport and Watson were unavailable by phone. This special meeting was called so that the NPO could voice their opinion on whether or not to appeal the Planning Commission decisions of approval on the Grandview and Lautt Subdivision requests. After much discussion the following motions were made: On the Lautt/DeHaas Subdivision 90-0013 Variance 90-0037 - The NPO moved to appeal this approval because this plan is out-dated. We see granting a varianace for Rhonda Court as inappropriate. This applicant appears to be working with the applicant for the Grandview subdivision and the NPO last July approved a new plan that was submitted by Grandview that eliminated the need for Rhonda Court. If the applicant of the Lautt subdivision would work with this newer plan they would find that they could access their property in the Southeast corner using the same road system that would be serving Grandview. Please see Exhibit "A". On the Waverly Cons truction/Grandview• Subdivision 90-0007 Variance 90-0011 - The NPO moved to appeal this approval because we had previously reviewed this same plan and found it lacking in livability (there is no sense of "neighborhood" in this proposed layout) and there was a question concerning the need for two accesses to SW 97th from this plan. Further, the NPO had already reviewed and recommended for approva'1 a new plan submitted by the applicant on July 10, 1990 that created a livable neighborhood and eliminated the need for flag lots and the proposed Rhonda Court. Please see Exhibit "A". The above motions were passed unanimously! After stating for the record that the February 20th meeting would not be held this meeting was adjourned at 8:45. 5 K f Q x It f D 1 SO'urlurY .1 ! P Z 5' t P~15FMF~ ' ~t II 2~ x 1 lei 1 i t~ 1 89-426 , 25' llyyL~Ty 00 0 V \ /oo ~1 ~ ♦ ~ ~ ~ S.N! I`IIJUNT.®f.!/V/,tee 35iQEO~hari n\~ \ ~ 2 LO \ \ ` \ ♦ ` O 1 ♦ ~ f 1 2ja ! ~ ~6n I STAFF AIoTr--: / 1415 /s TH EA/PO 5 PR E FER k ED T14tf wAVET L R h%~ ✓/E c~c7 <S y (3 DI V l.5/C~it1. 'Tl-~ FLANnJ/n1G; Comm15S1G1J /2e vlew&o 7'N/5 A-4A) I N Ju L~) 1"G 13"-- 011> AIa T- TR «E I-IlUA L & TIGtiJ O~ THE PRO P66 A L.. % lI E A Poe-C-AAa 7- ! THI~~Q PL A1,j A FTEfQ THE CoMM/ssioNS to NPO #6 MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 14, 1990 f 1. Members in attendance were: Carver, Clinton, Crow, Davenport, Kasson, Mitchell, Watson and Wilson. Not excused: Dillin and Pasteris. 2. Minutes of the November 14th meeting were corrected and then approved. The corrections were as follows: Excused - Mitchell. 3. SUBDIVISION SCHECKLA/OTAK, INC. The NPO members present reviewed the request for a Planned Development conceptual plan approval and preliminary Subdivision plat approval and found no objections but added the following three comments: 1. To the Developer - we encourage him to leave as many trees standing as possible when clearing individual lots; 2. To the City Engineer - we wish to stress the importance of a main access road to Durham in order to maintain the livability in the surrounding subdivisions; and 3. To the Planning Commission. - we ask that they take in consideration the impact statement put out by the school district on this subdivision application. 4. SUBDIVISION LAUTT/DE HAAS. The NPO members present reviewed the request for Subdivision and variance approval and made a unanimous motion to deny both. The NPO suggests that the applicant reverse the cul-de-sac, now shown connecting with SW 97th, to connect with the new North/South street proposed in the Grandview subdivision application. (See Exhibit A attached) The NPO feels that a true neighborhood environment could be created if these two subdivisions were to work together. We also feel that one new access to SW 97th is a much safer approach. 5. SUBDIVISION WAVERLY CONST./GRANDVIEW. The NPO members wish to reenforce their previous motion to deny this variance and subdivision request. However the NPO highly recommends approval of the second plat presented for this parcel (see attached Exhibit A) because it 1) creates a livable neighborhood, 2) eliminates the two flag lots, 3) allows for extension of Mountainview Lane in the future and 4) needs only one roadway access onto SW 97th (safer!). 6. Other Business: The NPO was presented with a Request for Action by Richard Watson of the Summerfield Liaison Committee. The Action desired was that the NPO formally request the City Council to initiate a traffic and transportation study of the area surrounding the Triad property with special attention given to the possible realignment of 109th Street. The NPO unanimously agreed and asked the Chair to submit a letter to Council directing the Planning Staff to conduct such a study. y !`i ~,t:!•'-'t t! T ~i tJ~n3'~c~_ a "i Fir:. r- i t.. rTL..C~ tciEmE d'. ? ` j -fo r'E:vt~w Ttfis -uap1V1:5Mk Pc,~ F=ck tk0fE TY '7a -tiAE--71 FOR COMMENTS fZ , DOES ? 41 ~ Nfb (,JAI'k " 75 C 9AtJGE 7 WE C!~M/~/j~Al'fS 86Z64; i May 9, 1990 I_ jkX N PO w r saes 4 Peen mc- p I.~.S hR-enr`e cm, 44-c- TO: . FROM: Tigard Planning Division RE: SUB90-0007 WAVERLY/GRANDVIEW SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007 VARIANCE VAR 90-0011 WAVERLY CONST./GRANDVIEW (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision approval to allow division of a 2.4 acre parcel into 10 lots between 7,500 and 10,400 square feet in size. Also requested Is a Variance to allow less than 25 feet of frontage on two flag lots. A previous application for this subdivision has expired. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 unite/acre) LOCATION: East side of SW 97th Street and approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 11BA, tax lots 100, 106, and 107) Attached is the site plan and applicants statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other Information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by 05/21/90. You may use the space provided below ar attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-441771. STAFF CONTACT: 'Jews O- l G/ PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING THAT APPLY: _ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. ` V07-r- _ Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. - ZQ Coma nts: t " TZ~ ~Q.iti l -Yt C1.1/LC be-ea'LLs e 3 Q Yd O~ Z S w S . Name of person commenting: ,Q Telephone number: plow i ' Yvl: q a~ v VV-k ey 1 I I qj'l CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r FINAL ORDER NO. 91-03 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION (SUB 90-0007), VARIANCE (VAR 90-0011), AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS 90-0020) REQUESTED BY AASE OTTO (WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION). The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at public hearings on January 8 and 22, 1991 . The commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision SUB 90-0007, Variance VAR 90-0011, Miscellaneous MIS 90-0020 REQUEST: 1) Preliminary plat review of a proposal to subdivide three parcels totaling 2.4 acres into 10 lots ranging in size from 7500 to 10,400 square feet. 2) A Variance is requested to allow two of the proposed lots to have less than the required 25 feet public street frontage for lots created through the subdivision process (Community Development Code Section 18.164.060.B). 3) A Variance is also requested to allow a local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet along a collector street whereas Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.G states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create Offsets of less than 300 feet. 4) Lot Line Adjustment approval is necessary to allow a 15 by 145 foot strip in the northeastern corner of the subject property to possibly be added to one of the adjacent parcels. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: Waverly Construction 31835 SW Country View Drive Wilsonville, OR 97070 AGENT: Burton Engineering 302 Tigard Plaza Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Aase B. Otto 14200 SW 97th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97224 LOCATION: 97224 SW 97th Avenue. East side of SW 97th Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 11BA, Tax Lots, 100, 106, 107). 2. Background Information FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 1 lU milli On November 6, 1980, the Tigard Planning Commission reviewed a subdivision t proposal to divide the parcels into ten lots. The proposed subdivision lots would have received access from a new east/west street on the northern edge of the parcel, a new segment of SW Mountain View Lane along the property's southern edge, and one parcel having direct access to SW 97th Avenue. The proposal was approved by the Commission, but the plat was never recorded with Washington County. That approval has expired. on July 10, 1990, the Planning commission reviewed a proposal to divide the subject parcels into nine lots; six lots receiving access from a proposed north/south private road and three lots from a north/south public road along the eastern edge of the property. A new section of SW Mountain View Lane was proposed to connect these two roads to SW 97th Avenue. No variances were involved in this application. The Commission continued the hearing on this proposal in order to allow the applicant and staff to f reconsider the subdivision's design after hearing testimony on the proposal from the applicant, owner, and neighbors. The current proposal by the applicant is in response to the continuance. No other land use or development applications regarding these parcels have been reviewed by the City, 3. Vicinity Information The subject parcels are surrounded by other properties designated Low Density Residential by the Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the north, east, south and northwest are zoned R-4.5 and are developed with a combination of recent single family residential development to the northwest and older, large-lot single family residences to the north, south, and east. SW Mountain View Lane dead ends approximately 145 feet east of the southeastern corner of'the subject properties. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject site consists of three tax lots comprising approximately 2.4 acres. A single family residence is located on Tax Lot 100, approximately 140 feet from SW 97th Avenue. Two outbuildings are also located on the subject parcels. The parcels contain a combination of open grass covered areas along with landscaping trees and several large fir trees. The properties slope to the northeast. The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into ten lots as illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. The existing house is intended to be retained. A Variance is requested to allow two of the proposed lots, lots 2 and 5, to have less than the required 25 feet of public street frontage for lots created through the subdivision review process (Community Development Code Section 18.164.060.B). In addition, Lot Line Adjustment approval is necessary to allow a 15 by 145 foot strip in the far northeastern corner of the subject property to possibly be added to one of the adjacent parcels. Staff has added this approval request to this application although the applicant's preliminary plat and application do not address the need for the adjustment or show this strip of land as part of the subject property. A Variance is also requested to allow a-local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet along a collector street whereas Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.G states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. The proposed location of SW Rhonda Street along the properties northern boundary is offset approximately 65 feet south of the location of SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue. 1 FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 2 The subdivision would be provided with public street access by two public streets to be developed on the southern and northern boundaries of the site. The applicant proposes dedicating 35 feet of right-of-way on the south side of the property for an approximately 350 foot segment of SW Mountain View Lane. An approximately 145 foot long gap would exist between this section of SW Mountain View Lane and the existing section of the street to the east. The applicant proposes constructing two-thirds street improvements on Mountain View Lane consisting of a 26-foot wide road surface with a standard 6-inch concrete curb and a 5 foot sidewalk on the northern side of this street. The preliminary plat indicates a 25-foot wide right-o£-way dedication is intended for SW Rhonda Court on the property's north side. The submittal shows a typical local street section for SW Rhonda Court with two-thirds street improvements although it is not clear how this would be constructed on the subject property without additional right-of-way dedication. The typical street sections submitted with the preliminary plat, as well as the plat itself, indicate that an additional 16 feet of right-of-way dedication and 8 additional feet of pavement section is anticipated to be provided through development of the adjacent parcels at some point in the future. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be provided by extensions of the existing sanitary sewer located along the east side of the project. This existing sanitary sewer line was previously constructed through a local improvement district. The property owner has been assessed for the future development potential of the property for approximately nine years. Storm drainage is proposed to be collected by a network of storm sewers flowing to the east and north following the existing sanitary sewer easements. The storm sewers would outfall into a drainageway approximately 150 feet northeast of the site. In addition, parcels abutting SW 97th Avenue would be served by existing storm sewers in the street. A Subdivision preliminary plat review request for the. three parcels immediately to the north has been made to divide the properties into 7 lots (SUB 90-0013). That request also includes a Variance request to allow an offset local street intersection with a collector street. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: a. The site accesses to S.W. 97th Avenue, a major collector street. The applicant is proposing two access points: 1) an extension of S.W. Mountain View Lane, and 2) a new proposed road, S.W. Rhonda Court. The second access point, S.W. Rhonda Court, does not satisfy Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.G.1 which requires that streets making "T" intersections with collectors have a minimum of 300 feet of separation. The Engineering Division has also been requested by the Planning Department to make comments on another proposed subdivision, SUB 90-0013, which is located adjacent to and to the north of this proposed subdivision. The common point of interest between the proposed subdivisions would be the proposed access road, S.W. Rhonda Court, which would provide access to both subdivisions from S.W. 97th Avenue. Both subdivision applications require consideration of a variance to the intersection spacing standard. The applicant for SUB 90-0013 has submitted a narrative addressing the approval criteria for a variance to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.6.1. The City Council directed the Engineering Department to review FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 3 ~a options for future development of the area bounded by McDonald Street, 93rd Avenue, Inez Street, and 97th Avenue. Several conceptual plans (see attachments) were prepared by the staff. All of the options meet the requirement of 300 feet of separation for "T" intersections, and appear to provide adequate traffic circulation and adequate emergency access to the neighborhood. our joint (Planning and Engineering) review of these conceptual options indicates that buildable lots can be developed, in compliance with the Community Development Code. If this subdivision is developed prior to redevelopment of the surrounding area, it will be necessary for the prospective developer to provide a minimum of 34 feet of right-of-way and half street :i improvements to include a minimum of 24 feet of street surface for SW Rhonda Court. Based on any of the street alignments options that the staff has reviewed, there would be no additional burden on this developer, and he may be able to recoup a portion of his investment under the new Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 13.08. If this subdivision is developed along with SUB 90-0013 and using any one of the options proposed by staff there would be no additional burden on either of the applicants. In fact, there may be a savings to the applicants if they pursue the options as provided in Chapter 13.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Therefore, we conclude that a workable street system, with the extension of S.W. Mountain View Lane as proposed by the applicant, can be developed for the area that would not require any variances. b. Sanitary sewer service is available from an existing 8° line on the L east and west sides and portions of the north and south property lines. The existing sanitary sewer lines were constructed through a local improvement district in the early 1980'x. C. The applicant is proposing to run the storm drainage system into the existing creek that is north of the property. This may still be accomplished and is r , dependent upon the street/lot lay out. d. The Engineering Department recommends denial of the submitted preliminary plat and proposed variance to :.he Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.4.E because of the substandard street intersection and the traffic safety problems that it could create. The Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has commented that a plan showing the location of utilities for the existing house must be submitted (i.e., water lines, sewer lines, rain drains, septic tanks and drainfields). If any of these utilities will cross the proposed new property lines, easements will be required. Rain drains for the existing house shall discharge to an approved location. In addition, the Building Division has commented that private storm drain lines must be provided for lots 4 through S. Tigard School District No. 23J has noted concerns with its ability to maintain the current level of educational programs and school facilities as the result of rapid growth throughout the district. The projected enrollment from the proposed development is 3 students at Templeton Elementary, and 2 students at Twality Junior High School. When combined with other proposed development projects, the total projected enrollment increase exceeds the facilities, design capacities. Further, the District cannot guarantee that the new schools which are to open in 1992 will have the design capacity to serve all of these proposed developments if the rate FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB .90-0007 PAGE 4 13 of growth increases. Prospective home buyers should be advised that students may have to be bused to other schools or placed in portable classrooms. The Metropolitan Area Communications company (cable television) requests that it be contacted by the developer prior to construction regarding cable installation. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has recommended denial of the proposed variance to create two flag lots with insufficient road frontage because the NPO is concerned that the proposed flag lots are inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Tigard Water District, PGE, and GTE have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1., 7.4.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, and 8.4.1 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, and 18.164. The Planning Commission concludes the proposal is consistent with all applicable Plan policies and code criteria based upon the findings noted below: 1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning organization #6 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the public hearing on the subdivision proposal providing them an opportunity to comment on the proposal. 2. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 can be satisfied because assurance of the extension of sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities to serve the development will be required prior to approval of the final plat. Sanitary and storm sewers presently exist on the eastern portion of the property. A water line and storm sewer are located within SW 97th Avenue abutting the property. The applicant has indicated that these facilities will be extended within the subdivision in conformance with City standards. The Engineering Division has indicated that the preliminary plans for providing these utilities appear adequate. Detailed public improvement plans will need to be approved prior to recording the plat. 3. Policy 8.1.1 calls for the provision of a safe and efficient street system which will accommodate present and future needs. The proposed street plan for the subdivision satisfies this policy because the development would provide for improvement of the existing right-of- way for SW 97th Avenue with sidewalk and streetlights as well as the minimum necessary interim pavement widths and associated improvements for the extension of SW Mountain View Lane along the south side of the proposed development. The proposed Mountain View Lane extension would improve opportunities for redevelopment of the adjacent parcels to the east and south without placing an undue burden on the future developers of those parcels with regard to completion of street improvements. The proposed southern street would align with SW Mountain View Lane 145 FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 5 iy C feet to the east and therefore would further the City's goal of providing for a local street connection between the neighborhood to the east and SW 97th Avenue. A sign has been posted at the present western terminus of SW Mountain View Lane for some time noting that future extension of the street has been contemplated by the City of Tigard. The preliminary plat is also consistent with Policy 8.1.1 with regard to the location of the proposed Rhonda Court/SW 97th Avenue intersection with respect to the location of SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue. Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.E states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. The applicant requests a Variance to allow a local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet on a collector street for the proposed alignment. Section 18.160.120.8 of the Code contains criteria for approval of a variance to a code requirement that is being reviewed as part of a subdivision application. Criterion 1 There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. a. Preliminary plat configuration for Lautt's Terrace, Grandview Acres (Templeton Estates) and Solarcrest, (which includes SW Elrose Street) were planned jointly with owners and the City in the 1980-1981 period to accommodate and support the LID for 97th Avenue and the McDonald Sewer LID. The proposed locations of Elrose Street (Janzen) and Rhonda Court were established as a part of the LID projects (see sanitary sewer as-built plans) and are the same as proposed by this application. Sewers were constructed and assessments levied based upon this same proposed alignment. Owners were encouraged by the City to accept such configurations to facilitate the LID and the usual assessment procedures. b. Lautt filed an original preliminary plat application for this same configuration on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8-lot subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 zone. Staff conditions were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 5/22/81. The final action staff report was dated 6/26/81. Based upon this approval, Lautt proceeded with the final plat board. Because of the state of the economy in 1981, the final plat for this project, along with numerous others, were not timely filed, and approvals expired. Criterion 2: The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. a. The sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the currently proposed lots and street configuration. b. The proposed Rhonda Court, location best serves both the proposed Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Subdivisions. C. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to individual properties to the east fall within the proposed Rhonda Court location. FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 6 'S Criterion 3• i k The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. a. The proposed Rhonda Court location best accommodates rights of i the owners of Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Acres in providing reasonable and attractive access to subdivision lots. It also accommodates prior access rights for individual properties to the east- b. Since 97th Avenue is a through street, both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs. Very little east-west cross traffic is anticipated between Rhonda Court and Elrose Street. Criterion 4: The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. a. The proposed street alignments were planned and approved jointly by the City and owner in this area in the 1980-1981 period. Development has occurred and property has been assessed based on these street alignments. The owner has relied upon this earlier planning and it is not practical to revise these earlier approvals. Such amendments would place an extraordinary hardship upon the applicant. 4. Policy 8.1.3 requires that adequate right-of-way and street improvements be provided for streets abutting or within a proposed development. These will be provided as noted in the conditions of approval noted in Section C. of this order. 5. Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satisfied because the sizes of the proposed lots are consistent with the 7500 square foot minimum lot size standard of the R-4.5 zone. All proposed lots should be able to be built upon in conformance with setback and maximum site coverage standards of the zone without requiring variances. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would allow the possible transfer of a 15 by 145 foot section of existing tax lot 106 to either of the adjacent parcels, tax lots 109 or 1100. Such an adjustment would increase setbacks for existing structures and would increase the size of either of these other parcels. Either adjustment would allow these lots to remain in conformance with the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone and would also be consistent with the Lot Line Adjustment approval criteria (Community Development Code Section 18.162.060). If an agreement is not reached by the applicant with either of the adjacent property owners for transfer of this strip of land to an adjacent parcel, the strip will need to be included in proposed lot 1. Because of the configuration of this strip of land, it is not clear what purpose would be served by attaching the strip to lot 1. The strip would likely be a maintenance burden for the owner of lot 1. The Commission strongly recommends that this strip of land be transferred to an adjacent parcel rather than being attached to lot 1. 6. Chapter 18.92 is satisfied because the proposed density is consistent FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 7 f C~ with Code requirements. The area of the proposed subdivision provides an opportunity for approximately 11 dwelling units if developed to the full density opportunity of the R-4.5 zone. i 7. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in s, diameter that are removed during the course of construction be i minimized. The proposed development's streets, utilities, and residences will require the removal of a significant number of trees. However,, the number of trees removed should and can be minimized. The Commission will require that trees over six inches in diameter a be removed only to construct utilities, streets, and residences. Plans for tree removal and protection must be reviewed by the Planning staff through an application for a tree cutting permit. 8. Chapter 18.160 is satisfied because the proposed plat is consistent with the applicable Plan and Code requirements that relate to this type of request or variances have been justified. The plat name is not duplicative of other recorded plats. 9. Chapter 18.162 is satisfied because the recommended Lot Line Adjustment would be consistent with the approval criteria for a Lot Line Adjustment as described in 5 above. 10. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) is satisfied by the preliminary plat submittal. The proposal would adequately provide storm drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. The typical street section and plan view of the proposed street demonstrate compliance with the street design standards of Chapter 18.162. The proposed local street intersection with SW 97th Avenue is not consistent with Community Development code, but a variance has. been justified as noted above in this order. Proposed lots 2 and 5 do not contain 25 feet of frontage along a street as required by Community Development Code 18.164.060.B. The Commission finds that the request satisfies the subdivision variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.220.B. which also applied to the street alignment issue discussed under Policy 8.1.1 above. The Commission finds the two proposed flag lots to be justified because: a. There are unusual circumstances that exist due to the previously described LID and subdivision approvals which applied to this property. b. The variance is necessary to allow this property and the parcel to the north (Lautt) to develop as originally intended. C. The proposed design of the flag lots will not have an adverse impact because adequate vehicular and emergency access will be provided. C_ DECISION The Planning Commission approves SUB 90-0007/VAR 90-0011/MIS 90-0020 subject to the following conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Department, 639-4171. FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 8 j _J 1. The Tigardville Heights street assessments will be segregated evenly among f the proposed 10 lots. The remaining principal of $23,387.47 (T.L. 00100 - $7,997.28, T.L. 00106 - $8,105.20, and T.L. 00107 - $7,284.99) shall be segregated so that nine lots shall be responsible for paying and assessment of $2,338.74 and one lot shall be responsible for paying an assessment of $2,338.81. STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Lowry, Finance Dept., 639-4171. 2. Delinquent interest related to the Tigardville Heights street assessments in the amount of $22,138.16 shall be paid within 30 days of recording the subdivision plat. STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Lowry, Finance Dept., 639-4171. 3. Prior to issuing building permits for any lot, the total outstanding assessment principal and interest for the lot which contains the existing house (lot 5) shall be paid. Following the receipt of this payment, building permits on all other lots shall be issued after the total outstanding assessment principal and interest is paid for the lot on which the building permit is sought. STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Lowry, Finance Dept., 639-4171. 4. Lots 7 AND 9 shall not be permitted to access directly onto S.W. 97th Avenue. 5. Driveway cuts shall not be permitted within thirty feet of intersecting right-of-way lines nor within five feet of property lines. 6. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on city standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. 7. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. 8. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 9. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the S.W. 97th Avenue frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to major collector street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. 10. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. 11. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 9 I~ a s. 4 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 12. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the S.W. 97th Avenue frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied-to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 13. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: a) Centerline Monumentation 1) In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2) The following centerline monuments shall be set: A) All centerline-centerline intersection points. B) All cul-de-sac center points. C) Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). b) Monument Boxes Required s 1) Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points and cul-de-sac center points. 2) The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 14. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. In addition, the applicant shall include a typical finished floor elevation for each lot. This shall include elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan which are tied to the top of curb elevations, as shown in the public improvement plans. 15. Two-thirds street improvements-, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be provided for both S.W. Mountain View Lane and Rhonda Court. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 16. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989." 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits the Traffic Impact Fee shall be paid. 18. A maintenance and access agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all storm drain outfalls. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 t. PAGE 10 ,Y. 19. The applicant shall, prior to recording of plat, pay a fee in-lieu of the construction of an on-site water quality facility. 20. The storm and sanitary sewer systems shall be designed to minimize the location of manholes outside of public rights of way. The final sewer system design is subject to approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require dedication of easements and construction of access roads where necessary to provide City access for maintenance of the public sewer lines. In reviewing the adequacy of the sewer system design, the City Engineer shall give consideration to minimizing future maintenance costs to the City. 21. The applicant shall make an appointment, Pre-Construction meeting, with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the plans but prior to starting any work on the site. The applicant, applicant's engineer and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans/permits. 22. The applicant shall submit a lot line adjustment survey showing the existing and proposed lot lines and legal descriptions of the parcels for review and approval by the Engineering Department. THIS DECISION IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN 18 MONTHS FROM THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This _ day of February, 1991, by the P nni ssion of the City of Tigard. G M4& r i re dent Tiga d Planni o ssio SUB90-07.PFO/kl FINAL ORDER - OTTO - SUB 90-0007 PAGE 11 aU o Commissioner Fessler noted that the amount of open space and use of fewer lots was good. She discussed the traffic issue, impact on school district, and stated she was glad the Scheckla house was going to be saved. She was in favor of approval with the conditions set forth by staff. o Commissioner Castile agreed with Commissioner Fessler. o Commissioner Barber favored approval of the development as recommended by staff. o Commissioner Fyre commented he had no problem with the requested 5 foot setbacks for lots 48, 49, and 50. * Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to approve PDR 90-0010 and SUB 90-0015 with the conditions set forth by staff, with a change in #18 allowing the rear yard setback of 5 feet for lots 48, 49, and 50. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. Meeting recessed 8:45 PM Meeting reconvened: 8:55 PM 5.3 SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007 VARIANCE VAR 90-0011 WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION/GRANDVIEW (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision approval to allow division of a 2.4 acre parcel into 10 lots between 7,500 and 10,400 square feet in size. Also requested is a Variance to allow less than 25 feet of public street frontage on two proposed flag lots. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: East side of SW 97th Street and approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street NCTM 2S1 11BA, tax lots 100, 106, and 107) Senior Planner explained the relationship between Subdivision requests 5.3 and 5.4. He recommended that Commissioners hear both items before deliberating on them. Senior Planner reviewed the history of the application. He noted that in July of 1990 a proposal with a different layout was recommended for approval by the Planning staff with no variances required. However, the, hearing was set over at the applicant's request because the design was not acceptable to the applicant. Senior Planner said staff is recommending denial of current proposal primarily because of the street alignment problems. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Tom Burton, 302 Tigard Plaza, Burton Engineering, spoke representing the applicant. He said the current development plan is the same one suggested by the City in 1981 when the LID was created. He discussed the staff's objections to the flag lots and the jog in the street alignment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 5 ~l o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, said she was representing NPO #6 and that its members do not favor the design because the way the houses face in different directions does not lend itself to the neighborhood. A o Aase B. Otto, 14200 SW 97th, the property owner and applicant, spoke about the formation of the LID in 1980 and the subdivision proposal approved for her property by the Planning Commission at that time. She discussed the expenses incurred for the sewer improvements and the preliminary plat. She dedicated a portion of McDonald Street and paid for the pavement and the curb. She said the development was not completed because it would not have been economically feasible due to the depressed housing market at that time. She discussed the use of flag lots and the intersection offset and cited examples where these have been approved for use in other subdivisions. She stated that preserving as many trees as possible was her goal and would be accomplished by the plan she proposes. o Marlin J. De Haas, 9450 SW Common Creek, Wilsonville, stated he is a Consulting Engineer representing the Lautt's (applicants in 5.4). He discussed the relationship of his client's property to the Otto property and the preference of the proposed plan from a design perspective. SUBDIVISION SUB 90-013 VARIANCE VAR 90-037 LAUTT/DE HAAS (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision approval to divide an approximately 2.05 acre e into seven parcels between approximately 8,554 and 12.025 squ fee 'n size. Also requested is a Variance to Code Section 18 .030 (g) ( to allow a 65 foot centerline-to-centerline separat' of inter sec ' g streets whereas the Code requires a minimum nterline separation 300 feet when it is necessary that inter ting streets form staggere intersections. ZONE: R-4.5 (Resid ial, 4.5 units/acre) LO ION: 14110 SW 97th Avenue (WC 2S1 11BA, tax lots 101, 105, &111) Senior Planner Liden de ribed the devel ent design and background history. His noted the p ' ary objec on involves the street offset where Rhonda Court meets Me se. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Stuart Kendall,`4040 Dou s, Lake 0 go, said he is an attorney representing the Laut ' . He discusse he 1980 sewer system assessment based on the plat a oved by the !'ity. said Mr. Lautt did not file the plat at that me because the economy d not support development. He said it woul not be fair for the City to uire the applicants to incur the ad ional expense of redesigning deve nt. o Marlin D aas, Consulting Engineer with DeHaas and A ociates, Inc., spoke presenting the Lautt's. He discussed the issu f the street off t. Regarding the 1981 LID, he presented a map show the sewer p ns with the proposed lots and streets as proposed by th ity. He aid the sewers were constructed and the applicant has been p ing for t, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 6 y . as MENOMINEE them since they were installed. He pointed out that the engineering and tanning staff, at the time the plat was drawn up/cerning that a v iance should be allowed for the street offset. ioned t exp se of the engineering work and plat, and reihat a nomic condi 'ons influenced the Lautt's to put off filiat. e sugges d it would not be economically feasible fut s to have to pay f redesign and engineering or for a new e ummarized saying it es not appear that conditions have chcerning the subject prop ty or surrounding area to warrant cthe desig n of the developmen o Commissioners-ques ' ned the applicant regarding expenses incurred because of sewer. There vias discus rning the layout of the lots and a sewer locations. o John Fullmer, 14110 SW 97th, explained his t 8 is adjacent to lots 6 and 7. He stated he was in f r of the oposal. o Judy Rosenblum, 3300 SW Evergreen n Portland, stated she owns property at 9445 SW Mountain View L Tigard. She said she has been paying for three sewers on her pro rt and the only access from her property is the current easement 0 There was discussion concern' g offset stree and some of the reasons for discouraging such inte ections. o Marlin DeHaas spoke ag representing the Lautt . He answered questions about the ign of the cul-de-sac and cribed the easements which service other roperty roads. He also provid some examples of offset intersec ti s. o Commissioner stile discussed the possibility of changi the design to align the s et. He suggested the City might be able to aive some fees in an ffort to help the owners re-design the developm t. There was furt r discussion. o Commi sioner Moore expressed concern about the applicant's sewe inv tment and additional cost which would be incurred should it e n essary to relocate the serer laterals. 0 ommissioner Fyre discussed the issues to be considered with regard to the neighbors who would be affected by the easements now in place. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 5.3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 5.4 CONSIDERATION OF 5.3 o Commissioner Fyre stated that Tom Burton has been working as an engineer on a project for him. However, the Commissioner advised this would not influence his decision in this hearing. l PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 7 ~3 o Commissioner Muore expressed concern about the aesign layout of the two subdivisions. He said he would like to see a different plan for the combined projects. o Commissioner Boone agreed that a better layout would be preferred. He did not feel that the street offset was a big issue, since'there is not a large traffic flow. However, he favored avoiding such a street offset if possible. He mentioned there seemed to have been some unfair circumstances for the applicants as a result of past City policies. o Commissioner Fessler concurred that the applicants have had some promises broken, and they have paid the City money based on plans suggested or promoted by the City staff at the time the sewer was installed. She did'not think the street offset or flag lots were overwhelming issues. She said she felt the City has a responsibility to help the applicants so they do not have a great deal of additional expense for the development of their property. o Commissioner Barber commented that staff nine years ago may have made some mistakes, but most probably the code requirement changes have caused the most trouble for the applicants. She preferred to have a different layout for the Grandview property, and she did not favor the 20 foot shared driveway. o Commissioner Fyre discussed the offset and said it did not bother him. He noted a lot of money had been spent by the applicants and the time had come to resolve the issues. There was discussion of appeal options available to the applicants following the decision at this meeting. o Commissioner Castile stated he would vote to approve the proposals, though he would prefer a different layout of the Grandview property. * Commissioner Castile moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to approve SUB 90-0007 and VAR 90-0011 and MIS 90-0020. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present, with Commissioners Barber and Boone opposed. Commissioner Fyre abstained. C IDERATION OF 5.4 o Com, ner Barber stated she was in favor of the pro subdivision and varia and she did not find the offset str issue a problem: o Commissioner Castile ed with Commis ' er Barber. o Commissioner Fessler concurre the comments of the previous Commissioners. o Commissioner Boone ored approval of the a 'cation as written. * Commission oore moved and Commissioner Castile seco to approve SUB 90- VAR 90-0037, and MIS 90-00. Motion carried by 'ority of issioners present with Commissioner Boone voting opposed. issioner Fyre abstained. C PLANNING COWISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 8 I ~ TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 21, 1991 1. Vice President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fessler, and Moore. Absent: Commissioners Boone, Moen and Saporta. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Senior Planner Ron Bunch; Planning Commission Secretary Ellen Fox. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded tv approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Senior Planner Keith Liden advised that postponement of Mountain Ridge and Mountain Point hearings was communicated to interested citizens. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007 VARIANCE VAR 90-0011 WAVERLY CONST.JGRANDVIEW (HPO #6) A request for Subdivision approval to allow division of a 2.4 acre parcel into 10 lots between 7,500 and 10,400 square feet in size. Also requested is a Variance to allow less than 25 feet of public street frontage on two proposed flag lots. ZONE: R 4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: East side of SW 97th Street and approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 11BA, tax lots 100, 106, and 107) Senior Planner Liden advised that Commission would be reviewing the Final Order for this item and the next item, and making modifications if necessary. y APPLICANT°S PRESENTATION o Aase Otto, 14200 SW 97th, said Tom Burton of Waverly Construction had not arrived to discuss the conditions. a Commissioner Fyre suggested holdi`,lg the item over until later in the meeting when Mr. Burton could be present. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 21, 1991 PAGE 1 j Q5- l 1 ~ / 5.2 SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0013 VARIANCE VAR 90-0037 LAUTT/DE HAAS (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision approval to divide an approximately 2.05 e site into seven parcels between approximately 8,554 and 12,025 sq a feet in size. Also requested is a Variance to Code Section r 18.1 030 (g) (1) to allow a 65 foot centerline-to-centerline separa 'on of intersecting streets whereas the Code requires a mi imum centerli separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that int secting streets fo staggered intersections. (WCTM 2S1 11BA, tax lot 01, 105, & 111) APPLICANT'S PRESENTA ON o Marlin De Haas, 9 0 SW Commerce Circle, Wilsonville, oke representing the property owner He advised he had been unable t discuss with staff his questions ncerning the proposed conditio s prior to this hearing. He itemized he conditions which needed arification as follows: Item (1) He discussed th condition requiring at the LID be paid in full; he request the condition b deleted. Senior Planner suggested changin the wording to Provisions of the LID 25 shall be satisfied. Item (4) He commented that co on driv ays were not anticipated, and he requested the item de ted. Item (7) Sidewalk improvements we discussed, with Senior Planner advising this was a sta d condition. Item (12) He did not understan why it is listed and asked that it be deleted. After dis ssion, i was decided that the first sentence of the c dition woul be kept and the rest would be deleted. Item (13) There was dis ssion pertaining t driveway aprons, with Senior Plan explaining the desi for the driveway aprons should be ovided. Mr. De Haas sa he could accept this conditio Item (15) The C qty traffic `impact fee was clari ied. Item (16) Ma' tenance access agreement was discusse . Senior Planner lained this provides access for the Cit to storm drains. Item 0 Senior Planner explained this item pertains the Tualatin River Basin Water Quality Program. It (18) Mr. De Haas questioned the requirement of provi ng a 10-foot wi::a paved road which Senior Planner said is inte ed to provide access to the manholes for cleaning by sew crews. ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 21, 1991 PAGE 2 0) 1 1 Fur iscussion followed regarding whether staff can add to gAsomen+!r- which hav ady been agreed to. It was decided th t.. A~cant and staff would disc 'tems and reach an agre if an agreement is reached, Commissioner would si inal Order. * Commissioner Fessler and Co ner Castile seconded to accept Final Order 91- with the conditions d, with the understanding that appli and staff will meet and reach an ent on the condi " s, and further to give Commissioner Fyre the to sign inal Order. o Applicant for Item 5.1 agreed to a similar arrangement with staff. Commissioner Castile moved and Commissioner seconded to accept Final * Order 91-03 PC with the conditions listed, with the understanding that applicant will meet with staff and they will reach an agreement t regarding the conditions, and further to give Commissioner Fyre the authority to sign the Final Order. 5.3 SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0015 BURGE/BOTH (NPO #3) A request for subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 13.7 acre site into 47 lots between approximately 7,800 and 15,100 square feet in size. A Variance is requested to allow a segment of a proposed local street to have a gradient of 14 percent whereas the Community Development Code permits a maximum grade of 12 percent. Also requested is Sensitive Lands review approval to allow road construction and residential development on slopes in excess of 25 percent. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: West of SW 132nd Avenue, north of Benchview Estates, east of SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 4, tax lot 600) Senior Planner Liden described the Subdivision, explaining there were two phases planned. He discussed the Variance request and conditions for approval. He advised that the Engineering'Department proposed a change in the language for Condition 18, which he read as follows: The storm and sanitary sewer system shall be designed to minimize the location of manholes outside the public rights-of-way. The final sewer system design is subject to approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require dedication of easements and construction of access roads where necessary to provide city access for maintenance of the public sewer line. In reviewing the adequacy of the sewer system design, City Engineer shall give consideration to the minimization of future maintenance costs to the City. He said staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Fyre advised he had been doing business with Tim Roth, the applicant, and would not participate in the decision.- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 21, 1991 PAGE 3 a~ AGENDA ITEM _15; 3 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1991 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 131.25 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision SUB 90-0007, Variance VAR 90-0011, Miscellaneous HIS 90-0020 REQUEST: 1) Preliminary plat review of a proposal to subdivide three parcels totaling 2.4 acres into 10 lots ranging in size from 7500 to 10,400 square feet. 2) A Variance is requested to allow two of the proposed lots to have less than the required 25 feet public street frontage for lots created through the subdivision process (Community Development Code Section 18.164.060.8). 3) A Variance is also requested to allow a local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet along a collector street whereas Community Development Code section 18.164.030.E states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. 4) Lot Line Adjustment approval is necessary to allow a 15 by 145 foot strip in the northeastern corner of the subject property to possibly be added to one of the adjacent parcels. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: :0.-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: Waverly Construction 31835 SW Country View Drive Wilsonville, OR 97070 AGENT: Burton Engineering 302 Tigard Plaza Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Aase B. Otto 14200 SW 97th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97224 LOCATION: 97224 SW 97th Avenue. East Bide of SW 97th Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 11BA, Tax Lots, 100, 106, 107). 2. Background Information On November 6, 1980, the Tigard Planning Commission reviewed a subdivision proposal to divide the parcels into ten lots. The proposed subdivision lots would have received access from a new east/west street on the northern i STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 1 a~ edge of the parcel, a new segment of SW Mountainview Lane along the I property's southern edge, and one parcel having direct access to SW 97th Avenue. The proposal was approved by the Commission, but the plat was never recorded with Washington County. That approval has expired. On July 10, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to divide the subject parcels into nine lots; six lots receiving access from a proposed north/south private road and three lots from a north/south public road along the eastern edge of the property. A new section of SW Mountainview Lane was proposed to connect these two roads to SW 97th Avenue. No variances were involved in this application. The Commission continued the hearing on this proposal in order to allow the applicant and staff to reconsider the subdivision's design after hearing testimony on the proposal from the applicant, owner, and neighbors. The current proposal by the applicant is in response to the continuance. No other land use or development applications regarding these parcels have been reviewed by the City. 3. Vicinity Information The subject parcels are surrounded by other properties designated Low Density Residential by the Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the north, east, south and northwest are zoned R-4.5 and are developed with a combination of recent single family residential development to the northwest and older, large-lot single family residences to the north, south, and east. SW Mountainview Lane dead ends approximately 145 feet east of the southeastern corner of the subject properties. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject site consists of three tax lots comprising approximately 2.4 acres. A single family residence is located on Tax Lot 100, approximately 140 feet from SW 97th Avenue. Two outbuildings are also located on the subject parcels. The parcels contain a combination of open grass covered areas along with landscaping trees and several large fir trees. The properties slope to the northeast. The applicant proposes to.subdivide the site into ten lots as illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. The existing house is intended to be retained. A Variance is requested to allow two of the proposed lots, lots 2 and 5, to have less than the required 25 feet of public street frontage for lots created through the subdivision review process (Community Development Code Section 18.164.060.B). In addition, Lot Line Adjustment approval is necessary to allow a 15 by 145 foot strip in the far northeastern corner of the subject property to possibly be added to one of the adjacent parcels. Staff has added this approval request to this application although the applicant's preliminary plat and application do not address the need for the adjustment or show this strip of land as part of the subject property. A Variance is also requested to allow a local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet along a collector street whereas Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.0 states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. The proposed location of SW Rhonda Street along the properties northern boundary is offset approximately 65 feet south of the location of SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue. The subdivision would be provided with public street access by two public streets to be developed on the southern and northern boundaries of the site. The applicant proposes dedicating 35 feet of right-of-way on the r STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 2 a~ south side of the property for an approximately 350 foot segment of SW Mountainview Lane. An approximately 145 foot long gap would exist between this section of SW Mountainview Lane and the existing section of the street to the east. The applicant proposes constructing two-thirds street improvements on Mountainview Lane consisting of a 26-foot wide road surface with a standard 6-inch concrete curb and a 5 foot sidewalk on the northern side of this street. The preliminary plat indicates a 25-foot wide right- of-way dedication is intended for SW Rhonda Court on the property's north side. The submittal shows a typical local street section for SW Rhonda Court with two-thirds street improvements although it is not clear how this would be constructed on the subject property without additional right-of- way dedication. The typical street sections submitted with the preliminary plat, as well as the plat itself, indicate that an additional 16 feet of right-of-way dedication and 8 additional feet of pavement section is anticipated to be provided through development of the adjacent parcels at some point in the future. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be provided by extensions of the existing sanitary sewer located along the east side of the project. This existing sanitary sewer line was previously constructed through a local improvement district. The property owner has been assessed for the future development potential of the property for approximately nine years. Storm drainage is proposed to be collected by a network of storm sewers flowing to the east and north following the existing sanitary sewer easements. The storm sewers would outfall into a drainageway approximately 150 feet northeast of the site. In addition, parcels abutting SW 97th Avenue would be served by existing storm sewers in the street. A Subdivision preliminary plat review request for the three parcels immediately to the north has been made to divide the properties into 7 lots (SUB 90-0013). That request also includes a Variance request to allow an offset local street intersection with a collector street. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: a. The site accesses to S.W. 97th Avenue, a major collector street. The applicant is proposing two access points: 1) an extension of S.W. Mountainview Lane, and 2) a new proposed road, S.W. Rhonda Court. The second access point, S.W. Rhonda Court, does not satisfy Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.6.1 which requires that streets making "T" intersections with collectors have a minimum of 300 feet of separation. The Engineering Division has also been requested by the Planning Department to make comments on another proposed subdivision, SUB 90-0013, which is located adjacent to and to the north of this proposed subdivision. The common point of interest between the proposed subdivisions would be the proposed access road, S.W. Rhonda Court, which would provide access to both subdivisions from S.W. 97th Avenue. Both subdivision applications require consideration of a variance to the intersection spacing standard. The applicant for SUB 90-0013 has submitted a narrative addressing the approval criteria for a variance to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.6.1. The City Council directed the Engineering Department to review options for future development of the area bounded by McDonald Street, 93rd Avenue, Inez Street, and 97th Avenue. Several conceptual plans (see attachments) were prepared by the staff. All STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 3 k 30 of the options meet the requirement of 300 feet of separation for "T" ( intersections, and appear to provide adequate traffic circulation and adequate emergency access to the neighborhood. Our joint (Planning and Engineering) review of these conceptual options indicates that buildable lots can be developed, in compliance with the Community Development Code. If this subdivision is developed prior to redevelopment of the surrounding area, it will be necessary for the prospective developer to provide a minimum of 34 feet of right-of-way and half street improvements to include a minimum of 24 feet of street surface for SW Rhonda Court. Based on any of the street alignments options that the staff has reviewed, there would be no additional burden on this developer, and he may be able to recoup a portion of his investment under the new Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 13.08. if this subdivision is developed along with SUB 90-0013 and using any one of the options proposed by staff there would be no additional burden on either of the applicants. In fact, there may be a savings to the applicants if they pursue the options as provided in Chapter 13.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Therefore, we conclude that a workable street: system, with the extension of S.W. Mountainview Lane as proposed by the applicant, can be developed for the area that would not require any variances. b. Sanitary sewer service is available from an existing 8" line on the east and west sides and portions of the north and south property lines. The existing sanitary sewer lines were constructed through a local improvement district in the early 1980'x. C. The applicant is proposing to run the storm drainage system into the existing creek that is north of the property. This may still be accomplished and is not dependent upon the street/lot lay out. d. The Engineering Department recn-mends denial of the submitted preliminary plat and proposed variance to the Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.4.G because of the substandard street intersection and the traffic safety problems that it could create. The Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has commented that a plan showing the location of utilities for the existing house must be submitted (i.-e., water lines, sewer lines, rain drains, septic tanks and drainfields). If any of these utilities will cross the proposed new property lines, easements will be required. Rain drains for the existing house shall discharge to an approved location. In addition, the Building Division has commented that private storm drain lines must be provided for lots 4 through 8. Tigard School District No. 231 has noted concerns with its ability to maintain the current level of educational programs and school facilities as the result of rapid growth throughout the district. The projected enrollment from the proposed development is 3 students at Templeton Elementary, and 2 students at Twality Junior High School. When combined with other proposed development projects, the total projected enrollment increase exceeds the facilities, design capacities. Further, the District cannot guarantee that the new schools which are to open in 1992 will have the design capacity to serve all of these proposed developments if the rate of growth increases. Prospective home buyers should be advised that students may have to be bused to other schools or placed in portable classrooms. ISTAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 4 31 The Metropolitan Area Communications Company (cable television) requests ( that it be contacted by the developer prior to construction regarding cable installation. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has recommended denial of the proposed variance to create two flag lots with insufficient road frontage because the NPO is concerned that the proposed flag lots are inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Tigard Water District, PGE, and GTE have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1., 7.4.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, and 8.4.1 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, and 18.164. The Planning staff concludes the proposal is not consistent with all applicable Plan policies and Code criteria based upon the findings noted below: 1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning organization #6 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the public hearing on the subdivision proposal providing them an opportunity to comment on the proposal. 2. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 can be satisfied because assurance of the extension of sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities to serve the development will be required prior to approval of the final plat. Sanitary and storm sewers presently exist on the eastern portion of the property. A water line and storm sewer are located within SW 97th Avenue abutting the property. The applicant has indicated that these facilities will be extended within the subdivision in conformance with City standards. The Engineering Division has indicated that the preliminary plans for providing these utilities appear adequate. Detailed public improvement plans will need to be approved prior to recording the plat. 3. Policy 8.1.1 call for the provision of a safe and efficient street system which will accommodate present and future needs. The proposed street plan for the subdivision partially satisfies this policy because the development would provide for improvement of the existing right-of-way for SW 97th Avenue with sidewalk and streetlights and would provide the minimum necessary interim pavement widths and associated improvements for the extension of SW Mountainview Lane along the south side of the proposed development. The proposed Mountainview Lane extension would improve opportunities for redevelopment of the adjacent parcels to the east and south without placing an undue burden on the future developers of those parcels with regard to completion of street improvements. The proposed southern street would align with SW Mountainview Lane 145 feet to the east and therefore would further the City's goal of providing for a local street connection between the neighborhood to the east and SW 97th Avenue. A sign has been posted at the present western terminus of SW Mountainview Lane for some time noting that future extension of the street has been contemplated by the City of Tigard. STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 5 3~ However, the preliminary plat is not consistent with Policy 8.1.1 1 with regard to the location of the proposed Rhonda Court/SW 97th Avenue intersection with respect to the location of SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue. Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.E states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of leSS than 300 feet. This standard is intended to avoid traffic safety problems due to awkward vehicular turning movements from the opposing intersections. The applicant requests a Variance to allow a local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet on a collector street for the proposed alignment. Section 18.160.120.B of the Code contains criteria for approval of a variance to a Code requirement that is being reviewed as part of a subdivision application. This application does not address these Variance criteria. The applicant's statement accompanying the application for Subdivision SUB 90-0013 for the parcels to the north does, however, address the variance criteria for the proposed location of the SW Rhonda Court intersection. Because the issue is the same for both proposed subdivisions, those comments are considered with respect to the subdivision application on the Otto property. Mr. Marlin DeHaas, the engineer for the proposed subdivision to the north on the Lautt property, has provided responses to each of the variance criteria for the requested variance. Staff has provided comments in response to Mr. DeHaas' comments with regard to the requested variance. Criterion 1 There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. DeHaas' Response: A. Preliminary plat configuration for Lautt's Terrace, Grandview Acres (Templeton Estates) and Solarcrest, (which includes SW Elrose Street) were planned jointly with owners and the City in the 1980-1981 period to accommodate and support the LID for 97th Avenue and the McDonald Sewer LID. The proposed locations of Elrose Street (Janzen) and Rhonda Court were established as a part of the LID projects (see sanitary sewer as-built plans) and are the same as proposed by this application. Sewers were constructed and assessments levied based upon this same proposed alignment. Owners were encouraged by the City to accept-ouch configurations to facilitate the LID and the usual assessment procedures. B. Lautt filed an original preliminary plat application for this same configuration on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8-lot subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 zone. Staff conditions were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 5/22/81. The final action staff report was dated 6/26/81. Based upon this approval, Lautt proceeded with the final plat board. Because of the state of the economy in 1981, the final plat for this project, along with numerous others, were not timely filed, and approvals expired. At any rate, the record shows that the currently proposed configuration was approved by the City in 1981. C. SW 97th is not a new street and development patterns of the intersecting streets have been pretty much determined. The STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 6 33 major accesses from Twality Junior High are separated from ( Murdock Street and Pembrook Street by approximately 50 feet and 270 feet respectively. While it is reasonable to require the 300 foot criterion for new major collector streets, it is unreasonable to retroactively apply the standard to a street already having a development pattern, which causes a great difficulty in conforming. D. The use of the major collector designation for 97th is quite marginal in that it is only approximately 2,000 feet long, has a "T" intersection at McDonald Street, and ends at a sharp curve at Murdock Street. Staff Response: Staff agrees that the prior actions of the Planning commission in approving the Lautt and Templeton Estates subdivisions and the local improvement district are certainly special circumstances which have affected these properties. However, we do not find that these past circumstances need to dictate what happens today. Although the design submitted by the applicant, and the applicant for SUB 90-0013 work well in relation to the existing sewers, the applicants for these subdivision proposals have not shown that these are the only designs, or the best designs, which will work for division of these properties with respect to more than just the locations of existing sewers. The applicant for SUB 90-0007, in fact, has previously submitted a preliminary plat for review by the Planning Commission which also works well with respect to the existing sanitary and storm sewer locations. This previous plat does not require any of the requested A variances involved in the present subdivision approval requests. It appears to staff that the applicant for SUB 90-0013 should have include consideration of this previous proposal for the Otto property and determined whether or not that arrangement could work for the Lautt property. The Engineering Division has prepared conceptual layouts of the Otto and Lautt properties that would include a north/south public street on the east side of the Otto property. It appears that the same number of lots could be created using a cul-de- sac bending westward onto the Lautt property as are presently being requested. The approximate locations of the lots could utilize the same existing sanitary sewer lateral T's as the proposal before the Commission. Staff rejects DeHaas' assertion that because SW 97th is not a new street, development standards related to the collector street status should not apply. We fail to see why it would not be reasonable to apply the standard in this area, since the parcels on the east side of SW 97th are all under-developed and likely will see redevelopment in the future years. There is pa significant amount of area that may be redeveloped Bo the City is not really faced with an in-fill situation where limited area may necessitate designs that may not be fully consistent with good development design practice. Since the applicant's engineer concedes that it is reasonable to require the 300 foot access offset criterion for development along new major collector streets, the applicant's engineer seems to concur that this is a safety-based standard. Staff feels that safety is just as much of an issue on an existing collector street as it would be on a new collector street. We fail to understand DeHaas' argument. Although SW 97th Avenue is unusual for a major collector street in j that it is relatively short and terminates at a "T" intersection at \ STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 7 3y one end, and a curve on the other, the street does carry a substantial amount of traffic, especially during the school year. The street certainly functions as a collector street despite these unusual physical characteristics. Unless impractical, all City standards related to safety should be strictly upheld in the review of developments affecting traffic on the street. Criterion 2• The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. DeHaas' Response: A. The sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the currently proposed lots and street configuration. B. The proposed Rhonda Court, location best serves both the proposed Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Subdivisions. C. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to individual properties to the east fall within the proposed Rhonda Court location. Staff Response: Although the sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the proposed lot and street configurations, the applicants have not submitted any evidence that these facilities would not function well with another subdivision layout. The Engineering Department's conceptual plan illustrates how the existing sanitary sewers could serve lots off of a cul-de-sac coming from the southeast without requiring any variances. In addition, the applications have not addressed the possibility of locating the Rhonda Court/SW 97th Avenue intersection directly across from SW Elrose Street. Although such an intersection would require a southward curve to Rhonda Court, and possibly some difficult to utilize area to the south of the intersection, this alignment would seem to be able to serve the same number of lots as is currently proposed for the Lautt property. This area could be combined with a future lot to be developed as part of the Otto subdivision to the south. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to properties to the east could be served by an alignment of SW Rhonda Court directly across from Elrose Terrace or from a street to be developed along the eastern side of the Otto property as previously proposed to the Commission in June, 1990. We fail to understand the DeHaas argument with regard to how the proposed alignment is necessary to serve these properties to the east. Criterion 3• The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. DeHaas' response: A. The proposed Rhonda Court location best accommodates rights of the owners of Lautt'a Terrace and Grandview Acres in providing reasonable and attractive access to subdivision lots. It also accommodates prior access rights for individual properties to the east. STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION page 8 1 ~35 B. As 97th Avenue is a through street, both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs. Staff Response: Staff fails to see how the proposed location of Rhonda Court offset from SW Elrose Terrace provides any more attractive or reasonable access to the proposed subdivisions as the alternatives of aligning Rhonda Court with the Elrose Street intersection or following the previously submitted design for the Otto property and extending a street northward to the Otto property. In addition, as described above, these alternatives would not seem to negatively impact access rights for individual properties to the east in any manner. Both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs, as DeHaas notes. However, the primary traffic safety issue related to the proposed intersection offset is the turning movements that will be necessary from these intersections, no matter whether the intersections are signed or not. Criterion 4: The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. DeHaas' Response: A. As related here and before, street alignments were planned and approved jointly by the City and owner in this area in the 1980-1981 period. Development has occurred and property has been assessed based on these street alignments. The owner has relied upon this earlier planning and it is not practical to undo what has been done. Such undoing would place an extraordinary hardship upon the applicant. B. In fact it is impossible for Lautt to meet this criterion within his property. Staff Response: Staff fails to see why it is not practical to undo the design work that has been done. Staff, and the applicant's engineer for the proposal on the Otto property, have already revised some of that design work in the submittal and review of the earlier preliminary plat for that property. The Engineering Department has done further work showing how a street could be developed on the Lautt property utilizing the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer. This work has shown that other development options exist for these properties. The only hardship that staff is aware of is the possible cost of revising the plat and public improvement plans that may have been developed in response to the earlier approvals. Although this would require a financial outlay by the applicants, it is not unreasonable to expect this of an applicant who has let a subdivision approval lapse for in excess of eight years. In closing this analysis, staff does not find that the applicants have met the burden of providing substantial evidence that requiring strict compliance with the requirements of Code Section 18.164.030.E would cause an undue hardship to the applicants. Staff believes that evidence shows that other subdivision designs could utilize existing STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 9 t public facilities in place on the properties. These other designs could alleviate potential traffic hazards that could result from an offset intersection as proposed. 4. Policy 8.1.3 requires that adequate right-of-way and street improvements be provided for streets abutting or within a proposed development. If deficiencies exist, the prospective developer is responsible for providing facilities that meet these minimum standards. As noted above, the proposed street system is not consistent with City standards. A revised preliminary plat and street layout are therefore necessary. The requirements of this policy cannot be satisfied if the proposed improvements are not consistent with City standards. 5. Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satisfied because the sizes of the proposed lots are consistent with the 7500 square foot minimum lot size standard of the R-4.5 zone. All proposed lots should be able to be built upon in conformance with setback and maximum site coverage standards of the zone without requiring variances. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would allow the possible transfer of a 15 by 145 foot section of existing tax lot 106 to either of the adjacent parcels, tax lots 109 or 1100. Such an adjustment would increase setbacks for existing structures and would increase the size of either of these other parcels. Either adjustment would allow these lots to remain in conformance with the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone and would also be consistent with the Lot Line Adjustment approval criteria (Community Development Code Section 18.162.060). If an agreement is not reached by the applicant with either of the adjacent property owners for transfer of this strip of land to an adjacent parcel, the strip will need to be included in proposed lot 1. Because of the configuration of this strip of land; it is not clear what purpose would be served by attaching the strip to lot 1. The strip would likely be a maintenance burden for the owner of lot 1. Staff strongly recommends that this strip of land be transferred to an adjacent parcel rather than being attached to lot 1. 6. Chapter 18.92 is satisfied because the proposed density is consistent with Code requirements. The area of the proposed subdivision provides an opportunity for approximately 11 dwelling units if developed to the full density opportunity of the R-4.5 zone. 7. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that are removed during the course Of construction be minimized. The proposed development's streets, utilities, and residences will require the removal of a significant number of trees. However, the number of trees removed should and can be minimized. The staff recommends that trees over six inches in diameter be removed only to construct utilities, streets, and residences. Plans for tree removal and protection must be reviewed by the Planning staff through an application for a tree cutting permil~. 8. chapter 18.160 is partially satisfied because the proposed plat is consistent with the majority of the applicable Plan and Code requirements that relate to this type of request. The plat name is not duplicative of other recorded plats. However, as elaborated upon elsewhere in this report, staff finds that the proposed alignment of SW Rhonda Court relative to SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue is a substandard design and could pose a traffic hazard on a collector street. The applicant has not shown that there is no other practical design for the subdivision that could avoid the STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 10 3 -7 substandard intersection design and still utilize the existing sanitary sewer. The applicant's primary argument for the variance therefore appears to be that the City has to live by previous approvals that have expired. Code Section 18.160.040, however, sets a limit on the approval period for an approved subdivision plan. One of the purposes of this time limit is to allow the City to revisit the conditions related to a development proposal if that F=oposal has not been constructed. This allows the City to revisit previously reviewed proposals and require amendments that address changes in circumstances or changes in City policies, and to better respond to the situations affecting a proposed development. Staff urges the Commission to recognize that the earlier Commission approval of a plan for development of this property would not have provided for as good a development plan as possible and would also not have been consistent with the City's road improvement standards. Staff recommends denial of the requested subdivision variance. 9. Chapter 18.162 is satisfied because the recommended Lot Line Adjustment would be consistent with the approval criteria for a Lot Line Adjustment as described in 5 above. 10. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) is only partially satisfied by the preliminary plat submittal. The proposal would adequately provide storm drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. The typical street section and plan view of the proposed street demonstrate compliance with the majority of the street design standards of Chapter 18.162. However, the proposed local street intersection with SW 97th Avenue is not consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.6.1 which specifies a minimum center line separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections and the staff does not find that the applicant has satisfactorily shown that this requirement should be varied. In addition, proposed lots 2 and 5 do not contain 25 feet of frontage along a street as required by Community Development Code 18.164.060.B. The applicant has not submitted an argument in favor of this variance. once again, the preliminary plat copies the earlier 1980 plat submittal which also did not specifically address this issue. The applicant apparently is again relying upon the precedent of the earlier approval as justification of the present request. It is unclear whether the minimum street requirement was in effect in 1980 and therefore whether the earlier submittal would have been considered substandard in this respect. Staff does not find that the request satisfies the subdivision variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120.B. The preliminary plat reviewed by the Commission in June of 1990 illustrated how the property could be developed without requiring approval of this sort of variance. That by itself demonstrates that the request does not satisfy the approval criteria because there is no extraordinary hardship that would result from compliance with the minimum frontage standard or that the requested variance is necessary for the proper functioning of the subdivision. The request would create two flag lots. Flag lots are typically viewed as undesirable in land development. Flag lots are more typically a last resort design for difficult to develop in-fill projects. This proposal clearly illustrates some of the possible undesirable effects of flag lots. The existing residences on proposed lot 5 and on tax lot 1100 to the east both face to the west towards 97th Avenue. Assuming that these houses remain as is, the STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 11 fronts of these houses will face the rear or sides of the lots to the west. In addition, the front of any house to be built on proposed lot 5 will face the rear of proposed lot 4. Also, both lots may be difficult to locate from the street since homes built on the lots would likely not be readily visible from SW Rhonda Court. Additionally, the entire development pattern of the proposed subdivision is unusual in that it includes eight lots fronting on three different streets as well as the two flag lots that would be somewhat buried behind the others. This pattern does not appear conducive to the development of a neighborhood identity. Such a pattern certainly is not good development practice, especially when a viable option exists as was shown in June. The earlier submittal was far superior in that it avoided the negative effects of the requested variances, did not have any driveways on SW 97th Avenue - a collector street, and faced houses towards each other in a way that would seem to contribute to a neighborhood feeling. Staff recommends that the Commission deny the requested variances and direct the applicant to retry this earlier approach to development of the property. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends denial of the submitted preliminary plat for Subdivision SUB 907-0007 primarily because of the submittal's dependence on a substandard street intersection in the northwestern corner of the site for access to five of the proposed lots. As noted above, staff has substantial concerns with traffic safety related to the proposed intersection offset and therefore recommends denial of the proposed variance to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.4.G for both the subject application and Subdivision application SUB 90-0013. In addition, staff recommends denial of the proposed variance to allow the proposed flag lots, lots 2 and 5, to have less than the minimum 25 feet of frontage on a street for the reasons described above. Because no application or preliminary lot line adjustment map were submitted with the application package and because the need for the adjustment arises from the subdivision request which is recommended to be denied, staff also recommends denial of the Lot Line Adjustment portion of this application. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the applicant refile a preliminary plat the same as or similar to the preliminary plat reviewed by the Commission on June 5, 1990. Such a submittal should be required to be a new application rather than a continuance to this application. This is suggested so that the Commission can make a final decision denying the current proposal in order to clearly reject the development approach taken with this application and Subdivision SUB 90- 0013 as well as to afford an opportunity for a possible appeal on these decisions. It is recommended to the applicant for SUB 90-0007 that the City Council be approached about a partial fee waiver for the second application since a substantial amount of the typical staff time required for review of a subdivision application will not be necessary if the proposal is not substantially changed from the plan reviewed in June, 1990. Staff notes that modifications to the earlier proposal could possibly include the addition of a tenth lot. P D Je ffer APPROVED BY: Keith Liden A ate Planner Senior Planner STAFF REPORT - SUB 90-0007 - WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION Page 12 ~Gi The City of M°° n°' a St [-TO, T I G A R D Q TL 105 { ift- TL 149 . proposed TL 101 AI i9nmerit(s) EL-ROSE E x i s t i n g 70 Sonit°ry Sewer Lines ST -,swum "7 _Y-~.,.__-..~ P r o p o s e d _ TL 106 t ~ TIL 1100 Sanitary p Sewer Lines S - TL 100 M Proposed Storm y Sewer Lines y Note: tax lot TL 147 _ v MT numbers are listed M o n m a p 2S 1 11 BA 4 D l g I , , , I v t a I aa/ ralro a tte- q Iiva taegllad IT tla CIIf at rr rrlvwr.rr..rr.r~.,~,.r. T lqn d all //ring Gaegrt/lIt Inl'uaIt IIa STaua'(CIq) TL 1200 VIEW aalNan. Itl•uavliav r Iarln7ad lut avT Iv alnlay/ad to Be ared vitl litivval faeMnitvl avd/ar inl*rlrataliaa Iota Ce d. tar inal ►q let City of Tigard. (YP tI IC a) d 101 (12/71/10) ti oZ~1 -04 IN .Soo 0 N x, Ln OOP ti`4y A' l '01' f~drk Ol.~lp+ . j oqek J ti~ili x~ f Jx 16 won a~ too' a mallowwwo WOW i. CAP, qo 00"-' A~pL1~ATl0ly ,,.~cvrnJ .510 ,.roF Qc.~rtrJtnfG . s ~-Vl UAR~ 8 "'id, ate) tick PpRpVED B~ TAE PLAmtjltj& t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SUBDIVISION APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE N0. OTHER CASE NO's: RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION East side of SW 97th. Ave. (A) Application form (1) Approx 400 feet, Snnth of SW M&nnnaid (B) Owner's signature/written TAIL MAP AND TAX LOT NO. Wa s~ authorization n Tax Map S1 1113A T -c 1nn, 10F; and 1n7 (C) Title transfer instrument (1) ma,. nJ SITE SIZE 2.4 Acres (D) Assessor's map (1) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* (E) Preliminary Plat (pre-app checklist) ADDRESS q 1 8'19 SW (7oun vvi -W 1mrM ll_ F) Applicant's statement CITY _Wi 1 snn 1. 1 1 P, I QrQcnn ZIP 97070 (pre-app checklist) APPLICANT* wwnr1 y ronct rune- ion (G) List of property owners and PHONE 624_5505 addresses within 250 feet (1) ADDRESS R~S SW C'ountr_~•viPwDr. CITY Wi 1 e;onvi 1.1 P . Oregon ZIP 27070 (H) Filing fee ($415 plus $5 *When the owner and the applicant are different per lot) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession.with written authorization DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: submit a written authorization with this application. COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request permission to divide a ?..!a Snres N.P.O. Number: Total Area parcel into 10 lots between Preliminary Plat Approval Date: (number of lots) 7 . 900 and 10,400 square feet in size. Final Approval Date: Planning 0520P/13P Engineering _ Revd: 3/88 Recording Date and Number: 43 3. List any variance, Planned Development, Sensitive Lands, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application:.. T.ni-c 9 and 5 Sri+11 251 rnmmnn PrnnfagA ` 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above reauest does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this day of 19 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. (KSL:pm/0520P) x No I I (i 1 I 1 x I 5o vTCLcrr \ \I I EAZEMEN I ~-,c.- 2 5 1 r yl `I ~ I ,•---2.s o / N \ \ h Q•~/ sect[ r. t l s.;. zs _ rtso sso ` .42 _ NE?se:&.e - _w -H N o-A, COURT 1 .O ZKO 9/os _/iO.oo• ro.oo• •ts.rr. I _ !(1,~./(j\ [p~,1 X .+v - - road ~ ~.r+ O P \ P \ 9 a n t v I CURVE DATA i ti.-I. rat IF ^ rnasc ^ rgoaas[ 4 r.n. • co•odoY ~'3do Rso.oo All \ rio. .vevasebra C g~% sq \ tr 52.34 \ o - \ \ a roa. v •so.oo sl•zdsr 6~ t ti ~_---No \ t R. znoo -rar. A 11 sr.~ s ss.c \ \ nse % L•al.cc o . \ Ul \ o C•24.62 / O iiD.de' •ry N~ SB'~7C \ \ H C8•Y44•2f tee x ~ . \ ri9.sr• aA. craioY \ ee ao• ve.m' ` gG.rr• O •2oo \ . p L•aoc.as \ . 2 a_ U \ \ y C.zr.cs p \ \ o, I Cc.RS•atah \ I S 9\ s rracs.c\, .:r og 3 I ria nxsc ~cncwo tANF_ z~ PRELIMINARY PLAT SCALE: /".=/00' -GRANDVIEW ACRES- APPLICANT ENGINEER: WAVERLY CONSTRUCT/ON BURTON ENGINEERING B 31835 S. W. COUNTRY VIEW DR. SURVEYING W/LSONWLLE, OREGON 97070 302 TIGARD PLAZA PH 694-5505 (HALL BLVD. 8 PAC/F/C HWY. ) TI GA RD, OREGON 97223 OWNER: PH: (503) 639-6116 KENNETH WAYM/RE FAX 639-6117 31835 S. W COUNTRYV/EW DR. WIL SONV/L L E, OREGON 97070 PH: 694- 5505 4q 44 rogA (r 1~~ STs. l2'` srs• >W,,9 26n I (NARY pROFIL2S pR2LttA R SF-NNER gTORM D S.W. mojjt4,TA BRING N n1 TON ENGINE N ' BY. BUR SURVEYING 6► TI GARO PLAZA .5 302 OREGON 9 vi. ` TIGARD, - 639_61,16 vi 2 4 pH: t FAX 639-_ gt 17 to , s VI W 7 gfi00 ~ 3 ' 0-f-00 to, A4409T~101'51A) s~RM S~tN~R tATr'-P 1 L ONE /2"sT 15sr, 1S"" S7Ts ArcvAy PRELIMINARY PROFILES FOR STORM SEWER LAT.ONE k AND s. W. RMONDA CT. V1 ~C BY-BURTON ENGINEERING ,h N a SURVEYING Z 302 TIGARD PLAZA ~a TIGARD, OREGON 97223 3 y R PH-1503) 639-61 t6 ~Cp,~ 839-6 t i 7 ~f t j •t~i ~ ~ ~Q ~X 250 N, - 2ftD - - N 23f1 w ' ~ \ 7 ~ ~f ~ bt04 !o 0 t66 ! Z J SNAP/RO S ASSaCIAM5 ~ ineeiin SCA~1 11 9 HILL HESTER I i{ 1730 5-W Sky/i B/find &Irre'riny TEAfPLL1'UN ESTATES is' the name rcr;erved far t1". Sub.'s PO,-116717d, O/~°g0 S ®/onnin~ Prelim. approval, hardboard signec• 1 etc. Aase i wI u A.Ar 1A I kiC?blt7 za QUR _ 43. 'aa c a.~;.'1`r St~y•s~~~, w .d ~1~ I c 9p, UEti9 A ZZ [ o. ]F;tD G y1.C"3' ,Ir-'.~-r k7.tYi~i- ty o•~• ~ '~o.ca7• N~Pf ~ b g 10 0~• v ~ ~ a. • 2 G. cr: Q M • r3 y, 1~' i1 rratc' x.ao' 1,J G'+~• 56'C"I'C:. LZo.SC•' . i • ►~1 O`~ "g0'dJ' G G 2 3 I IJ 0 p Q~m o C u1 ^ I f'S v S Q° Z m N z: n}-- O~ lopw CC Ld4 T~ h Gee rte' t-a; h~ LAC' Cr ' By • c 5' Co 0 ry t••~ \.i I I.J Q b~ I• I - • j---... "r' w 4 ~ - ~ - - -z.~-- . 'gyp _ r 60916 (7_- c ala1 10 biL7)~^ 6ct'1 d •N , -)F• Cam' Q r 1 r J'' ~O9.5C~'Ol 1~ 3Sor.9' ' & In MDUQTWQV~aw "am& G.~. 1 ~'•v,9r.P~'~2~'OZ'W ~-fv.~~-- C•, " ~ - ~5c..a11'•• ~ JF< N y~~ '1., . _ ~ .•_..,.+..m-+e.f.ewal7+e::~+-wa:..:x. _e-.v- Z ~ ,~Q G ' Z haccby F.a~1.s~ L\.;~. ~mc.•-w cRI:C!r 0 t..a bc• ca -}-r..C n•x) ~-co.c.~ <opy . :~~rJC=a `~1 0 C ~ ~r }•r-.c ori.~,.~,a1 (~tn~ cSr-~. ~ ~~(7C^f.J(7: - Ttmpl~k.. Uc.~c~ CIO C« rk~}cSSou rxl ~.l ,nc..rc~laf.M.<"i r:'1~ 1' 1 .,t.. A •-~J w (jy~ 0 ~Icn fo Cqj pecC "1r' • 'Sa Iran Pm) 5-,-.4- 5 . ter. Herb.-~•L .T r•~\'+ee.re,; rr(l/.-L~ p.l..°s ~1o."loey ( j ~ ~Q'?IJ OF f?~>~l~RlfsC, !.►,1•JU,5uRV5'~'• 1,A1'+'O S G.. 5031 _ CUCZ~ErDn=~-a _ ~ c uaa.i~. ...L_. p~U-ra Rla~~i~.r1= 4-ucc>•+ Tal.,~ ~/.,z C+-~c~etC_ ~ _ I _ - - •z-- 1..149+:$ra r- -4 C> C - + 31~l39' tJ"1ZI'?..6"W ZPa•r Z' --i~,•-~ igPrr~`7'cn~ 1~?o:cx:~..•,-.-L_,~G'•9S' ~....i`~~'.°..~._.' 1.11SB•?sP~~Q:~ Z't.cf~~,• ' - of -~iGAR~ SECTIC)N p pA~ EM~N S. MpuNTAlN\J'E -~~pICA~- R 8 a D 5.~•~ox C 5:1 max; 3 solo a Za mtn ~ gala . • . Np SCA • YPICAL N PAVEMENT gIQEt~ALK T DESIG 5ECTIOiN ING AVERAGE CENTER IESTRIC- DAILY SPEED TRAVEL TURN TIONS TRAFFIC FAVED CURB LANE LANE RJ~a gIDTE1 LANE 8' Min) D sign Classification WIQTH ( c 45 . g '?6000 Y A 124" PIC TRAFFIC 141 12' 3,, (3j4„_0+') g~ STUDY 11500 35 12„(2"0") ARTERIAL - , Y 10,000 4" AC „ 5` MAJOR 94' 10' 500 25 1-211 k2%1-() COLLECTOR 60' 121 Y 3,000 . COMMERCIAL - - N 20 t3/4 -uk) AC 5+ 401 25 MINOR 60 20' {}1500 ? COLLECTOR 2+ N T` INDUST 1?' 34% 50' LOCAL d= Oqmwk , ~rY aF -~~~~RpN.~ SE~T10N ct~AD PA~~ NuE 9VI S•w' A o~ . F E mox 5:1 max 2°l0 2'' ma x 3 `G 2°/ m1n tyO M;A1 . . e . •u b• • s o O• • E)( ING NO SCAB PAVEMENT SIDE«ALK TYPICAL DESIGN PARKING AVERAGE SPEED SECTION CENTER MSTMC- DAILY TRAVEL TURN T1010S TRAFFIC PAVED CURB LANE LANE WIDTIA LANE D Design Classification g1DT11 thin.) 45 6000 A B • 4" AC 8, 141 3" (3/4"U') ST 1x500 35 12"12"(") 60' -90 XIS~G y 101000 ARTERIAL - ~4-,- MAJOR Art' 500 12" l2"-0") COLLECTOR 60' Y 12' r 14, r _ 2},~ 1"_p" 5 40; 25 " I+IINO N r COLLECTOR - I~yDUSTRIAL 34' 50' LOCAL CITY OF TIGARD TYPICAL ROAD PAVEMENT SECTION FOR S.W. RHONDA CT. A 6'0° P.U.E. B 6V P.U.E. D (l: . .max • 2 %mip L% min -a. 2 % 7" (2"-0") Rock NO SCALE PAVED CENTER PARKING TYPICAL R/W CURB TRAVEL AVERAGE DESIGN PAVEMENT Classification WIDTH WIDTH LANE LANE TURN RESTRIC- DAILY SPEED SECTION SIDEWALK (Min.) LANE TIONS TRAFFIC A B C D E F TRAFFIC ARTERIAL ' STUDY 14' 12' 12' Y >6000 45 esign 8' MAJOR 9" AC COLLECTOR 16' Y 1,500 - 60' 44' 10'000 35 311(3/411-011) 8' COMMERCIAL 10' - 12"(2"0") MINOR , COLLECTOR 60 40 14' - 12' Y 50( - 25 4'A 4"-0") 5' INDUSi T w 20' - - N 3,000 12-- FUTURE ^ P R P 0 S E D 31" AC LOCAL 50' 34' 17' 7` 2` N !1,500 25 2"(3/4"-0") 51. 711(2"-011) O tgt~C 1 - .:.G _4- ' _ - ~Ji ~ ~ rx ~ 4 C # ( ~ i4i, ifiD, A7 ~ `..71 1 ~ - i d6s' SE~.f1E.fl2 / $ - s ~ ~ 9 f ~ i _3e a2L E 'C! !r i _ t% ~ - SEE.SiI~~ S,`ffi.9~3'4IAIFE - _ 4 - J. _ - n119 ski--)y i ii ilf3~-~i~ _ ~ ~ - ' +ulf , t•-• j~ 14 ~ i i /a.. E fit ° ~4_. 1 I ~ i t t r if '~7 ter. i + ~ ds ot~ 3s'ESwT. ~ t E f - ~I~~°I I/L•5 tOpx6Db. iioT ilr ! t =T~ c.; 1 i L•n T A _ r .r i /C~I'T2`:.STa4 LGvxCR ~TG.PNG I r I ~ - Qrc f~.roT o ~4Tr»cMa4 ' LAT AZ-z LAT, A'+ LAT A 2 - - c ---~--T;~ _ abo _ _ LAT A2_:_~ A T A 4 ` 1 c , . 2Ta i ~ ~lo eL,DLn ';0.00 ! ® ~ ~ F t r'~s/ (,~h ~ r- , r ~ t ~.i.i !240 ~~p~_ ~ - ! i ...9 r r• ! IN1 I 2 I' i '~z 7~y - 1d4.r 1 I 2 0. 3 ~ MQI AI•'t I co 7~.q" .i , - 7 ...J IouT•118.15 , 6~• 3.00 I 0.00.00 ZJ ; ~ i -j.. _ I q - - TOP~247.s2 ~ I j •ZG'O.G9 GRAD P MT•246.89 1 ~ MHN'!•t , { ~ • axnG IN=2)8.61 I 3 +59.30 ~ ~,J,. 2 I ~ I MH At•) I G ND=1:60.2 { x~ ; ' 1 ~ D0T.2 1. Tit 271.31 11ao_ : _ zp 3 ra I ...av_1 a 5_'.23.D0.__. x i ~ ' _GRND rL71:8:. Z~l~tj I ' FLAT TOP, Mn li(2=~-TOP=255.' ~ 2 i I MN'At•I 2 •411• ~ t92 . .•-ifl•~2T63:!"D. I GRND~255•;5 i • OUT•a64.42~. 2x,01.00, . TOF• 2C_3.Of i • - MA2.2 MMAL.2~1 02 i ! i I ToP=24o.7a N :2 IN•'248.6;2 ~ ~ ! t••75.10~••.: ,gHA4-1 , ~ I ~ GR q 43.0 ; o pp i L„a,.. i OUT= 248.5.7 I ToP•z4~•oS i0P=244.88: I. 59.00 { (GRND=;240.7 IN=2137.55: I ! GRND•246.9' I~ TOP=2:54.5) 0..1. Tp-,-T.33~4Z~. _ - : 23 . ••~•i?7.R.__ . 23oGRN0.243•o•.OIIT.'239:67.:...13 RNDri254.5 • I I , I I ~ ~ z o. Inxz3lf.YT 290; L:••. • ~ In: 23T.5S•UTA2-2 I fA IA~2q~S.T.3' .OUT 2`)5.921.46.00. I ~ ouTx237.~5 ~ i .r ~ I I B" ~ I I OUT=2'ugpl ; j ' zOJ•;42~ - 8~ I 276.00 • 8 170.00+'0~ I 175.101.8 ~ ' *„rJ7 ~ s=oLoB05. S= .5=0.0394 S=;0.0264 .•~I 150.D0'+8_ 209;30••g~ ' .0.0)54 5= 0,.0064 , 0.100 II I 2 3! q! y 1 i 5=0.049q S=O.oyo3 ~ • S 00 0 ~ 00 I. AS 971LT .t.n. 6~BI •nexencer+ro=w.nwuonor[t 6 ' ~p• OD aw• 2 1 2• ~ .3 ~ 4 . . VERTICLE DATUM EITY OF ?IGAR[' TO~OGRAPW^ MAPPING n(Y= • sLC CITY OF TIGARD , OREGON ~ • IR N0. 114 El-2aB7G ~ • , =••<m . ~ S.w. Mc00aA.0 Sr~EE. LAT. A2' 0.00 TO 6 93 ~ NH• ~ RRS N0. 115 El • 27975 3 26-91 ;AGENDA ~►4 -,,,•y„ SA ITARY SEWER Llo 'LAT. A2-2 0±00•TO 1+75!0 ~ " '°'t ~ SEE SHT 2 FOR S~Df SwR ~ .r,f~;_-<`o• dRH .Harm-McMonagle ASSOCIOiCS ~ ~ i - ~..~iy..x ' • - _ , , ~ s. _ . ~1 I IbTE:'`R' ffiIt3CttGFI ~ i4 ct _ _ G 1:~ , .I , . • f _ Win'? - x. ~ _ ..I ~ _ 1 • : ~ I. - - • ~ ~ w ~ I ~ ~ i . ~ _ _ C ~ I- ~ r G.~ • " Y iG',,. „ s„. . {v. 4: ~ _ ~ - _ ~ ~ ~C'r,.'I~ ' 1. s't 7i. 1 d' , r ~ ~ r~i. DE HAAS Suite 300 - AGC Center 9450 S.W. Commerce Circle Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 ...:A~ ssociates, Inc. (503) 682-2450 / (503) 682-2451 FAX ( Consulting Engineers b Surveyors ~C" March 25, 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Lautt's Terrace (SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037) Grandview (SUB 90-007/VAR 90-0011) I represent Ronald and Anna Lautt with respect to their application for approval of a preliminary plat for Lautt's Terrace. Lautt's Terrace and Grandview are interrelated and the Owners of each have cooperated in the planning of their development to compliment each other. Inasmuch as a common roadway is involved, joint planning and sharing of costs have been deemed necessary. Accordingly, the Planning Commissioners heard both items before making their decision on each. We respectfully request that the Council follow the same procedure. Sincere j. Marlin J. e Haas, P.E., P.L.S. Presiden cc: 90.023.546 Lautt MJD/sd 023LTR.M25 1 March 27, 1991 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0007 AASE B. OTTO, OWNER WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPER NPO #6 FOUND FLAG LOTS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURRROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF NPO #6, HOWEVER, HERE ARE THE FLAG LOT LOCATIONS THAT I AM PERSONALLY AWARE OF IN THE AREA BETWEEN SW DURHAM RD, HALL BLVD, AND PACIFIC HWY: 1 NEAR CORNER OF SW MCDONALD AND SW 97TH 3 HOMES ON SW EDGEWOOD 2 OR 3 ON SW O'MARA 4 ON SW CRESMER OFF GARRETT 1 SW 100TH, NEAR TOP OF HILL 6 NEW SUBDIV. SW 100TH & SW KABLE 3 ON SW KIMBERLY OFF MURDOCK 2 ON SW SERENA AROUND CORNER FROM KIMBERLY 4 OR MORE ON SW REILING 1 ON SW 92 UP AROUND CORNER FROM REILING CONSEQUENTLY I BELIEVE WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT FLAG LOTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. MAXIMUM DWELLINGS FOR THIS PARCEL 11 UNITS, YET WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR A 10 LOT SUBDIVISION, WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BEING 7635 SQFT AND THE LARGEST LOT 10,059 SQFT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY 'IMPACTED BY THIS SUBDIVISION. LOT LINES HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY LAID OUT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE AS MANY OF THE OLD CEDAR ANU FIR TREES ON THE PROPERTY AS POSSIBLE. FURTHERMORE SINCE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN NOVEMBER 1980 I HAVE PLANTED ADDITIONAL TREES TO FURTHER INSURE PRIVACY AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROPERTY. ARSE B. OTTO 14200 SW 97TH TIGARD, OR 97224 i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. J~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: March 13, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Subdivision PREVIOUS ACTION: P.C hros. on 1/8 and Approval SUB 9)-0013. VAR 90-0037 L40L3CY 1/21/91 PREPARED BY: Jerry Off ^ Assoc. Planner DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN REQUESTED BY: Ed Muryh Comm. Dev. Dir. ISSUE 1. Is the City committed to reapproving subdivision design approved more than ten years ago for which the approval has long been invalid? Sewer lines have been installed consistent with the earlier plat but no other development had occurred. 2. Should the City approve a variance to allow an offset intersection on a minor collector street when other development options may exist that would not require an offset intersection? - INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 22, 1991, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for Subdivision approval by Ronald and Anna Lautt for a seven lot subdivision south of McDonald Street and east of SW Mountainview Lane. NPO #6 has appealed the decision citing concerns related to the granting of a subdivision variance to allow a 65 foot intersection offset along SW 97th Avenue whereas Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.G states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. Factors cited by the Planning Commission in approving the subdivision and variance requests included a 1981 Planning Commission approval of an identical preliminary plat for this property and the installation of sanitary sewers corresponding to that plat approval through a local improvement district. The property owner has since been assessed for the sewer improvements. Staff and the NPO had both recommended denial of the requested preliminary plat approval and variance, as well as recommending denial of a proposed subdivision (SUB 90-0007/Waverly) to the south that also would include the offset intersection with SW 97th Avenue and SW Elrose Street. The NPO's appeal form and minutes of meetings discussing the proposal are attached. The Planning Commission's final order, the applicant's submittal, and the staff report are attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Affirm the Planning Commission's decision. Direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the decision. 2. Deny the subdivision and variance requests and direct staff to prepare a corresponding final order, SUGGESTED ACTION Deny the subdivision and variance requests and direct staff to prepare a corresponding final order. i CCSUM.ZC PRELIMINARY PLAT A~ECT SITE SIT.- UTT S TERRACE o rxls,f 21 " 51 0 8 ,a _ A .Exis4. 6" Wa&r oO I y b ~ Oui i /2!5/NO x.735 190 .e• :t /215 bid ~ ~b-/n Sn v fo tby/iyl!>` r rJ.H n 5f~`~('~Q .••:e~8i•d~•b t4s.eo'... rj ( ~ /.,,J ''S7' i 75.OL» AC-1 TY MAP 226 ` di I ezal 311 32 N D J! t1,d.pyD` t~o~. se •b•E 0. 5 - ~ 250 yy1 g 2 e $ n - < < ox ->'~~a S.W, MCDDIVALD ST. Z d :SS ~ B95L : O -Jl•L5 ~ C 1. 7 ~ A LI 'S PL NTAT/ON $ n OME A J t X51.%+' 4V V c~ Ceeee 35 1e.5't 8 .Ii' S ` 2 1 7 •'SO'eT'L ISS•4.1' 8 \ 5452 Z 22S 1--220 2 Leg w I L~•y.ao. Z40 _ . i New WaterMpiil 2~5 I-AUT~~ ~E~~ CF 1 SITE PLAN - Stale 1", 100' S.w C-1. 105F 5T. S. W. Rf/O/JQ4 GI ~ R/w w R/w SOLAR REST t I ? ~ _ ! a~c,flr~ ~1 PROPD ED \ =.I %6RANDVIEW ACRE5,, \ C/Oss NO& s I' Uess C. 2' Yi Cru3&d Rout I ' Ov Re 8' 2 =0' Crushed Rock 4u/ied Wii/:ln One Year SW NDblN1A1n1Yl(W I) TYPICAL STREET SECTION GENERAL SITE PLAN `~~5t5,~~rr' L 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY N.T.S. ' • N.TS. ' ~llf 1 D~M~ iMID Afi'DKD lW.>fOf1. A♦DC C/.1W DE HAAS oWncr: Ronald coll>t PRELIMINARY PLAT W/O S.W. 97t° Ave. 74 ssociates, Inc. r °"d ~ °`~°n 97 LA T A r 03J 620- o UTT S TERRACE 4 LAND USE DECISION APPEA TILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code therefore sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. C1 OF TIGA The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper OREGON form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED:- L/2 a'~1/1,74n OO~~ ~-t awn c e~ 90-003 7 Z4G"r e7`~Cca:,S 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: /V/~CJ S • -72fat 7-'X8 J jT17/~ 49 . bea 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: ~C 'vZ 5. DATE NOTICE OF M- 6. SIGNATURE(S) : CJ *-X-X)(X)() DECISION WAS GIVEN: -x-x- xxxx)tx~E xxx~HHF1Ex)Ex,txxx)Exxxxxxxxx~Fxx FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: Date: Ti Z09I Time Approved As To Form By: Date: Time: Denied As To Form By: _f Date: Time: _ Receipt No. r"ui U/).4vr( W& Amount:_ xxxxxx-x-x-x-xxxxxxxxxxxxxx~tx xxxxxxxxxr~x-x~x'xaxxxX-xxxac-Kx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x*x-xxxxxXcx-x•x-x-x• 13125 SW Hall Blvd., RO, Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 NPO #6 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 11, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:31 pm. Members in attendance were: Carver, Dillin, Kasson, Mitchell, Pasteris and Wilson. Crow was out of town and Clinton, Davenport and Watson were unavailable by phone. This special meeting was called so that the NPO could voice their opinion on whether or not to appeal the Planning commission decisions of approval on the Grandview and Lautt Subdivision requests. After much discussion the following motions were made: On the Lautt/DeHaas Subdivision 90-0013 Variance 90-0037 - The NPO moved to appeal this approval because this plan is out-dated. We see granting a varianace for Rhonda Court as inappropriate. This applicant appears to be working with the applicant for the Grandview subdivision and the NPO last July approved a new plan that was submitted by Grandview that eliminated the need for Rhonda Court. if the applicant of the Lautt subdivision would work with this newer plan they would find that they could access their property in the Southeast corner using the same road system that would be serving Grandview. Please see Exhibit "A". On the Waverly Construction/Grandview Subdivision 90-0007 Variance 90-0011.- The NPO moved to appeal this approval because we had previously reviewed this same plan and found it lacking in livability (there is no sense of "neighborhood" in this proposed layout) and there was a question concerning the need for two accesses to SW 97th from this plan. Further, the NPO had already reviewed and recommended for approval a new plan submitted by the applicant on July 10, 1990 that created a livable neighborhood and eliminated the need for flag lots and the proposed Rhonda Court. Please see Exhibit The above motions were passed unanimously! After stating for the record that the February 20th meeting would not be held this meeting was adjourned at 8:45. I I~ I i D so rrriur5~ ~ ~ ' , t F45EMFJti r ,mil ~s - t1- 6 -I2 - 90 89- 426 i~ ~ ~ 7 ae + ry1\ \ 2S' i1Tl4~y ~t W A"Ai, Ql V/ IJ 35it7EO~ha` rv \ ~ 1 i 2Sq L. 0- f ~0 2 6n STAFF NOTE--' T14E ALPO 5 PAE FE9>2ED 'Foy T14tf WAVEPLY1(Sgjq,-,jDV1ER) -SuOVIVI-~IW- TlqE FL A AJANIn1 C- CoM1n / S5 /oaJ l2E V I E W ED TN / S A- 41V 1N ju(-y, 11clo 51~.Tr 'PIo AloT- 7-AKE I-iNA& AcTiG,~J OtJ THE PRO Pus A L . THE APR-1 C AN r Ajj rHDQe1,J Tlq I S PL ,91,j A FTE-k TN E C014M15S /ONS , 1/jCA1. -TNE /JPO WOULD LIKE THE 1-1114T7- S013DIVl,5 vhN TO P VO /;~K kOI 7-kl 7N /S P t~l~ • 5 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 91-04 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION (SUB 90-0013), VARIANCE (VAR 90-0037), AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS 90-0021) REQUESTED BY RONALD AND ANNA LAD`" (DEHAAS AND ASSOC.) i The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at public hearings on January 8 and 22, 1991. The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision SUB 90-0013 Variance VAR 90-0037 Miscellaneous MIS 90-0021 REQUESTS: 1) Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 2.05 acre site into seven parcels ranging between 8,554 and 12,025 square feet in size; 2) a Variance to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.6.1 to allow a 65 foot center to center line separation of intersecting streets whereas this Code requirement specifies a minimum center line separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections; 3) Lot Line Adjustment approval to result in the current area of tax lot 111 being split between the proposed subdivision's lot 6 and tax lot 109 to the east. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION - Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION - R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: DeHaas & Associates, Inc. (Marlin DeHaas) 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 300 Wilsonville, OR 97070 OWNERS: Ronald & Anna Lautt 14110 SW 97th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 LOCATION: 14110 SW 97th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 11BA, Tax lots 101, 105, 111, and possibly 109 for lot line adjustment) 2. Background Information On June 26, 1981, the Tigard Planning Commission reviewed a subdivision proposal to divide the subject property into eight lots (S 5-81). The file for the current application includes a letter from the applicant's engineer noting that the Planning Director at that time had "verbally approved' a variance to the local street alignment standard. No evidence is found that the Planning Commission formally addressed the street alignment issue. The proposed subdivision plat was approved by the Commission but the plat was never recorded with Washington County. That approval expired in 1982. The current preliminary plat is essentially the same as the earlier proposal except that tax lot 109 to the east which was proposed as part of that subdivision application has FINAL ORDER - LAUTTJDEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 1 c subsequently been created separately (Minor Land Partition file MLP 19-81). No other land use or development applications regarding these parcels have been reviewed by the City. 3. vicinity information The subject parcels are surrounded by other properties designated Low Density Residential by the Comprehensive Plan and which are zoned R-4.5. Properties to the north are developed with a number of single family residences fronting on SW McDonald Street. Properties to the west were recently developed with single family residences within the Solarcrest subdivision. A large parcel directly to the east contains one single family residence. This parcel, as well as another parcel to the southeast share a driveway with the subject parcel. Three properties directly to the south contain one single family residence, but these three parcels, owned by Aase Otto, are currently also under review by the Planning Commission for subdivision into ten lots (SUB 90-0007). This other subdivision proposal is dependent upon a shared public roadway with the subdivision currently under review. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject site consists of three tax lots comprising approximately 2.05 acres. A mobile home and several outbuildings are located on Tax Lot 101. The parcels contain a combination of open grass covered and uncovered recently filled areas along with a number of large fir trees. Properties slope to the north and the east into a distinct drainageway roughly centered along the property's northern border. The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into seven lots as illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. The existing mobile home is intended to be removed. The subdivision is proposed to be provided with public street access by development of an approximately 300 foot long cul-de-sac street extending from SW 97th Avenue to a circular turnaround. The street would be located along the southern edge of the property. All lots except for proposed lot 1 would have frontage on this proposed street. It is intended that right-of-way dedication and street improvements for this street would be shared with the proposed subdivision on the Otto property to the south (SUB 90-0007). The preliminary plat's typical street section does not indicate how the right-of-way and street improvements would be split between the two proposed subdivisions, nor does the applicant's statement provide details on how the street would be built if these subdivisions are not developed concurrently. The applicant has requested a variance to Code Section 18.164.030.G.1 which requires a minimum street center line separation of 300 feet for staggered intersections. The proposed new street along the southern edge of the property would form an approximately 65 foot offset from the center line of SW Elrose Street on the other side of SW 97th Avenue. The Subdivision application (as shown) also would necessitate approval of a lot line adjustment between tax lot 111 and tax lot 109 to the east or else a 105 by 20 foot remnant parcel would be created to the east of proposed lot 6. The suggested lot line adjustment would result in the current area of tax lot 111 X0.9 acre) being split between the proposed subdivision's lot 6 and tax FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 2 i a 1 lot 109. The needed lot line adjustment is not described in the application or illustrated on the maps that have been submitted. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be provided by an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer line on the property. The sanitary sewer line includes several T's for sewer laterals to serve individual homes. The existing sanitary sewer line was constructed through a local improvement district in the 'early 1980s to coincide with the subdivision design proposed for this property in 1981. The property owner has been assessed for the future development potential of the property for approximately nine years. Storm drainage is proposed to be collected by a storm sewer within the proposed street that would extend to the northern edge of the property between proposed lots 5 and 6. The storm sewer would discharge to the open drainage way along the northern property line. Water service is proposed to be extended into the subdivision from a six inch water line along SW 97th Avenue. 5. Agency and NPO Comments Y' t , The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: s 4 a. The site accesses to S.W. 97th Avenue, a major collector street. The applicant has requested a variance, to Section 18.164.030 of the Community Development Code, to allow a "T" intersection with a collector (S.W. 97th) to be within 65 feet of the intersection of S.W. Elrose Street on the opposite side of S.W. 97th. The proposed access point does not meet the criteria, as per Section 18.164.030.6.1., requiring that streets making "T" intersections with collectors have a minimum of 300 feet of separation. The Engineering Division has also been requested by the Planning Department to make comments on a proposed subdivision, SUB 90-0007, which is located adjacent to and south of this proposed subdivision. The common point of interest would be the proposed access road, S.W. Rhonda Court, which would access to S.W. 97th Avenue. The City Council directed the Engineering Department to review options for future development of the area bounded by McDonald Street, 93rd Avenue, Inez Street, and 97th Avenue. Several conceptual plans (see attachments) were prepared by the staff. All of the options meet the requirement of 300 feet of separation for "T" intersections, and appear to provide adequate traffic circulation and adequate emergency access to the neighborhood. Our joint (Planning and Engineering) review of these conceptual options indicates that buildable lots can be developed, in compliance with Community Development Code standards. If this subdivision is developed prior to development of the surrounding area, it will be necessary for the developer to provide a minimum of 34 feet of right-of-way and half street improvements to include a minimum of 24 feet of street surface. Based on any of the street alignment options that the staff has reviewed, there would be an initial burden on this developer but he may be able to recoup his investment under the new Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 13.08. PAGE FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 3 C 0 t If this subdivision is developed along with SUB 90-0007 and using any one of the options proposed by staff, there would be no additional burden on either of the applicants. In fact, there may be a savings to the applicants if they pursue the options as provided in Chapter 13.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Therefore, we conclude that a workable street system can be developed for the area and that would not require any variances. :•t b. Sanitary sewer service is available from an existing 8" line on the property and surrounds the said property except on the south side. The existing sanitary sewer line was constructed through a local improvement district in the early 19801s. The applicant has requested a variance to the street alignment based on the fact the sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the currently proposed lot and street configuration. Based on staff's review of all options it is clearly evident that, with the options that we have reviewed, the existing sanitary sewer lines would be able to serve more than just the proposed configuration. C. The applicant is proposing to run the storm drainage system into the existing creek that runs along the north property line. This may still be accomplished and is not dependent upon the street/lot layout. d. The Engineering Department recommends denial of the submitted preliminary plat and proposed variance to the Community Development Code Sec. 18.164.030.4.G because of the substandard street intersection and the traffic safety problems that it would create. The Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: a. The street should be paved prior to issuance of building permits, or a monetary performance assurance should be provided. b. Prior to approval for issuance of building permits, silt barriers shall be installed along all curbs abutting private and public streets. The barriers shall consist of hay bales or silt fences. If the lots have a slope of 5% or less, the barrier can be in the form of; excavating along the entire street frontage for six inches below the top of the curb, for five feet back, and placing six inches of clean gravel in the excavation. Where 'curb drops' occur, an approved silt barrier shall be installed (i.e, wheel chair ramps, unused driveway drops, etc...). C. If the existing buildings are to be removed, a demolition permit will be required. d. The existing building which will cross the new property line between proposed lots 4 and 5 must be removed. The existing building on proposed lot 3 appears to be on or near the lot line between proposed lots 3 and 4; this building will be required to meet the minimum setbacks or shall be altered to satisfy the building code construction standards for the { FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 4 G distance to the property line. e. Private storm drains shall be provided from proposed lots 1, 2, 3,4 and 7 to the open drainageway to the northeast. Easements shall be provided where the lines will cross other lots. f. The finished grade of the lots shall have a maximum slope of 2:1, or the engineer shall certify the stability of steeper slopes. This will include the slope and fill from the excavation for the foundations of the structures. g. A report from a registered soils engineer should be required for the fill material placed on the property. The report shall indicate the soil's bearing capacity and its.suitability for support of a residential structure. r t The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has commented that fire hydrants will be required within 500 feet of all portions of potential building envelopes as measured around the outside of the potential building site. The Fire District also states that the cul de sac bulb radius shown on the preliminary plat is inadequate. A minimum radius of 45 feet of driving surface is required. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommends denial of the proposed variance to allow the requested less than 300 foot intersection separation on a collector street. The NPO recommends that the subdivision proposal be redesigned to reverse the cul de sac street to align with a north-south street coming from the south as was previously proposed for the property to the south. STAFF NOTE: See the exhibits provided by the City of Tigard Engineering Department. y~ The Tigard Water District, Northwest Natural Gas, PGE, and GTE have { reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, and 8.4.1 and Community Development Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, 18,162 and 18.164. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with all of the applicable Plan policies and Code criteria based upon the findings noted below: 1. Policy 2. 1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization #6 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the public hearing on the subdivision proposal providing them an opportunity to comment on the proposal. 2. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 can be satisfied because assurance of the extension of sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities to serve the development will be required prior to approval of the final plat. A sanitary sewer presently exists on the property. A water line and storm sewer are located within SW 97th Avenue abutting the property. The open drainageway on the northern portion of the site provides another acceptable location for disposal of FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 5 10 M 111M storm drainage. The applicant has indicated that these facilities will be extended within the subdivision as illustrated on the preliminary plat. The Engineering Division has indicated that the preliminary plans for providing these utilities appear adequate. Detailed public improvement plans would need to be developed and approved prior to recording the plat. 3. Policy 8.1.1 calls for the provision'of a safe and efficient street system which will accommodate present and future needs. The proposed street plan for the subdivision is consistent with this policy because the proposed development would provide for completion of the street improvements to the existing right-of-way for SW 97th Avenue, would provide an adequate turn around area for a dead end street (Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.E.1 requires a minimum outside radius of 42 feet for the street surface of the turn around as shown rather than the 45 foot radius requested by the Fire District), and would provide the minimum pavement widths and associated improvements for the new street on the south side of the proposed development if this street is developed concurrent with redevelopment of the property to the south. If one of these proposed subdivisions is developed as proposed prior to development of the other, it will be necessary for that subdivision to provide a minimum of 34 feet of right-of-way and half street plus (24 feet of pavement) street improvements. The proposed street would allow for redevelopment of the adjacent parcels to the southeast and south without placing an undue burden on the future developers of those parcels with regard to the completion of the street improvements. Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.E does not allow the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. This standard is intended to avoid traffic safety problems due to awkward vehicular turning movements from the opposing intersections. The applicant requests a Variance to allow a local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet on a collector street for the proposed alignment. Section 18.160.120.B of the Code contains criteria for approval of a variance to a Code requirement that is being reviewed as part of a subdivision application. Criterion 1 There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. a. Preliminary plat configuration for Lautt's Terrace, Grandview Acres (Templeton Estates) and Solarcrest, (which includes SW Elrose Street) were planned jointly with owners and the City in the 1980-1981 period to accommodate and support the LID for 97th Avenue and the McDonald Sewer LID. The proposed locations of Elrose Street (Janzen) and Rhonda Court were established as a part of the LID projects (see sanitary sewer as-built plans) and are the same as proposed by this application. Sewers were constructed and assessments levied based upon this same proposed alignment. Owners were encouraged by the City to accept such configurations to facilitate the LID and the usual assessment procedures. b. Lautt filed an original preliminary plat application for this same configuration on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8-lot subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 zone. Staff conditions were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 5/22/81. The FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 6 final action staff report was dated 6/26/81. Based upon this approval, Lautt proceeded with the final plat board. Because of the state of the economy in 1981, the final plat for this project, along with numerous others, were not timely filed, and approvals expired. Criterion 2: The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. a. The sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the currently proposed lots and street configuration. b. The proposed Rhonda Court, location best serves both the proposed Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Subdivisions. C. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to individual properties to the east fall within the proposed Rhonda Court location. Criterion 3• The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. a. The proposed Rhonda Court location best accommodates rights of the owners of Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Acres in providing reasonable and attractive access to subdivision lots. It also accommodates prior access rights for individual properties to the east. b. Since 97th Avenue is a through street, both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs. Very little east-west cross traffic is anticipated between Rhonda Court and Elrose Street. Criterion 4• The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. a. The proposed street alignments were planned and approved jointly by the City and owner in this area in the 1980-1981 period. Development has occurred and property has been assessed based on these street alignments. The owner has relied upon this earlier planning and it is not practical to revise these earlier approvals. Such amendments would place an extraordinary hardship upon the applicant. 4. Policy 8.1.3 requires that adequate right-of-way and street improvements be provided for streets abutting or within a proposed development. These will be provided as noted in the conditions of approval noted in Section C. of this order. 5. Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satisfied because the sizes of the proposed lots are consistent with the 7500 square foot minimum lot size standard of the R-4.5 zone. All proposed lots should be able to be built upon in conformance with setback and maximum site FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 7 12 coverage standards of the zone without requiring variances. It is assumed that all the existing structures are to be removed. If not, all structures would need to satisfy the R-4.5 zone's setback standards., Lot Line Adjustment approval would allow the possible transfer cf a 15 by 145 foot section of existing. tax lot 106 to either of the adjacent parcels, tax lots 109 or 1100. Such an adjustment would increase setbacks for existing structures and would increase the size of either of these other parcels. Either adjustment would allow these lots to remain in conformance with the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone and would also be consistent with the Lot Line Adjustment approval criteria (Community Development Code Section 18.162.060). If an agreement is not reached by the applicant with either of the adjacent property owners for transfer of this strip of land to an adjacent parcel, the strip will need to be included in proposed lot 6. Because of the configuration of this strip of land, it is not clear what purpose would be served by attaching the strip to proposed lot 6. The strip would likely be a maintenance burden for the owner of lot 6. The Commission strongly recommends that this strip of land be transferred to an adjacent parcel rather than being attached to lot 6. 6. Chapter 18.92 is satisfied because the proposed density is consistent with Code requirements. The area of the proposed subdivision provides an opportunity for approximately nine dwelling units if developed to the full opportunity of the R-4.5 zone. The application proposes seven lots. 7. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that are removed during the course of construction be { minimized. The proposed development's streets, utilities, and residences will require the removal of a significant number of trees. However, the number of trees removed should and can be minimized. The Commission shall require that trees over six inches in diameter be removed only to construct utilities, streets, and residences. Plans for tree removal and protection must be reviewed by the Planning staff through an application for a tree cutting permit. 8. Chapter 18.160 is satisfied because the proposed plat, with the exception of the variance noted above, is consistent with the applicable Plan and code requirements that relate to this type of request. The plat name is not duplicative of other recorded plats. The Commission finds that the proposed alignment of SW Rhonda Court relative to SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue is an acceptable design given the circumstances noted in this order. 9. Chapter 18.162 is satisfied because the recommended Lot Line Adjustment would be consistent with the approval criteria for a Lot Line Adjustment as described in 5 above. 10. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) is satisfied by the preliminary plat submittal. The proposed lots meet minimum frontage and dimensional standards as required by this Chapter. In addition, the proposal would adequately provide storm drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. The typical street section and plan view of the proposed street demonstrate compliance with the majority of the street design standards of Chapter 18.162. FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 8 C. DECISION ` The Planning Commission approves SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037/MIS 90-0021 subject to ` the following conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWI14G CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Department, 639-4171. 1. The Tigardville Heights street assessments will be segregated evenly among the proposed 7 lots. The remaining principal of $13,124.80 (T.L. 00101 - $9,988.56 and T.L. 00105 - $3,136.24) shall be segregated so that six lots shall be responsible for paying and assessment of $1,874.97 and one lot shall be responsible for paying an assessment of $1,874.98. STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Lowry, Finance Dept., 639-4171. 2. Delinquent interest related to the Tigardville Heights street assessments in the amount of $1,928.58 shall be paid prior to recording the subdivision plat. STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Lowry, Finance Dept., 639-4171. 3. Prior to issuing building permits for any lot, the total outstanding assessment principal and interest for the lot on which the building permit is sought shall be paid. STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Lowry, Finance Dept., 639- 4171. 4. Lot 2 shall not be permitted to access directly onto S.W. 97th Avenue. 5. Driveway cuts shall not be permitted within thirty feet of intersecting right-of-way lines nor within five feet of property lines. 6. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel. Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. 7. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. 8. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area..shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 9. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the S.W. 97th Avenue frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to major collector street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. 10. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans-are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 9 q 11. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer- engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 12. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the S.W. 97th Avenue frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 13. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: a) Centerline Monumentation 1) In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2) The following centerline monuments shall be set: A) All centerline-centerline intersection points. B) All cul-de-sac center points. C) Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). b) Monument Boxes Required 1) Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points and cul-de-sac center points. 2) The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 14. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. In addition, the applicant shall include a typical finished floor elevation for each lot. This shall include elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan which are tied to the top of curb elevations, as shown in the public improvement plans. 15. Two-thirds street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be provided on S.W. Rhonda Court. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 16. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989." 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits the Traffic Impact Fee shall be paid. 18. A maintenance and access agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all storm drain outfalls. The agreement shall be FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 10 i I5 millillillilillill referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. 19. The applicant shall, prior to recording of plat, pay a fee in-lieu of the construction of an on-site water quality facility. 20. The storm and sanitary sewer systems shall be designed to minimize the location of manholes outside of public rights of way. The final sewer system design is subject to approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require dedication of easements and construction of access roads where necessary to provide City access for maintenance of the public sewer lines. In reviewing the adequacy of the sewer system design, the City Engineer shall give consideration to minimizing future maintenance costs to the City. 21. The applicant shall make an appointment, Pre-Construction meeting, with. the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the plans but prior to starting any work on the site. The applicant, applicant's engineer and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans/permits. 22. The applicant shall submit a lot line adjustment survey showing the existing and proposed lot lines and legal descriptions of the parcels for review and approval by the Engineering Department. THIS DECISION IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN 18 MONTHS FROM THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This S day of February, 1991, 4the ni ommission of the City of Tigard. re, Vice Presi dent ning Commission SUB90-13.PFO/kl FINAL ORDER - LAUTT/DEHAAS - SUB 90-0013 PAGE 11 s I l.l~ o ary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, said she was representing NPO # its members do not favor the design because the way the ses face . t directions does not lend itself to the nei rhood. in Brent o Aase B. Ot 14200 SW 97th, the property owner applicant, spoke about the fo ion of the LID in 1980 and t subdivision proposal approved for her •operty by the Plannin ommission at that time. She discussed the expen incurred for t sewer improvements and the preliminary plat. She icated ortion of McDonald Street and paid for the pavement and the c e said the development was not completed because it would ave been economically feasible due to the depressed housing m et at t time. She discussed the use of flag lots and the in section offs and cited examples where these have been approve or use in other s 'visions. She stated that preserving as y trees as possible was goal and would be accomplishe y the plan she proposes. o Marli . De Haas, 9450 SW Common Creek, Wilsonvill tated he is a Co lting Engineer representing the Lautt's (applican 'n 5.4). He scussed the relationship of his client's property to the o property and the preference of the proposed plan from a design perspecti . 5.4 SUBDIVISION SUB 90-013 VARIANCE VAR 90-037 LAUTT/DE HAAS (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision approval to divide an approximately 2.05 acre site into seven parcels between approximately 8,554 and 12.025 square feet in size. Also requested is a Variance to Code Section 18.164.030 (g) (1) to allow a 65 foot centerline-to-centerline separation of intersecting streets whereas the Code requires a minimum centerline separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: 14110 SW 97th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 11BA, tax lots 101, 105, & 111) Senior Planner Liden described the development design and background history. His noted the primary objection involves the street offset where Rhonda Court meets Melrose. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Stuart Kendall,`4040 Douglas, Lake Oswego, said he is an attorney representing the Lautt's. He discussed the 1980 sewer system assessment based on the plat approved by the City. He said Mr. Lautt did not file the plat at that time because the economy did not support development. He said it would not be fair for the City to require the applicants to incur the additional expense of redesigning development. o Marlin DeHaas, Consulting Engineer with OeHaas and Associates, Inc., spoke representing the Lautt's. He discussed the issue of the street offset. Regarding the 1981 LID, he presented a map showing the sewer plans with the proposed lots and streets as proposed by the City. He said the sewers were constructed and the applicant has been paying for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 6 t them since they were installed. He pointed out that the engineering and planning staff, at the time the plat was drawn up, agreed that a variance should be allowed for the street offset. He mentioned the C expense of the engineering work and plat, and reiterated that economic conditions influenced the Lautt's to put off filing the plat. He suggested it would not be economically feasible for the Lautt's to have to pay for redesign and engineering or for a new plat. He summarized saying it does not appear that conditions have changed concerning the i subject property or surrounding area to warrant changing the design of the development. o Commissioners-questioned the applicant regarding the past expenses incurred because of the sewer. There was discussion concerning the layout of the lots and the sewer locations. i o John Fullmer, 14110 SW 97th, explained his lot 8 is adjacent to lots 6 and 7. He stated he was in favor of the proposal. o Judy Rosenblum, 3300 SW Evergreen Lane, Portland, stated she owns property at 9445 SW Mountain View Lane, Tigard. She said she has been paying for three sewers on her property and the only access from her property is the current easement. o There was discussion concerning offset streets and some of the reasons for discouraging such intersections. o Marlin DeHaas spoke again representing the Lautt's. He answered questions about the design of the cul-de-sac and described the easements which service other property roads. He also provided some examples of offset intersections. o Commissioner Castile discussed the possibility of changing the design to align the street. He suggested the City might be able to waive some fees in an effort to help the owners re-design the development. There was further discussion. o Commissioner Moore expressed concern about the applicant's sewer investment and additional cost which would be incurred should it be necessary to relocate the sewer laterals. o Commissioner Fyre discussed the issues to be considered with regard to the neighbors who would be affected by the easements now in place. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 5.3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 5.4 x C ION OF 5.3 o Commissioner Fyre that Tom Burton has been working as an engineer on a project for him. Ho ommissioner advised this would not influence his decision in this hearing. C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 7 3 1~ o Commissi<Hntioned xpressed concern about the aesign layout of the two divisaid he would like to see a different plan for the com ' ed o Commissi greed that a better layout would be prefer d. He did not e street offset was a big issue, since, ere is not a large . However, he favored avoiding such street offset if possintioned there seemed to have been s unfair circumsta applicantsas a result of past ,ty policies. o Commissioner Fessler c curred that the applica have had some promises broken, and the have paid the City hey based on plans suggested or promoted by t City staff at a time the sewer was installed. She did'not thin the street fset or flag lots were overwhelming issues. She sai he fel he City has a responsibility to help the applicants so they do n h e a great deal of additional expense for the development of the property. o Commissioner Barber commented at sta nine years ago may have made some mistakes, but most pro iy the co requirement changes have caused the most trouble f the applicant She preferred to have a different layout for th randview property, and she did not favor the 20 foot shared drivew o Commissioner Fyr iscussed the offset and said i did not bother him. He noted a lot money had been spent by the apple nts and the time had come to solve the issues. There was discussio f appeal options available the applicants following the decision at is meeting. o Commis oner Castile stated he would vote to approve the p posals, thou he would prefer a different layout of the Grandview perty. * mmissioner Castile moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to prove SUB 90-0007 and VAR 90-0011 and MIS 90-0020. Motion carried by m 'ority of Commissioners present, with Commissioners Barber and Boone oppos . Commissioner Fyre abstained. ,r CONSIDERATION OF 5.4 o 'Commissioner Barber stated she was in favor of the proposed subdivision and variance, and she did not find the offset street issue a problem. o Commissioner Castile agreed with Commissioner Barber. o Commissioner Fessler concurred with the comments of the previous Commissioners. o Commissioner Boone favored approval of the application as written. * Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SUB 90-0013, VAR 90-0037, and MIS 90-00. Motion carried by a majority of Commissioners present with Commissioner Boone voting opposed. Commissioner Fyre abstained. PLANNING CQ4MISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 8 * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to request staff to prepare the Final Order for January 21st. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. 5. SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE ZOA 90-0003 A proposal to create a new chapter (18.88) of the Community Development Code to require solar orientation or construction of single family or duplex residences, and solar pe t the protection of solar devices from tree shading. AFFECTED ZO All esidential zoning districts. Senior lanner Liden provided a brief overview of the ordinanc and explaine that the ordinance was basically a translation of a model ordinance ich the Commissioner had reviewed previously. a said the date for Ci Council's review of the ordinance will be ruary 12, 1991. He out 'ned the topics of the various sections. a advised he would be propo ' g modifications to the time line re 'rements to bring them into line w h current time lines now used. o Commissioner Fyre i uired which other municipa ties have adopted Solar Ordinances. Senior P nner advised that 17 o er municipalities in the metropolitan area have opted similar ordi nces including Lake Oswego and Beaverton. Senior P ner reviewed f Commissioner Moore the background of development d described a proposal funded by the Department of Energy to Stu and deve p an ordinance for the area. He pointed out some of the benefi of veloping the model for the entire area as opposed to different or 'n ces from one city to the next. o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Cour m NPO #6 spoke about some of the draw backs for existing resid ces i ertain instances. She objected to the restrictions which c d be pla d on residents by new construction moving into a neighborhoo o Senior Planner explain plantings already i existence would be protected from the o finance. He advised that he Solar Ordinance only deals with new pla ngs and discussed exempt tr s which do not create shade in the wint . He explained the process fo otifying affected property owners CLOSE PUBLIC HEAR o Commissi er Fessler said she was not in favor of the Ordi ce for severa reasons. She discussed the complexities and problem with inter etation; and she found the setback requirements confusi , and was of convinced of the economic benefits. She suggested the inane w Id be burdensome for the nurseries and landscapers, and that t many f the same solar friendly-trees might create a mono-ecosystem. o Senior Planner addressed her concerns and commented on the positive administrative experiences thus far reported by those municipalities who have been using the Ordinance. t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 9 ~L7 5.2 SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0013 VARIANCE VAR 90-0037 LAUTT/DE HAAS (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision approval to divide an approximately 2.05 acre site into seven parcels between approximately 8,554 and 12,025 square feet in size. Also requested is a Variance to Code Section 18.164.030 (g) (1) to allow a 65 foot centerline-to-centerline separation of intersecting streets whereas the Code requires a minimum centerline separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections. (WCTM 2S1 11BA, tax lots 101, 105, & 111) APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Marlin De Haas, 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Wilsonville, spoke representing the property owners. He advised he had been unable to discuss with staff his questions concerning the proposed conditions prior to this hearing. He itemized the conditions which needed clarification as follows: Item (1) He discussed the condition requiring that the LID be paid in full; he requested the condition be deleted. Senior Planner suggested changing the wording to "Provisions of the LID 25 shall be satisfied." Item (4) He commented that common driveways were not anticipated, and he requested the item be deleted. Item (7) Sidewalk improvements were discussed, with Senior Planner advising this was a standard condition. Item (12) He did not understand why item is listed and asked that it be deleted. After discussion, it was decided that the first sentence of the condition would be kept and the rest would be deleted. Item (13) There was discussion pertaining to driveway aprons, with Senior Planner explaining the design for the driveway aprons should be provided. Mr. De Haas said he could accept this condition. Item (15) The County traffic `impact fee was clarified. Item (16) Maintenance access agreement was discussed. Senior Planner explained this provides access for the City to storm drains. Item (17) Senior Planner explained this item pertains to the Tualatin River Basin Water Quality Program. Item (18) Mr. De Haas questioned the requirement of providing a 10-foot wide paved road which Senior Planner said is intended to provide access to the manholes for cleaning by sewer crews. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 21, 1991 PAGE 2 E a Further discussion followed regarding whether staff can add to easements which have already been agreed to. It was decided that applicant and staff would discuss items and reach an agreement; and if an agreement is reached, Commissioner Fyre would sign the Final Order. t * Commissioner Fessler moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to accept Final Order 91-04 PC with the conditions listed, with the understanding F that applicant and staff will meet and reach an agreement on the conditions, and further to give Commissioner Fyre the authority to sign the Final Order. o Applicant for Item 5.1 agreed to a similar arrangement with staff. * Commissioner Castile moved and Commissioner seconded to accept Final Order 91-03 PC with the conditions listed, with the understanding that applicant will meet with staff and they will reach an agreement regarding the conditions, and further to give Commissioner Fyre the authority to sign the Final Order. 5 SUBDIVISION SUB 90-0015 SURGE/ROTH (HPO #3) A request for subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 13.7 acre site i 47 lots between approximately 7,800 and 15,100 square feet in size. lance is requested to allow a segment of a proposed local str to ha a gradient of 14 percent whereas the Community Developme Code perms a maximum grade of 12 percent. Also requested is S sitive Lands r iew approval to allow road construction and res' ential developme on slopes in excess of 25 percent. ZONE: -4.5 (Residentia 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: West of S 32nd Avenue, north o; Benchview ates, east of SW 135th Avenue (W 2S1 4, tax lot 600) Senior Planner Lide described the Subdivi n, explaining there were two phases planned. discussed the V ance request and conditions for approval. He ad is that the En eering Department proposed a change in the language for nditio 8, which he read as follows: The storm and sanitary se system shall be designed to minimize the location of manhole outs the public rights-of-way. The final sewer system d gn is sub t to approval by the City Engineer. The Cit ngineer may re ire dedication of easements and construction f access roads wher ecessary to provide city access for ma' nance of the public sewe line. In reviewing the adequacy of a sewer system design, city E 'neer shall give consider on to the minimization of future ma nance costs to the Ci He said aff recommended approval of the request subject t e condi ons of approval. issioner Fyre advised he had been doing business with Tim Roth, e applicant, and would not participate in the decision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 21, 1991 PAGE 3 as AGENDA ITEM L4 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL. 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision SUB 90-0013 Variance VAR 90-0037 Miscellaneous MIS 90-00 REQUESTS: 1) Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 2.05 acre site into seven parcels ranging between 8,554 and 12,025 square feet in size; 2) a Variance to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.G.1 to allow a 65 foot center to center line separation of intersecting streets whereas this Code requirement specifies a minimum center line separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections; 3) Lot Line Adjustment approval to result in the current area of tax lot 111 being split between the proposed subdivision's lot 6 and tax lot 109 to the east. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION - Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION - R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: DeHaas & Associates, Inc. (Marlin DeHaas) 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 300 Wilsonville, OR 97070 OWNERS: Ronald & Anna Lautt 14110 SW 97th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 LOCATION: 14110 SW 97th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 11BA, Tax lots 101, 105, 111, and possibly 109 for lot line adjustment) 2. Background Information On June 26, 1981, the Tigard Planning commission reviewed a subdivision proposal to divide the subject property into eight lots (S 5-81). The file for the current application includes a letter from the applicant's engineer noting that the Planning Director at that time had "verbally approved" a variance to the local street alignment standard. No evidence is found that the Planning Commission formally addressed the street alignment issue. The proposed subdivision plat was approved by the Commission but the plat was never recorded with Washington County. That approval expired in 1982. The current preliminary plat is essentially the same as the earlier proposal except that tax lot 109 to the east which was proposed as part of that subdivision application has subsequently been created separately (Minor Land Partition file MLP 19- 81). No other land use or development applications regarding these parcels have been reviewed by the City. SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 1 i 23 3. Vicinity Information The subject parcels are surrounded by other properties designated Low Density Residential by the comprehensive Plan and which are zoned R-4.5. Properties to the north are developed with a number of single family residences fronting on SW McDonald Street. Properties to the west were recently developed with single family residences within the Solarcrest subdivision. A large parcel directly to the east contains one single family residence. This parcel, as well as another parcel to the southeast share a driveway with the subject parcel. Three properties directly to the south contain one single family residence, but these three parcels, osmed by Aase Otto, are currently also under review by the Planning Commission for subdivision into ten lots (SUB 90-0007). This other subdivision proposal is dependent upon a shared public roadway with the subdivision currently under review. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject site consists of three tax lots comprising approximately 2.05 acres. A mobile home and several outbuildings are located on Tax Lot 101. The parcels contain a combination of open grass covered and uncovered recently filled areas along with a number of large fir trees. Properties slope to the north and the east into a distinct drainageway roughly centered along the property's northern border. The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into seven lots as illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. The existing mobile home is intended to be removed. The subdivision is proposed to be provided with public street access by development of an approximately 300 foot long cul-de-sac street { extending from SW 97th Avenue to a circular turnaround. The street S.. would be located along the southern edge of the property. All lots except for proposed lot 1 would have frontage on this proposed street. It is intended that right-of-way dedication and street improvements for this street would be shared with the proposed subdivision on the Otto property to the south (SUB 90-0007). The preliminary plat's typical street section does not indicate how the right-of-way and street improvements would be split between the two proposed subdivisions, nor does the applicant's statement provide details on how the street would be built if these subdivisions are not developed concurrently. The applicant has requested a variance to Code Section 18.164.030.6.1 which requires a minimum street center line separation of 300 feet for staggered intersections. The proposed new street along the southern edge of the property would form an approximately 65 foot offset from the center line of SW Elrose Street on the other side of SW 97th Avenue. The Subdivision application (as shown) also would necessitate approval of a lot line adjustment between tax lot 111 and tax lot 109 to the east or else a 105 by 20 foot remnant parcel would be created to the east of proposed lot 6. The suggested lot line adjustment would result in the current area of tax lot 111 (0.9 acre) being split between the proposed subdivision's lot 6 and tax lot 109. The needed lot line adjustment is not described in the application or illustrated on the maps that have been submitted. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be provided by an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer line on the property. The sanitary sewer line includes several T's for sewer laterals to serve individual homes. The existing sanitary sewer line was constructed through a local improvement district in the early 1980s to coincide with the subdivision design proposed for SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas page 2 a 3 S i i this property in 1981. The property owner has been assessed for the d future development potential of the property for approximately nine a years. Storm drainage is proposed to be collected by a storm sewer within the proposed street that would extend to the northern edge of the property between proposed lots 5 and 6. The storm sewer would discharge to the open drainage way along the northern property line. Water service is proposed to be extended into the subdivision from a six inch water line along SW 97th Avenue. i 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: a. The site accesses to S.W. 97th Avenue, a major collector street. The applicant has requested a variance, to Section 18.164.030 of the Community Development Code, to allow a "T" intersection with a collector (S.W. 97th) to be within 65 feet of the intersection of S.W. Elrose Street on the opposite side of S.W. 97th. The proposed access point does not meet the criteria, as per Section 18.164.030.6.1., requiring that streets making "T" intersections k with collectors have a minimum of 300 feet of separation. The Engineering Division has also been requested by the Planning Department to make comments on a proposed subdivision, SUB 90-0007, which is located adjacent to and south of this proposed subdivision. The common point of interest would be the proposed access road, S.W. Rhonda Court, which would access to S.W. 97th Avenue. The City Council directed the Engineering Department to review options for future development of the area bounded by McDonald Street, 93rd Avenue, Inez Street, and 97th Avenue. Several conceptual plans (see attachments) were prepared by the staff. All of the options meet the requirement of 300 feet of separation for "T" intersections, and appear to provide adequate traffic circulation and adequate emergency access to the neighborhood. Our joint (Planning and Engineering) review of these conceptual options indicates that buildable lots can be developed, in compliance with Community Development Code standards. If this subdivision is developed prior to development of the surrounding area, it will be necessary for the developer to provide a minimum of 34 feet of right-of-way and half street improvements to include a minimum of 24 feet of street surface. Based on any of the street alignment options that the staff has reviewed, there would be an initial burden on this developer but he may be able to recoup his investment under the new Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 13.08. if this subdivision is developed along with SUB 90-0007 and using any one of the options proposed by staff, there would be no additional burden on either of the applicants. In fact, there may be a savings to the applicants if they pursue the options as provided in Chapter 13.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Therefore, we conclude that a workable street system can be developed for the area and that would not require any variances. SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 3 i b. Sanitary sewer service is available from an existing 8" line on the property and surrounds the said property except on the south side. The existing sanitary sewer line was constructed through a local improvement district in the early 1980'x. The applicant has requested a variance to the street alignment based on the fact the sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the currently proposed lot and street configuration. Based on staff's review of all options it is clearly evident that, with the options that we have reviewed, the existing sanitary sewer lines would be able to serve more than just the proposed configuration. C. The applicant is proposing to run the storm drainage system into the existing creek that runs along the north property line. This may still be accomplished and is not dependent upon the street/lot layout. d. The Engineering Department recommends denial of the submitted preliminary plat and proposed variance to the Community Development Code Sec. 28.264.030.4.G because of the substandard street intersection and the traffic safety problems that it would create. The Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: a. The street should be paved prior to issuance of building permits, or a monetary performance assurance should be provided. b. Prior to approval for issuance of building permits, silt barriers shall be installed along all curbs abutting private and public streets. The barriers shall consist of hay bales or silt fences. If the lots have a slope of 5% or less, the barrier can be in the form of; excavating along the entire street frontage for six inches below the top of the curb, for five feet back, and placing six inches of clean gravel in the excavation. Where "curb drops" occur, an approved silt barrier shall be installed (i.e, wheel chair ramps, unused driveway drops, etc...). C. If the existing buildings are to be removed, a demolition permit will be required. d. The existing building which will cross the new property line between proposed lots 4 and 5 must be removed. The existing building on proposed lot 3 appears to be on or near the lot line between proposed lots 3 and 4; this building will be required to meet the minimum setbacks or shall be altered to satisfy the building code construction standards for the distance to the property line. e. Private storm drains shall be provided from proposed lots 1, 2, 3,4 and 7 to the open drainageway to the northeast. Easements shall be provided where the lines will cross other lots. f. The finished grade of the lots shall have a maximum slope of 2:1, or the engineer shall certify the stability of steeper slopes. This will include the slope and fill from the excavation for the foundations of the structures. g. A report from a registered soils engineer should be required for the fill material placed on the property. The report shall SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 4 li/ indicate the soil's bearing capacity and its suitability for C support of a residential structure. The Tualatin `!alley Fire and Rescue District has commented that fire hydrants will be required within 500 feet of all portions of potential building envelopes as measured around the outside of the potential building site. The Fire District also states that the cul de sac bulb radius shown on the preliminary plat is inadequate. A minimum radius of 45 feet of driving surface is required. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommends denial of the proposed variance to allow the requested less than 300 foot intersection separation on a collector street. The NPO recommends that the subdivision proposal be redesigned to reverse the cul de sac street to align with a north-south street coming from the south as was previously proposed for the property to,the south. STAFF NOTE: See the exhibits provided by the City of Tigard Engineering Department. The Tigard Water District, Northwest Natural Gas, PGE, and GTE have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, and 8.4.1 and Community Development Chapters 18.50, 18.92, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, 18,162 and 18.164. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is not consistent with all of the applicable Plan policies and Code criteria based upon the findings noted below: 1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning organization #6 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the public hearing on the subdivision proposal providing them an opportunity to comment on the proposal. 2. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 can be satisfied because assurance of the extension of sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities to serve the development will be required prior to approval of the final plat. A sanitary sewer presently exists on the property. A water line and storm sewer are located within SW 97th Avenue abutting the property. The open drainageway on the northern portion of the site provides another acceptable location for disposal of storm drainage. The applicant has indicated that these facilities will be extended within the subdivision as illustrated on the preliminary plat. The Engineering Division has indicated that the preliminary plans for providing these utilities appear adequate. Detailed public improvement plans would need to be developed and approved prior to recording the plat. 3. Policy 8.1.1 calls for the provision of a safe and efficient street system which will accommodate present and future needs. The proposed street plan for the subdivision is partially consistent with this policy because the proposed development would provide for completion of the street improvements to the existing right-of-way for SW 97th Avenue, would provide an adequate turn around area for a dead end street (Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.3.1 requires a minimum outside radius of 42 feet for the street surface of the turn around as shown rather than the 45 foot radius requested by the Fire District), and would provide the minimum pavement widths and associated SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 5 d ' b improvements for the new street on the south side of the proposed f^ development if this street is developed concurrent with redevelopment of the property to the south. If one of these proposed subdivisions is developed as proposed prior to development of the other, it will be necessary for that subdivision to provide a minimum of 34 feet of right- of-way and half street plus (24 feet of pavement) street improvements. The proposed street would allow for redevelopment of the adjacent parcels to the southeast and south without placing an undue burden on the future developers of those parcels with regard to the completion of the street improvements. However, the preliminary plat is not consistent with Policy 8.1.1 with regard to the location of the proposed Rhonda Court/SW 97th Avenue intersection with respect to the location of SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue. Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.E states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. This standard is intended to avoid traffic safety problems due to awkward vehicular turning movements from the opposing intersections. The applicant requests a Variance to allow a local street intersection offset of approximately 65 feet on a collector street for the proposed alignment. Section 18.160.120.8 of the Code contains criteria for approval of a variance to a Code requirement that is being reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The applicant's engineer, Mr. Marlin DeHaas, has provided responses to each of the variance criteria. Staff has provided comments in response to the applicant's comments with regard to the requested variance. Criterion 1 There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. Applicant's Response: A. Preliminary plat configuration for Lautt's Terrace, Grandview Acres (Templeton Estates) and Solarcrest, (which includes SW Elrose Street) were planned jointly with owners and the City in the 1980-1981 period to accommodate and support the LID for 97th Avenue and the McDonald Sewer LID. The proposed locations of Elrose Street (Jantzen) and Rhonda Court were established as a part of the LID projects (see sanitary sewer as-built plans) and are the same as proposed by this application. Sewers were constructed and assessments levied based upon this same proposed alignment. Owners were encouraged by the City to accept such configurations to facilitate the LID and the usual assessment procedures. , B. Lautt filed an original preliminary plat application for this same configuration on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8-lot subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 zone. Staff conditions were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 5/22/81. The final action staff report was dated 6/26/81. Based upon this approval, Lautt proceeded with the final plat board. Because of the state of the economy in 1981, the final plat for this project, along with numerous others, were not timely filed, and approvals expired. At any rate, the record shows that the currently proposed configuration was approved by the City in 1981. C. SW 97th is not a new street and development patterns of the intersecting streets have been pretty much determined. The major { SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 6 ~8 accesses from Twality Junior High are separated from Murdock Street and Pembrook Street by approximately 50 feet and 270 feet respectively. While it is reasonable to require the 300 foot criterion for new major collector streets, it is unreasonable to retroactively apply the standard to a street already having a development pattern, which causes a great difficulty in conforming. D. The use of the major collector designation for 97th is quite marginal in that it is only approximately 2,000 feet long, has a "T" intersection at McDonald Street, and ends at a sharp curve at Murdock Street. Staff Response: Staff agrees that the prior actions of the Planning Commission in approving the Lautt and Templeton Estates subdivisions and the local improvement district are certainly special circumstances which have previously affected the property. However, we do not find that these past circumstances need to dictate what happens today. Although the design submitted by the applicant, and the applicant for SUB 90-0007 work well in relation to the existing sewers, the applicants for these subdivision proposals have not shown that these are the only designs, or the best designs, which will work for division of these properties. The applicant for SUB 90-0007, in fact, has previously submitted a preliminary plat for review by the Planning Commission which also works well with respect to the existing sanitary and storm sewer locations. This previous plat does not require any of the requested variances involved in the present subdivision approval requests. It appears to staff that this application should have included consideration of this previous proposal and determined whether or not that arrangement could work for the Lautt property. The Engineering Division has done some conceptual layouts of the Otto and Lautt properties that would include a north/south public street on the east side of the Otto property. It appears that the same number of lots could be created using a cul de sac bending westward onto the Lautt property as are presently being requested. The approximate locations of the lots could utilize the same existing sanitary sewer lateral T's as the proposal before the commission. Staff rejects the DeHaas' assertion that because SW 97th is not a new collector street, development standards related to the collector street status should not apply. We fail to see why it would not be reasonable to apply the standard in this area, since the parcels on the east side of SW 97th are all under-developed and likely will see redevelopment in the future years. There is substantial area which may be redeveloped so the City is not really faced with an infill situation where 1--mited area may necessitate designs that may not be fully consistent with good development design practice. Since the applicant's engineer concedes that it is reasonable to require the 300 foot access offset criterion for development along new major collector streets, the applicant's engineer seems to concur that this is a safety-based standard. Staff feels that safety is just as much of an issue on an existing collector street as it would be on a new collector street. We fail to understand Mr. DeHaas' argument. Although SW 97th Avenue is unusual for a major collector street in that it is relatively short and terminates at a "T" intersection on the north end, and a curve on the south end, the street does carry a substantial amount of traffic, especially during the school year. SW 97th Avenue clearly functions as a collector street, and all City standards related SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 7 i C1 to safety should be strictly upheld in the review of developments ( affecting traffic on the street. l Criterion 2• The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. Applicant's Response: A. The sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the currently proposed lots and street configuration. B. The proposed Rhonda Court, location best serves both the proposed Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Subdivisions. C. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to individual properties to the east fall within the proposed Rhonda Court location. Staff Response: Although the sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the proposed lot and street configurations, the applicants have not submitted any evidence that these facilities would not function well with another subdivision layout. The Engineering Department's conceptual plan illustrates how the existing sanitary sewers could serve lots off of a cul-de-sac coming from the southeast without requiring the necessary variance. In addition, the applications have not addressed the possibility of locating the Rhonda Court/SW 97th Avenue intersection directly across from SW Elrose Street. Although such an intersection would require a southward curve to Rhonda Court, and possibly some difficult to utilize area to the south of the intersection, this alignment would seem to be able to serve the same number of lots as is currently proposed for the Lautt property. This area could be combined with a future lot to be developed as part of the Otto subdivision to the south. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to properties to the east could be served by an alignment of SW Rhonda court directly across from Elrose Terrace or from a street to be developed along the eastern side of the Otto property as previously proposed to the commission in June, 1990. We fail to understand the applicant's engineer's argument with regard to how the proposed alignment is necessary to serve these properties to the east. Criterion 3• The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. Applicant's response: A. The proposed Rhonda Court location beat accommodates rights of the owners of Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Acres in providing reasonable and attractive access to subdivision lots. It also accommodates prior access rights for individual properties to the east. B. As 97th Avenue is a through street, both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs. SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 8 .3b Staff Response: Staff fails to see how the proposed location of Rhonda Court offset from SW Elrose Terrace provides any more attractive or reasonable access to the proposed subdivisions as the alternatives of aligning Rhonda Court with the Elrose Street intersection or following the previously submitted design for the Otto property and extending a street northward to the Otto property. In addition, as described above, these alternatives would not seem to negatively impact access rights for individual properties to the east in any manner. Both Rhonda Ccurt and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs, as the applicant notes. However, the primary traffic safety issue related to the proposed intersection offset is the turning movements that will be necessary from these intersections, no matter whether the intersections are signed or not. Criterion 4: The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. Applicant's Response: A. As related here and before, street alignments were planned and approved jointly by the City and owner in this area in the 1980- 1981 period. Development has occurred and property has been assessed based on these street alignments. The owner has relied upon this earlier planning and it is not practical to undo what has been done. Such undoing would place an extraordinary hardship Q~ upon the applicant. B. In fact it is impossible for Lautt to meet this criterion within his property. Staff Response: Staff fails to see why it is not practical to undo the design work that has been done. Staff, and the applicant's engineer for the proposal on the Otto property, have already revised some of that design work in the submittal and review of the earlier preliminary plat for that property. The Engineering Department has done further work showing how a street could be developed on the Lautt property utilizing the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer. This work has shown that other development options exist for these properties. The only hardship that staff is aware of is the possible cost of revising the plat and any public improvement plans that may have been developed in response to the earlier approvals. Although this would require a financial outlay by the applicants, it is not unreasonable to expect this of an applicant who has let a subdivision approval lapse for in excess of eight years. In closing this analysis, staff does not find that the applicants have met the burden of providing substantial evidence that requiring strict compliance with the. requirements of Code Section 18.164.030.E would cause an undue hardship to the applicants. Staff believes that evidence shows that other subdivision designs could utilize existing public facilities in place on the properties. These other designs could alleviate potential traffic hazards that could result from an offset intersection as proposed. SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 9 J 4. Policy 8.1.3 requires that adequate right-of-way and street improvements ( be provided for streets abutting or within a proposed development. If deficiencies exist, the prospective developer is responsible for providing facilities that meet minimum standards. As noted above, the proposed street system is not consistent with City standards. A revised preliminary plat and street layout are therefore necessary. The requirements of this policy cannot be satisfied if the proposed improvements are not consistent with City standards. 5. Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satisfied because the sizes of the proposed lots are consistent with the 7500 square foot minimum lot size standard of the R-4.5 zone. All proposed lots should be able to be built upon in conformance with setback and maximum site coverage standards of the zone without requiring variances. It is assumed that all the existing structures are to be removed. If not, all structures would need to satisfy the R-4.5 zone's setback standards. Lot Line Adjustment approval would allow the possible transfer of a 15 by 145 foot section of existing tax lot 106 to either of the adjacent parcels, tax lots 109 or 1100. Such an adjustment would increase setbacks for existing structures and would increase the size of either of these other parcels. Either adjustment would allow these lots to remain in conformance with the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone and would also be consistent with the Lot Line Adjustment approval criteria (Community Development Code Section 18.162.060). If an agreement is not reached by the applicant with either of the adjacent property owners for transfer of this strip of land to an adjacent parcel, the strip will need to be included in proposed lot 6. Because of the configuration of this strip of land, it is not clear what purpose would be served by attaching the strip to proposed lot 6. The strip would likely be a maintenance burden for the owner of lot 6. Staff strongly recommends that this strip of land be transferred to an adjacent parcel rather than being attached to lot 6. 6. Chapter 18.92 is satisfied because the proposed density is consistent with Code requirements. The area of the proposed subdivision provides an opportunity for approximately nine dwelling units if developed to the full opportunity of the R-4.5 zone. The application proposes seven lots. . 7. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that are removed during the course of construction be minimized. The proposed development's streets, utilities, and residences will require the removal of a significant number of trees. However, the number of trees removed should and can be minimized. The staff recommends that trees over six inches in diameter be removed only to construct utilities, streets, and residences. Plans for tree removal and protection must be reviewed by the Planning staff through an application for a tree cutting permit. 8. Chapter 18.160 is partially satisfied because the proposed plat is consistent with the majority of the applicable Plan and Code requirements that relate to this type of request. The plat name is not duplicative of other recorded plats. However, as elaborated upon elsewhere in this report, staff finds that the proposed alignment of SW Rhonda Court relative to SW Elrose Street on the opposite side of SW 97th Avenue is a substandard design and could pose a traffic hazard on a collector street. The applicant has not shown that there is no other practical design for the subdivision that could avoid the substandard intersection design and still utilize the existing sanitary sewer. The applicant's primary argument for the variance therefore appears to be that the City has to live by previous approvals that have expired. Code SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 - Lautt/DeHaas Page 10 3~ section 18.160.040, however, sets a limit on the approval period for an approved subdivision plan. One of the purposes of this time limit is to allow the City to revisit the conditions related to a development proposal if that proposal has not been constructed. This allows the City to revisit previously reviewed proposals and require amendments that address changes in circumstances or changes in City policies, and to better respond to the situations affecting a proposed development. Staff urges the Commission to recognize that the earlier commission approval of a plan for development of this property would not have provided for as good a development plan as possible and would also not have been consistent with the City's road improvement standards. Staff recommends denial of the requested subdivision variance. 9. Chapter 18.162 is satisfied because the recommended Lot Line Adjustment would be consistent with the approval criteria for a Lot Line Adjustment as described in 5 above. 10. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) is only partially satisfied by the preliminary plat submittal. The proposed lots meet minimum frontage and dimensional standards as required by this Chapter. In addition, the proposal would adequately provide storm drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. The typical street section and plan view of the proposed street demonstrate compliance with the majority of the street design standards of Chapter 18.162. However, the proposed local street intersection with SW 97th Avenue is not consistent with Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.G_l which specifies a minimum center line separation of 300 feet when it is necessary that intersecting streets form staggered intersections and the staff does not find that the applicant has satisfactorily shown that this requirement should be varied. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends denial of the submitted preliminary plat for Subdivision SUB 90-0013 because of the submittal's dependence on a substandard street intersection in the southwestern corner of the site. As noted above, staff has substantial concerns with traffic safety related to the proposed intersection offset and therefore recommends denial of the proposed variance to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.4.E for both the subject application and Subdivision application SUB 90-0007. Because no application or preliminary lot line adjustment map were submitted with the application package and because the lot line adjustment considered is necessitated by the subdivision plat that is recommended for denial, staff also recommends denial of the Lot Line Adjustment portion of this application. P ry offer asociate Planner AP ROVE BY: Keith Liden Senior Planner SUB 90-0013/VAR 90-0037 Lautt/DeHaas Page 11 i ~3 h h h } a Xi; 1p9 7 ~ ~ r jl 105 ~x~st+n9 ~ San'tarY w ~L 101 1 Seger tines ~C t 4t ~R" `4 pro Gnsed Sanitary 5 jt 106 Se'~er tines 1 Z1. 1Q0 v number 2~1 ~18P, on maP d, ttPtttttal Olq de: naP CiIY itel wnpiltd AY tAt wpAla Y Illgetd ttiliiiaq Cet4 ros) lion S11I to U~mt ■la~mat+0+ t Sallyatf. y]( t ~ perlr tYw4 Atha us. will eaf i ~ t p inttndad !o ld ~ +I olditiawa ptb`Fa~Ut;vt O R andlw~ datt~oi atd OY CI11 el Y14a~d. r lflll 1I1}IISO) y0P I J~_ ::DE HAAS ) Suite 300 - AGC Center AArl%' % 9450 S.W. Commerce Circle b~ . & Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 d % JC s oci ateJC' Inc (503) 682-2450 A~ Inc y• Consulting Engineers 8 Surveyors v z•. October 22, 1990 4 ;a Planning Department City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ;j F Re: Preliminary Plat Application - Lautt's Terrace ,u Submitted herewith is the Preliminary Plat of Lautt's Terrace: r, z. , Sincerely, Marlin J. ISa.Haas, P.E. President cc: 90.023.543 C Lautt Attachments: 1 Application Forms (Preliminary Plat & Variance). 24 Copies of Preliminary Plat. 24 Copies of Narrative.. 1 Assessor's Map. 1 Copy of Title Transfer Investment. 1 Check in the amount of $471.00 representing $415.00 + $5.00/lot and $21.00 for a variance request. MJD/sd 023LTR.022 APPLIctgAJTS 5c40141rrgL /n1CLUD/NG k9,gj41UCE NA,QAATIIIE• 3.S i Narrative - Lautt's Terrace f This application represents follow up on previous submittals, approvals of which Y have expired. An original application was made by Ronald R. Lautt on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8 lot subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 zone. Staff conditions were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 6/22/81. The Final Action Staff Report was dated a 6/26/81. This original preliminary plat application along with others in the area were encouraged by the City Staff in order to establish land development patterns which could be used in planning and assessing the 97th Avenue LID and the McDonald Sewer LID. A variance to 17.08.060 Alignment was requested conforming to the same variance incorporated into the previously accepted preliminary plat of Templeton Estates (now being considered as Grandview Acres). Because of the state of the economy, the final plat for this project, along with others, were not timely filed and approvals expired. In October of 1981, Lautt partitioned off the equivalent of Lot 8, a 22,984 square foot parcel, leaving approximately 2.05 acres. In July of 1990 Plannning Commisioners heard a preliminary plat application for the tract immediately south of the Lautt tract identified as Grandview Acres (formerly called Templeton Estates). It is our understanding that Grandview Acres was resubmitted 10/10/90. C Inasmuch as the primary access (SW Rhonda Court) is shared by Grandview Acres and Lautt's Terrace and as it is proper that the two subdivisions be considered together, and as Lautt is carrying a heavy burden of LID costs on his property which he cannot alleviate until his property is platted, Lautt wishes that this submittal be accepted and considered at the same time as Grandview Acres. Lautt has made a preliminary review of the Grandview Acres submittal and wishes to cooperate in the planning and construction of SW Rhonda Court so that such construction can be completed in one operation, rather than in a piece meal fashion. Since y, Marlin J.;-De Haas, P.E. President cc: 90.023.543 Lautt MJD/sd G e HAAS Suite 300 - AGC Center ~ 9s 9450 S.W. Commerce Circle • • Lr C Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 ssoci Zte5, Inc. (503) 692-2450 jy5 AT Consulting Engineers 8 Surveyors November 12, 1990 Mr. Ron Pomeroy Planning Department City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Preliminary Plat Application - Lautt's Terrace (Sub 90-0013 and Var 90-0037) Dear Ron: Thank you for your letter of 10/30/90 relating to our variance application and the need to address specifically each finding required for a variance. Please consider the following to be an addendum to those materials transmitted by our letter of 10/22/90. S.W. 97th is classified as a major collector. Current Code Section 18.164.030 (g)(1) calls for the centerline-to-centerline separation of intersecting streets on a major collector to be a minimum of 300 feet. The proposed separation of SW Rhonda Court from SW Elrose Street is 65 feet and the Applicant is submitting this variance application in support of the 65 foot separation. Findings related to the "Criteria for Granting a Variance" are as follow: Criterion 1. "There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated." Findings a. Preliminary plat configuration for Lautt's Terrace, Grandview Acres (Templeton Estates) and Solarcrest (which includes SW Elrose Street) were planned jointly with owners and the City in the 1980-1981 period to accomodate and support the LID for 97th Avenue and the McDonald Sewer LID. The proposed locations of Elrose Street (Jansen) and Rhonda Court were established as a part of the LID projects (see sanitary sewer as-built plans) and are the same as proposed by this application. Sewers were constructed and assessments levied based upon this same proposed alignment. 3-7 Owners were encouraged by the City to accept such configurations to facilitate the LID's and the usual assessment procedures. b. Lautt filed an original preliminary plat application for this same configuration on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8 lot subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 zone. Staff conditions were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 6/22/81. The Final Action Staff Report was dated 6/26/81. Based upon this approval, Lautt proceeded with the final plat board. Because of the state of the economy in 1981, the final plat for this project, along with numerous others, were not timely filed and approvals expired. At any rate, the record shows that the currently proposed configuration was approved by the City in 1981. c. SW 97th is not a new street and development patterns of intersecting streets have been pretty much determined. The major accesses from Tuality Junior High School are separated from Murdock Street and Pembrook Street by approximately 50 feet and 270 feet respectively. While it is reasonable to require the 300 foot criterion for new major collector streets, it is unreasonable to retroactively apply the standard to a street already having development patterns which cause great difficulty in conforming. d. The use of the major collector designation for 97th is quite marginal in that it is only approximately 2000 feet long, )-as a tee intersection at McDonald and ends at a sharp curve at Murdock. Criterion 2. "The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision." Findines. a. The sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve the currently proposed lot and street configuration. b. The proposed Rhonda Court location best serves both the proposed Lautt's Terrace and grandview subdivisions. C. Existing access easements through the Lautt tract to individual properties to the east fall within the proposed Rhonda Court location. Criterion 3. 4 "The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, 4 safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property." vt Findings. a. The proposed Rhonda Court location best accomodates rights of the owners of Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Acres in providing reasonable and attractive access to subdivision lots. It also accomodates prior access rights for individual properties to the east. .t b. As 97th is a through street, both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs. 4 Criterion 4. "The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title." A Findings. a. As related hereinbefore, street alignments were planned and approved jointly by the City and Owners in this area in the 1980-1981 period. Development has occurred and property has been assessed based on these u street alignments. The Owner has relied upon this earlier planning and it is not practical to undo what has been done. Such undoing would place an extraordinary hardship upon the applicant. b. In fact, it is impossible for Lautt to meet this criterion within his property. We believe the record is clear that this variance is warranted and that it has been demonstrated that the conditions for the variance have been met. We respectfully request that the variance be granted.' 1 Since , Marlin J. a s, P.E., P.L.S. Presiden cc: 90.023.546 Lautt r MJD/sd 023LTR.N12 i. Narrative - Lautt's Terrace This application represents follow up on previous submittals, approvals of which have expired. An original application was made by Ronald R. Lautt on 5/2/81 for approval of an 8 lot subdivision on 2.58 acres in an R-7 zone. Staff conditions were applied and Lautt acknowledged same on 6/22/81. The Final Action Staff Report was dated 6/26/81. This original preliminary plat application along with others in the area were encouraged by the City Staff in order to establish land development patterns which could be used in planning and assessing the 97th Avenue LID and the McDonald Sewer LID. A variance to 17.08.060 Alignment was requested conforming to the same variance incorporated into the previously accepted preliminary plat of Templeton Estates (now being considered as Grandview Acres). Because of the state of the economy, the final plat for this project, along with others, were not timely filed and approvals expired. In October of 1981, Lautt partitioned off the equivalent of Lot 8, a 22,984 square foot parcel, leaving approximately 2.05 acres. In July of 1990 Plannning Commisioners heard a preliminary plat application for the tract immediately south of the Lautt tract identified as Grandview Acres (formerly called Templeton Estates). It is our understanding that Grandview Acres was resubmitted 10/10/90. Inasmuch as the primary access (SW Rhonda Court) is shared by Grandview Acres and Lautt's Terrace and as it is proper that the two subdivisions be considered together, and as Lautt is carrying a heavy burden of LID costs on his property which he cannot alleviate until his property is platted, Lautt wishes that this submittal be accepted and considered at the same time as Grandview Acres. Lautt has made a preliminary review of the Grandview Acres submittal and wishes to cooperate in the planning and construction of SW Rhonda Court so that such construction can be completed in one operation, rather than in-a piece meal fashion. Since, Marlin J. De Haas, P.E. President cc: 90.023.543 Lautt MJD/sd LID Lautt's Terrace Variance - 17.08.060 Alignment Narrative The owner requests a variance to 17.08.060 Alignment as previously approved for earlier submittals. The proposed alignment of SW Rhonda Court with SW Elrose Street does not conform to 17.08.060. Past planning action of the City in approving preliminary and final plats and in placing sanitary sewer facilities have established the location of both Elrose Street and Rhonda Court. Any change in the location of Rhonda Court would violently disrupt the configuration of Lautt's Terrace and Grandview Acres, both of which were planned jointly with the City to accomodate and support the LID for 97th Avenue and the McDonald Sewer LID. While it would be nice to have direct alignment, it is not practical to undo the current situation. 97th is a through street such that both Rhonda Court and Elrose Street will be controlled by stop signs. Mr Lautt, in response to City staff's encouragement had previously gone to the expense of preparing the Final Plat (see reduced, copy attached) all in accordance with City approvals. As discussed in the current submittal, the plat was not timely filed in that the economy precluded proceeding further at that time. Many of the developers who did in fact proceed during those times found their land in receivership. We believe the record is clear that this variance is warranted and that it has been demonstrated that the conditions for the variance have been met. Sincerel ; Marlin J. De Haas, P.E. President cc: 90.023.543 Lautt MJD/sd 023NARR.022 -~-a i. t~ _ ~ Y 1 ? h ~ ~ ~ '"~~~.r ~ ' i r. l~ ~ . _ ~ j -i~ a~~T a M ~ f~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~o J~ ~ E ~ ~ q ~ g ~ - m ~i~ ' ~ ~ . t ~ ~ q►~N ~ r: ~ t~ ~ ~ r it +it z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~ 1 ~ ~ ~ - n i ~ 1 a (n Z ~ ~ D ~ ~ f;. ~ 3 ~ ~ D 0 .17 F ~ I ~ • ~ ~ ~ i ' ~ ti ! ~ a ~ ~ ' i ~ ; ~ 1~y, ~~~a~~~~ ~a~~~ t ~ ~Or M ~~'+.MMIMrtM ~1+~1 ~ ~ .t a 8~ {i~~~a w~a~~~ R ~ v M~ ~ n ~ ~a M M ~I • ~ M ■8 Q ~ gy ~ ~~r~ as ~ . ~ ~ rTM--.-.-.~.=.,ti - ~ ~ - ~ ~ } i'. ; , ~~,t.~ ~ ~ . ~ . , i- ~ ~ j . ,tiro T ~J Good Evening - my name is Sue Carver Chair of NPO #6 The NPO wishes to thank the staff for such an excellent and detailed report. We found we concurred on many issues and have references to several in this presentation. The NPO has been expressing their concerns about these two applications since last June. We have worked with the staff and believe that there are reasonable solutions. We do not understand why the Planning Commission ignored both the staff and NPO recommendations. There is no justification for the Planning Commissions approval and so we finally had to resort to the appeal process. I will start by stating that the NPO does not find fault with the Lautt/DeHaas layout with the exception of the proposed Rhonda Court. We feel their lot configuration could work just as effectively with access coming from the southeast corner of their property. However, the NPO found many faults with the Waverly/Grandview proposal. We are most concerned about the two variances, the need of three new accesses on to SW 97th and the lot configurations. All lots face away from each other - somewhat in a sunburst pattern with the flag lots the sun and the surrounding lots the rays. There is no continuity within the subdivision - almost like each lot is an island. The proposed design totally lacks a neighborhood feeling. We realize the city does not have a policy relating to lot placement within a neighborhood context but perhaps it time they did. From this point on this presentation will apply to both subdivision requests since the street variance requested is i I applicable to each plan. The NPO finds that the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the Code criteria. The Community Development Code Section 15.164.030.E states that in no case shall the staggering of street intersections along collector streets create offsets of less than 300 feet. This standard is intended to avoid traffic safety problems due to awkward vehicle turning movements from the opposing intersections. There are four criteria which must be met to obtain this variance approval. Criterion 1 states that there must be special circumstances or conditions that affect the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. NPO members do not feel there are any special circumstances affecting these two properties. The staff response was the same. One of the applicants suggested that since SW 97th was not a new street it was unreasonable to apply the current standards to this street. NPO members feel that since these standards are safety- based--- it is even more vital that the current standards be upheld on an older street since safety remains one of the most important issues. Criterion 2 states - The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. The applicants state that the sanitary sewers were designed and constructed to serve their currently proposed lot configurations. However, the NPO feels that the applicant have not shown any evidence that these sewer facilities would not function well with another subdivision layout. The Tigard Engineering Department assisted in formulating the conceptual plan (which is Exhibit A attached to the NPO's appeal application) which clearly illustrates how (and I quote the Engineering Department) the existing sanitary sewers could serve lots off of a cul-de-sac coming from the southeast without requiring the necessary variance. Criterion 3 states - The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the right of other owners of property. NPO members feel that potential hazards do exist with this street configuration. Staff cites that even though Elrose and the proposed Rhonda Court would have stop signs the concern is in the turning movements that will be necessary from these intersections. NPO wants to point out that although short - SW 97th is a major collector and does carry a substantial amount of traffic traveling between Durham and McDonald especially during the school year. h Criterion 4 states - The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. NPO members agree with the Staff report which states " that it does not find that the applicants have met the burden of providing substantial evidence that requiring strict compliance with the requirement of this Code Section would cause an undue hardship to the applicants. NPO members and staff believe that evidence shows that other subdivision designs utilizing existing public facilities do exist as shown in Exhibit A eliminating the need for any variances and thereby alleviating potential traffic hazards. NPO members feel that any financial burden on the applicants to update their almost 9 year old plans is reasonable after such a period of time and should not pose ar_ extraordinary hardship. And Finally we feel that staffs summation was right on target and we quote: "The applicant's primary arguments for the variance appear to be that the City has to live by previous approvals that have expired. Code section 18.160.040, however, set a limit on the approval period for an approved subdivision plan. One of the purposes oif this time limit is to allow the City to revisit the conditions related to a development proposal if that proposal has f not been constructed. This allows the City to revisit previously reviewed proposals and require amendments that address changes in circumstances or changes in City policies, and to better respond to the situations affecting a proposed development. Staff further pointed out that the earlier Commission approval in 1981 that expired in 1982 for the planned development of this property would not have provided for as good a development plan as possible and would not have been consistent with the City's road improvement standards. The report ends with Staff recommending denial of the requested subdivision variance." AND the NPO also recommends denial of the requested subdivisions and variances. i' Thank you for listening to our concerns. Fans of Fanno Creek Jeffrey Gottfried, President 7040 S.W. 84th r Portland, OR 97223 March 1. 1991 John Acker City of Tigard Planning Dept. RECEIVED MVI 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 MAR 5 1991 Dear Mr. Acker, An application to the City of Tigard for a zone change annex- ation has just come to our attention. The file number is ZCA 91-0003 We have concerns as the land in question is in the Ash Brook drainage. We feel that there wetland values on the site that need to be identified prior to any consideration to disturb the area with sewer, road or building construction. Ash Brook flows through the site and on to the 100-year flood- plain adjacent to Hwy. 217 and Greenburg Rd., where it then enters Ash Creek. While it has been culverted and channeled in many areas, it is a waterway that we hope is on the City of Tigard's Wetland Inventory. Partially spring fed, Ash Brook remains a persistant water source. In regard to the map that accompained ZCA 91-0003 - Is it possible to do some cross-referencing when preparing maps that are to accompany applications intended for public study and comment? The map attached to the ZCA 91-0003 application does not identify the presence of Ash Brook. It also misleads by indicating that Spruce St. continues past 78th, which it does not. Maps lacking these details present an incomplete picture and do planning a dis- service. .We hope thgt our_9oncerng for the area in question, ZCA 91-0003 reach you.-in time_to be considered in your report. Yours truly, / Jeffro;Gottfried k ~a R~~~ ~ab~~~ ~0 ~ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM / CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Deharpport Annexation PREVIOUS ACTION: None (ZCA 91-06) 1 PREPARED BY: John Acker DEPT HEAD 054,7t-CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request for annexation of one parcel and portions of three others consisting of approximately 4.53 acres located south of Walnut Street and west of 112th Avenue? INFORMATION SUMMARY This annexation request consists of one entire parcel and portions of three others totaling approximately 4.53 acres that is contiguous to the City of Tigard. This area is located within Tigard's active planning area. The applicant wishes to obtain sanitary sewer service. Attached is a resolution to forward the annexation request and an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-4.5 in conformance with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. Also attached is a vicinity map, site map and staff report. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary C commission and to assign plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Deny the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT Since this area is within Tigard's Active Planning Area, the City will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $320 for annexation. The current land assessment is for all parcels in total is $253,080. No significant fiscal impact is expected until development occurs. When development an this parcel occurs there will be attendant demands for service. A more precise analysis requires development details not available at this time. Possible impacts resulting from the property tax limitation constitutional change have not been determined. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. F wj~ mot H,q~,~ ci a0' - ~ TA`s FERRY -n- CVD O LOCUST ST: fw), iktj NORTH DAKOTA GREEMS!/ Q RAG CfV/G ~ Cf14ITfR r WAL ~V N ,Q ST. W Mc0®NAt-D GAARDE S t, ioTA tds r " z Rq, J BU1-~- a MQ1jA1Tp iN _ . R0. © DURHAM _ 9W9 r 0p\ ~L SUMMER ICREST ✓ ~ v;i ISM. I T., RD 11"~ 1-1 F] I I 'T S ~~+1 O' ~,V f ~ d w T ~ Jg'i' TEw pL, e,w. MEJ+EST NEC _ QP? D N . 1/~ ` ~ S E S 1 MARY WOODWARD r ELEMENTARY s w s CT SCHOOL sw KATNERME ST.. W. 1131N P ~ 34 33 34 I Fd*CI R / 3 KATNERINE 4 3 g' a m SUMME•a \ JUNIOR -P NIGH < • :w MILLS J S.V. A LYNN yT. S~IIOOL A A N Cr SW. I 10 CT. N S W. ANN PL S. W, ANN N A N 4 K R N sw. BROOK ST. WALNUT ST S CT MAVNUT IF N 4 - Q H SW ERROL sr n J 5 MARIE CT PAT Nf a TIPPIiT PL III IA vL SM.. CARAIEM W = J I 1 R O SIRE T O _ I P JJ ,c ArklhS» 1 SW L8 RTa ST. t - S 0110 5.v IIT T dTPO`„" G' / DERRY. DEILL cT Y1, ; 1 Z JA fs Sr. u IIf VI ~ p \ I TR 34fS O ~ OR PARK SW MARI ST• r•r 5 1 \\t~° j - HINGT e b t ~t1 \ °A - J O A SI COON LN l ISLAND f r _ n sb ~ ` j r ry 7 vn u sw f~IRwVEM1 I t I s FAIRNAVE war J y 1 E L~ t ~ J ~ u Ir\( T T WNDUNT IT a I L~ ' ~P1 _I . ~ ~ N S» VIE WYJUNT LN 4 3 1 _.1 6 W I ^1111 = - 9 10 HIN T C I ~f , f N1 j ~ i J ~ ~Qp/ ~l I "CANTERBURY - 5 W OJCNIL v - !V EwllTA - W M.FARLANO "(WD ICY ' ~ • fti PLAC, c N\COR. _ 15 S N\r~ Il \ ^.M. WILDS nom, m ~ OO~~~• ~v ,P STAFF REPORT MARCH 26, 1991 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS: CASE: Zone Change Annexation 91-06 REQUEST: To annex 4.53 acres of unincorporated Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for zone change from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City of Tigard Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). APPLICANT: Dale Deharpport P.O. Box 1577 Beaverton, Oregon 97075 OWNER: Several LOCATION: South of S.W. Walnut Street and west of S.W. 112th Street, WCTM 2S1 3AC lot 400, and parts of lots 501, 900 and 1000. 2. Background Information No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to this property. 3. Vicinity Information Property to the northeast of the site is in the City of Tigard and has a single family residence. Other surrounding properties are in Washington County and sparsely developed with single family residences with a large undeveloped area directly east of the subject site. Property to the northeast is zoned Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). All other surrounding properties are zoned Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). ZCA 91-06 Staff Report 1 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property to be annexed has a single family residence with the remainder of the property undeveloped. The property is gently sloped to the south with a small creek near the southern boundary. The area is vegetated with grasses and weeds with a few trees scattered throughout the property. 5. Agency and NPO Comments Portland General Electric, General Telephone, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Northwest Natural Gas, Tigard Water District, Tigard School District 23J, the Tigard Building Division and the Tigard Police Department have reviewed the proposal and offer no objections or comments. The Tigard Engineering Department comments that the annexation should include all of the right-of-way on Walnut Street. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.3.1, Established Areas; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and chapters 18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification of the Tigard Community Development Code. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and Community Planning organization as well as surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the request. 2. Plan Policy 6.3.1 is satisfied because this property is designated as low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and will be zoned as R-4.5, thereby insuring development of the same type and density as allowed in existing neighborhoods. 3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the Bull Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study which includes the subject property. This study as well as the comments from the Police Department, and other service providers indicate that adequate services are available in the vicinity and may be extended to accommodate the subject property. 4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation will not create an irregular City boundary, the police Department has been ` notified of this request, the land is located within Tigard•s Area of Interest, and adequate service capacities can be made available to accommodate the eventual development of the property as noted above. l ZCA 91-06 Staff Report 2 The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: 1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is met because all facilities and services can be made available, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies discussed above have been satisfied and the property has been determined to be a developing area in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington County requires-that when annexing land within the City's area of interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely resembles the County plan and zone designation. In this case, however, the property is zoned in Washington County for single family residential use with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a maximum density of six units per acre but also carries City of Tigard land use designation of Low Density Residential for which maximum allowed density is 4.5 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The property will be designated as R- 4.5. zone which is the closest comparable zone allowed under the existing comprehensive plan designation. 2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the property meets the definition for a developing area and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings of the conclusions noted above, the planning staff recommends approval of ZCA 91-06, subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall be designated as City of Tigard R-4.5 zone. PREPARED BY: John Acker, Associate Planner ZCA 91-06 Staff Report 3 Y _ sCOUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Cook Annexation- PREVIOUS ACTION: None (ZCA 91-07) PREPARED BY: John Acker DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE i Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request for annexation of two parcels consisting of approximately 4.97 acres located north of Fern Street and west of 135th Avenue at the terminus of Walnut Street? INFORMATION SUMMARY This annexation request consists of two parcels totaling 4.97 acres that is contiguous to the City of Tigard. This area is located within Tigard's area of interest. The owner of the property requests annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer service. Attached is a resolution to forward the annexation request and an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7 in conformance with the City's Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. Also attached is a vicinity map, site map and staff report. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Deny the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT Since this area is not within Tigard's Active Planning Area, the applicant will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $320 for annexation. The current land assessment is $184,470. No significant fiscal impact is expected until development occurs. When development of this parcel occurs there will be attendant demands for service. A more precise analysis requires development details not available at this time. Possible impacts resulting from the property tax limitation constitutional change have not been determined. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. . L low hgLL Ra. TA`~d-pR$ FERRY _ ACV . -N- D, yK'Y, un ~ SCHpo, ~ ST t-~ f~ Q TH OAKOTA GREE/~o8 Pip y4 Q 'Q~ crv:c cEnrrEa . N QQ - ST W -D ~pcDONAt - Ra• GAARDE .9 gO~sTA W i BU►-L A4p+VIV-[p~t1s _ R©- pURNA~ - W ~ Na ~ Q J!S £f f'ELO CL ~ 04 . ~ • ~ ~ s'1b II r S~'''^r`e VILLAGE Qtr R O - O AK LN. 44. ,j u i LN. a pA MO aY LN. W ASCU R ' ~Q> 3, _ r L W IMNO LN• SW LsURMONi Mb ON. \ \ FAICGN W ENO ~ 40R0446 VO KATN£KR4E 9 ` O .0 WILLS Ct* o ,St ~ RIO CT p,N 3 33 SCO ou f 5 e£~ SW N,NDOM'T Sw S.W. BRl = H 3 o s \ N W.NAAT ST. _ w n S yMlE ST e ~ ,W W►LNUT 4 q4ie u S V. F i W s, w h } A is «AY ; ~ L v !M5 14 8 HV,Fw >Al 1 a 3 I ~rrt Tot ~J tH NTAH Rtp t CJ sW N,nr S.W. MO w ALPINE sYF. STAFF REPORT MARCH 26, 1991 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS: CASE: Zone Change Annexation 91-07 REQUEST: To annex 4.97 acres of unincorporated Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for zone change from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Washington County Residential, 6 units per acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). APPLICANT: Lee Albaugh 10540 S.W. Laurel Beaverton, Oregon 97005 OWNER: Helen Cook 13735 S.W. Walnut Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: North of S.W. Fern Street and west of S.W. 135th Street at the western terminus of Walnut Street, WCTM 2S1 4BD lots 400 and 1500. 2. Background Information No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to this property. 3. Vicinity Information Property to the north of the site is in the City of Tigard and is undeveloped. Other surrounding properties are in Washington County. Properties to the east are developed with large lot (1/2 acre) single family residences. To the south and west are large wooded parcels of between 1.5 and 3 acres, many with single family residences. Property to the north is zoned Tigard R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). All other surrounding properties are zoned Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). ZCA 91-07 Staff Report 1 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property to be annexed has two single family residence with the remainder of the property undeveloped. The property slopes to the northwest at an average of 7.5%. There is a drainage course along the western property boundary. The area is largely open with grasses and a few trees scattered throughout the property. 5. Agency and NPO Comments Portland General Electric, General Telephone, Tigard Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Tigard School District 23J, Tigard Building Division, and the Tigard Police Bureau have reviewed the proposal and offer no objections or comments. The Tigard Engineering Department comments that the annexation should include all of the right-of-way of Fern Street. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.4.1, Developing Areas; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and chapters 18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification of the Tigard Community Development Code. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and Community Planning Organization as well as surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the request. 2. Plan Policy 6.4.1 is satisfied because the annexation will be designated as a developing area on the development standards map. This designation will allow the use of planned development techniques which are better suited for preserving natural amenities such as those found on the subject property. 3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the Bull Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study which includes the subject property. This study as well as the comments from the Police Department, and other service providers indicate that adequate services are available in the vicinity and may be extended to accommodate the subject property. 4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation will not create an irregular City boundary, the police Department has been notified of this request, the land is located within Tigard's Area Of Interest, and adequate service capacities can be made available to accommodate the eventual development of the property as noted above. ZCA 91-07 Staff Report 2 Will The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: 1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is met because all facilities and services can be made available, the applicable comprehensive Plan policies discussed above have been satisfied and the property has been determined to be a developing area in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington County requires that when annexing land within the City's area of interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely resembles the County plan and zone designation. In this case, the property is designated in Washington County for single family residential use with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a maximum density of six units per acre. The City of Tigard R-7 zone density is 4.5 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 7,500 with an identical minimum lot size requirement and maximum density of seven units per acre is the most comparable to the present County designation. 2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the property meets the definition for a developing area and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings of the conclusions noted above, the planning staff recommends approval of ZCA 91-07, subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall be designated as a developing area on the development standards map. PREPARED BY: John Acker, Associate Planner ZCA 91-07 Staff Report 3 t'. F COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA T TLE: Bacon Annexatio PREVIOUS ACTION: None (ZCA 91-08) PREPARED BY: John Acker DEPT BEAD OR CITY ADMIN 0 REQUESTED BY: VOLIZ(CY ISSUE Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request for annexation of two parcels consisting of approximately .89 acres located at 12025 and 12035 S.W. Rose Vista Drive? INFORMATION SUMMARY This annexation request consists of two parcels totaling .89 acres that is contiguous to the City of Tigard. Mr. Bacon, the owner of on to the parcels is experiencing failure of his septic system and is requesting annexation so that he can hook-up to a sanitary sewer line within the City. This area is located within Tigard's active planning area. Attached is a resolution to forward the annexation request and an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5 in conformance with the City's Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County and the City's land use designation. Also attached is a vicinity map, site map and staff report. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Deny the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT Since this area is within Tigard's Active Planning Area, the City will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $120 for annexation. The current land assessment is $175,080. No significant fiscal impact is expected until development occurs. The area is developed so there will be very minor attendant demands for service. Possible impacts resulting from the property tax limitation constitutional change have not been determined. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. t , s p_ HALL o RO. ~ TAYI..ORS FER~,+Y ~~ST ST: ' N~rY co 1-5 GRLr V a NORTR ~ ~QG 2~~, Q y CER y Ml~p,LNU V ' N QeST. r 4pcpUNALd RpN1TA Rp• N GAARDE S r Z y K9• J GU1• ct 2 - MpVNTp,I~ ¢p- RD• f ~g~s ~Ic ~ pUftRA~ 9,9 ,slow Oz ..mom mom 1 ~ ` J AvE • i sw. 126tA S.w. It9 to ,y d Q AVf. IZA M ~ W ~ Ys ex t ra " x i N ~ AYL. ~n x a E f ' " ~ n ~ ~ • 1 2n A ~ IRS qw. tEPM e r,et£t.IIEE s OWN E i 1y S W v' a Oft. " 6N. 1 ~t li rYfy y; ~ AVC ~ etc i f p = C ~ N`O 1t a ' rp ~ a • x MOy y~ tiA tt Of • O q+E o ~ fq;kV(f ~ ~ r fqq c MiyL, n~p Y h tr 5 , f • ` F41gVf t1 r, ftt1A AVE EA. fw1. - 1+ 5w UetnP • ~ R pptN OA'19 0 11 t P ~I r-f SVE 'n 4 •1~ . Il JI N s ~ lob Am P, AVE 9 1}~ tt2 M AvE %its weS; utzn Ina O~fc~,. • h • till c J~ AVE rjJ p (IOM t ♦ n En "1 * qw Mt Y tr l - 1 (v) Iqf m 5 w > O FONNEII f I OttA AVE ~ ~ A -^tC9i-A Iy il. AVf y, C o ~ H~ SA, IC El c 1 I SH vtF 9 J jv; RR~r ! _ ~ ~ . - Sw b5rw f }~A f -AV Ul C 1 61n AYt ~`g• 4 ~ (vsw COs tr AvEry;~ 1: ~7 STAFF REPORT MARCH 26, 1991 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS: CASE: Zone Change Annexation 91-08 REQUEST: To annex .89 acres of unincorporated Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for zone change from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City of Tigard Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). APPLICANT: Lewis Bacon 12035 S.W. Rose Vista Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 i. OWNERS: Lewis Bacon (same address) David Huffman 12025 S.W. Rose Vista Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: 12025 and 12035 S.W. Rose Vista Drive, WCTM 2S1 3CC lots 1000 and 1100. 2. Background Information These two lots were platted in Washington County as part of the Colonial View subdivision in May 1958. No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to this property. ZCA 91-08 Staff Report 1 3. Vicinity Information Properties to the east of the site are in the City of Tigard and have single family residences. Other surrounding properties are in Washington County and developed with single family residences. Property to the east is zoned Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). All other surrounding properties are zoned Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property to be annexed consists of two lots each with a single family residence located within a Washington County island. The properties have lawns and shrubbery typical of a single family subdivision. The owners are experiencing problems with their septic systems and want to hook up to sanitary sewer. 5. Agency and NPO Comments t Portland General Electric, General Telephone, Northwest Natural Gas, Tigard Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Tigard School District 23J, Tigard Building Division and the Tigard Police Bureau have reviewed the proposal and offer no objections or comments. The Tigard Engineering Department comments that the annexation should include all of the right-of-way of Rose Vista Drive. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.3.1, Established Areas; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and chapters 18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification of the Tigard Community Development Code. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and Community Planning Organization as well as surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the request. 2. Plan Policy 6.3.1 is satisfied because this property is designated as low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and will be zoned as R-4.5 on the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map thereby insuring development of the same type and density as existing neighborhoods. r ZCA 91-08 Staff Report 2 3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the j Bull Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study which includes the subject property. This study as well as the comments from the Police Department, and other service providers indicate that adequate services are available in the vicinity and may be extended to accommodate the subject property. 4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation will not create an irregular City boundary, the police Department has been notified of this request, the land is located within Tigard's Area Of Interest, and adequate service capacities can be made available to accommodate the eventual development of the property as noted above. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: 1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is met because all facilities and services can be made available, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies discussed above have been satisfied and the property has been determined to be a developing area in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington County requires that when annexing land within the City's area of interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely resembles the County plan and zone designation. In this case, • however, the property is zoned in Washington County for single family residential use with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a maximum density of six units per acre but also carries City of Tigard land use designation of Low Density Residential for which maximum allowed density is 4.5 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The property will be designated as R- 4.5. zone which is the closest comparable zone allowed under the existing comprehensive plan designation. 2. Chapter 18.138 of the code is satisfied because the property meets the definition for a developed area and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings of the conclusions noted above, the planning staff recommends approval of ZCA 91-08, subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall designated as City of Tigard R-4.5 zone. PREPARED BY: John Acker, Associate Planner ( ZCA 91-08 Staff Report 3 Council Agenda Item 10 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: March 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Second Reading - Ordinance No. 91-04; Revisions to the Buffering and Screening Standards of the Tigard Development Code Attached is the proposed ordinance, as considered by Council at their March 12, 1991 meeting, for the above-referenced revisions to the Tigard Development Code. Since the ordinance was not adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present on March 12, it is being submitted to Council for a second reading and roll-call vote. i Attachment cwc314 v f s i i ,ab N ~ ~ aY ~ ~ •S►~ tLI.fL~ tLiyf~ (Tt.f2 tEI. tSl..fd~ tE).Sr tS1yK tEI~,6E~ K't ~ , ~OZ /0 oz ,Ln X01'7 Oh a t7 ~Ot7 ,OH '017 ~ b Most a .0 .0 .0 .01 .01 001 001 Mast Most M ast TMU if).s2 M AL (E).it Mast 1-1 ~ ` (S)oot .0 !D' 001 001 001 001 '(1).01 (f)oot ts).Ot TOW (L)oot Moot (T).OL (s).01 i'I /07- 0 oz - (5) Most .OT pf 00 00 00 90 (L)oot (f).OT (f)ait TfTM (f)ail (s).ST lY).SL (SI.iT 009 ,oz t oz (E).0T a Af .01 "or .0 .0 60 a0 (S).01 M.001 (shot M.01 ~ Moot ts).01 Mot (s).01 i-9 u -AV .01 #9 .0 .0 .0 Moot tf)•Ot MOT (T)ool Moot (T).01 (s)oot 0-9 07, c4paf .01 .0 00 00 OW (f)ool (!TOOT (s).Ot Moot 10601 •(0.01 (1).01 9-9 u~ H (Y) ~ (s).~ ts).ot M.yr ts).01 (f)ool Moot ~o;,r 0Mr o"oIr (5}~~ Cs)o (5 01 (S~O a o.-a W tS).SZ ts).frf 6s).oL ts).sl MOT tS).Ot (s)oot ( yf' \ late ~la~t~ r (4)-ol (e7) 01 OL-a [u ~c~b tTc (s). (9).x (s)oot (2).0 ts).01 (9)001 Moot S' OT ~j OT 1 ( 3 (S~ (4)01 21-a da y. lY).SL (s).SL (Y).OL lE)oil (s).01 tt).01 (s).01 0i .L of 00} ' 001 001 .01 .01 • .t-a a r ~ a0~ tY) tY);,~2' M.OZ (s),Sr (S).Ot MOOT (s) At (Sj1t (~j)01 1610! ,0 00E o0 00 .0 .0 i•►-a 017 OS OT. c~3oY; a ~ M t!)~f (S) kq In.or (s).yf (s'j .01 (s).01 Moot (Q92 (4101 (5)01 :Ili 00 .0 .0 .0 G •c-a o t!) IY).f~ (!).OL tf) l3).OL (9)•01 tE).Ot (e7)0i1 ("7) 0 1 ('0'101 (00 0 60 .0 .0 .0 o L-a Co 017 ot C ' (yjot = a Jre ls).j~ ts1 ts)0ot 13).1 M.01- Moot MOT (~i)91 (S)OI (y)ol .5 oo .o .o .0 o G. Oh 9 - Tr n- Z=i T--j u m ~ K ~tp ~c~odoad 4~' ` a ~ f9t PTv t s' iii~-}, 5' /4~►~`~~~I~r'~ 41 0 1181HX3 r(" .s EXNId~ KeavY . APY panan9 lot " OQOSEd USE' i Industrial Ught lndustaal 50 re QFl rdal Industrial a es Cornme pads Use use Use 4-50 Spaces Mode • & MATRIX spaces BUFFER elling units " -2 NOme pfotessional Attached DW i ore parks & uses 20'S Atta~et Dwelling Units Stones or M Su~;ivisions 10's Sxistif~ Story 12 11.20 11-40 2u s 30'S 40's Use g(listtid R-2o 11-40 R'i R 24's 107s 2U's at Zon R_7 R-12 , 15's 10's 20's 34's tO s 40'5 15's 10`a ITS 20.5 Detached Single FaWY i0's t0's iv s 20's 10's or R-i• R- 2 R.3.5. R-45• 10.5 40's 20'5 20's 30'5 2o's 10's to's 10'5 55s • R7 OWelf,09 Units 0' 0• 10' t5' AV 10. 10's 40's t4's Attached $torY - Distdds Rt-2 10'S 10 20's 30's 0' d ITS 10s e pwelliM Untts 10.5 AV S - IV S 20's 0 mere stR-4o Distncts 14's 10's 20' 200% R-t2, R-20, - 10's 10's Panes & 10'5 10's 14'5 10's 0' 10's 0' ` Mobile 0n 10 any Disudd i0 s i0's AV S to's 10 0' o' subdnn i0's i0'S ' 0• 0• Pfotessional tVS t0's 20.s 20's 4' o' Cotfttt GMaCG, CF, C8D 145 205 AT 0' , 20'5 24's 25'5 20' Uses. 24's 20 s 25's 25 s 20' 0' Dtstrid5 20'5 20'S 25.5 255 40's Industrial park 25 s 25S 25's 25'5 4V s 40's 40'5 40's 4 0' 40's o' Ught Ifidustnal 40'S 40's t4's 40's t0.5 10's 0 lndusjdal AV S 10'5 10's 0. Heavy 50 t0's to's tot With 4 IVS 10'S 10.5 1o's l Any parYaf~9 10's 10's ~ spaces IQ's to's Wing Matrix 1~ AnY paNn9 tot with 50 or 10's 10's Buffer & Scree y t more spaces propose Section 18.100.110 V Q ReQresents New Categories .s Indicates screemn9 recNfqed kefBUFFMAl-As COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON F- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March 26. 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: March 22, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: A Mointment t PREVIOUS ACTION: Budget-Committee ' PREPARED BY,. Elizabeth Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK/ 4W REQUESTED BY: Patrick Reilly PO ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Since William Scheiderich is moving out of Tigard he has resigned his position on the Budget Committee effective April 1, 1991. The Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee recommends that Philip Westover be appointed to fill the unexpired term. A resolution to approve the recommended appointment is attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution. 2. Modify the attached resolution. 3. Delay action at this time. FISCAL IMPACT - - - SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Move to approve the resolution appointing Philip Westover to the Budget Committee. RESOLUTION NO. 91- Page 2