City Council Packet - 11/26/1991
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
AGENDA
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an
agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be
recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that
agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be
two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for
a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or
the City Administrator.
• PROSPECTIVE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEMBER INTERVIEWS (5:30 P.M.)
Mayor Edwards & Councilor Kasten
• STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.)
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 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.2 Authorize City's Participation in the Forum on Cooperative Urban Services - Resolution
No. 91-
r
s COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 1
1,+
1
4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR
91-0004 VARIANCE VAR 91-0012 SENSITIVE LANDS 91-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION
MLP 91-0003 MB DEVELOPMENTIOTAK (NPO #3) An appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision approving the following: 1) Minor Land Partition approval to divide a
40.03 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately 20 acres each; 2) Subdivision preliminary
plat/Planned Development conceptual plan approval to divide the western-most portion of the
property into 52 single-family residential lots and two private open space tracts; 3) Sensitive
Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for road and home construction of portions of the
subject property that exceed 25 percent grade; and 4) Variance approval for the following: a)
to allow development of three cul-de-sac local streets of 510 feet, 560 feet, and 680 feet whereas
Community Development Code section 18.164.030 (Fn allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of
400 feet; b) to allow development of local streets with 28 feet of pavement and sidewalks on one
side within a 40 foot right-of-way whereas Code section 18.164.070 (A) requires sidewalks on
both sides of local streets in Phase 2 of the development only; c) to allow local street grades of
as much as 15 percent whereas Code section 18.164.030 (M) allows a maximum local street
grade of 12 percent. ZONE: R-4.5 (PD) (Residential, 4.5 units/acre, Planned Development)
LOCATION: East of Benchview Estates subdivision, south of the present terminus, and west of
SW 121 st Avenue (WCTM 2S1 4, tax lot 1400) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community
Development Code chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, 18.164;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1,
8.1.3.
• Open Public Hearing
• Declarations or Challenges
• Staff Report - Community Development Department
Public Testimony:
- Appellants
- Proponents (Speaking for Appeal)
- Opponents (Speaking Against Appeal)
- Additional Testimony
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
• Consideration by Council: Motion: Direct Staff to Prepare Final Order Reflecting Council
Decision
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
• City Administrator
6. 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.
7. ADJOURNMENT
oca1126.91
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 2
t
t
S }
Y '
Y
Council Agenda Item
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991
• Prospective Board and Committee Interviews (5:30 p.m.). Mayor
Edwards and Councilor Kasten interviewed persons for
appointment to several Neighborhood Planning Organizations.
• Study Meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie
Johnson, Joe Kasten, Jack Schwab, and John Schwartz. Staff
Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Gary Alfson,
Senior Project Engineer; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Ken
Elliott, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development
Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator;
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City
Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation Update - Mary
Tobias, President of TVEDC updated Council on the following issues:
• Teleconference on October 30 (Growing Pains: Economic
Development in the 90's) was received well.
• Washington County Business Consortium: Formation is
stalled because of funding issues. Purpose of Consortium
would be to provide businesses a means for input on
regional issues. Chambers of Commerce (countywide) are
pursuing.
• Western Bypass: ODOT has-done a good job in presenting
and studying possible options in public meetings. Murray
Road arterial expansion does not appear to be feasible
because of cost. All communities affected by the various
options voiced concerns about the proposals. A court
challenge is likely; comprehensive study of all options
is required under State land use law.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 1
Y
1~
• Charter Commission: A draft document on regional
planning powers is almost ready for public comment. It
will be important for Tigard to review and submit their
viewpoint. Ms. Tobias noted the RGC has submitted good
material for the Commission. Public comment has been cut
off for a period of time.
Executive Session - Council went into Executive Session at 7:05
p.m. under the real estate transaction provisions of the ORS.
Council reconvened: 7:10 p.m.
Council Calendar - City Administrator reminded Council of the Tree
Lighting event on December 6.
Flagpole at Liberty Park - The Tigard American Legion post offered
to donate a flag and flagpole to the City for Liberty Park. City
Administrator advised cost for lighting would be approximately
$2,500. Community Relations Coordinator reported the Legion does
not think they can meet their desired installation date of December
7. Council discussed the possibility of fundraising for the
lighting costs and holding a ground breaking ceremony for the flag•
on December 7.
Western Bypass Steering Committee - City Administrator will attend
the Steering Committee meeting on December 4. He advised he would
be casting a vote in favor of the proposed changes to the
Intergovernmental Agreement and to carry forward the strategies as
alternatives, with protestation about the arterial expansion
alternative, unless the Council directs otherwise.
Tigard will go on record as being opposed to the arterial expansion
proposal.
Westside Light Rail - Portland Commissioner Earl Blumenauer was
present at a press conference earlier this date. Mayor Edwards
indicated to the press that Tigard is supportive of pursuing light
rail service. Several cities were represented at the workshop
after the press conference including Tualatin, Wilsonville, King
City, Sherwood, and Durham. Commissioner Blumenauer will forward
the feasibility report to the Cities for their review.
• Business meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor
Edwards.
BUSINESS MEETING
Non-Agenda - Mayor advised two non-agenda items would be
considered at the end of the meeting. These items
are: Consideration of agreement with- Elmer's
Restaurant regarding the Gaarde Street Realignment
Project and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for
the Gaarde Street Project.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 2
Proclamation - Mayor proclaimed the week of December 1 to be Civil
Air Patrol Week in Tigard.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - No visitors.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by
Councilor Johnson, to approve the following:
3.1 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.2 Authorize City's Participation in the Forum on
Cooperative Urban Services - Resolution No. 91-70
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0009 PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0004 VARIANCE VAR 91-0012 SENSITIVE
LANDS 91-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 91-0003 MB
DEVELOPMENTjOTAK (NPO #3) An appeal of the Planning
commission's decision of September 23 approving a revised
plan. The NPO appealed the decision on the grounds that "the
development plan does not include the westward extension of
Gaarde, one of the two options in the N.E. Bull Mountain
Transportation Study."
a. Public Hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the Staff
Report. The NPO's grounds for appeal were restated (as
shown above). Mr. Murphy advised the appeal involves
essentially one policy issue; that is, Comprehensive Plan
Policy 8.1.1 which is a general policy about providing a
safe and efficient transportation system. Also involved
is the Transportation Plan Map Note #2:
Study area to determine a future connection between
the Walnut/132nd intersection and the Gaarde/121st
intersection. A major collector extension of
Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast
Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report. An
indirect connection of minor collectors has been
recommended by NPO #3.
Mr. Murphy reviewed several maps and some text on the
overhead projector. (A copy of this information has been
filed with the Council packet material.) He reviewed the
property location. He described how adjacent properties
have been planned for development. He noted location
of streets because of topography (steep grade & ravine).
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 3
The proposed subdivision for Mountain Highlands
represents Phase 1 and 2 of half of the property with the
remaining half to be developed later. Eventually, a
through street would be constructed from Bull Mountain
Road to Benchview.
One question before Council is whether or not the
Planning Commission approval was consistent with the
Transportation Map. This area is affected by Note 2 (see
above). The Northeast Bull Mountain Study Report has not
been adopted by the council. .The issue of a direct route
with a major collector or an indirect route of minor
collectors for this area has not been resolved.
Therefore, the Council must determine, through this
hearing, whether or not the Planning Commission could
approve a subdivision within this area essentially
foreclosing one street option (extending Gaarde Street
directly up the hill).
Mr. Murphy advised that the other half of the property
(approximately 20 acres to the west) appears to offer a
possible route for extending Gaarde street which looks to
be similar to what the NPO desires an indirect
connection to Walnut Street. The development of the
eastern half of this property does not foreclose the
options as recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain
Study or the options recommended by the NPO.
Mr. Murphy concluded by stating that the question is, "In
the absence of having an approved, specific alignment,
can the Planning Commission approve a subdivision... that
precludes an option that they do not think is a viable
option ...does any approval of a subdivision in this area
have to leave open all possible options for future road
alignments." Staff agrees with Planning Commission that
the approval does not have to be based on the criteria
that all options must be left open.
City Engineer added that the Planning commission did
review some options that considered a route for a minor
collector street through this subdivision (travelling
east to west). The Commission concluded that, because of
the steep grade, it was not suitable.
Staff answered Council questions on topography and
clarified the staff's recommendation with regard to
practicality of road construction because of the steep
grade and a ravine.
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 4
x
yi
d. Public Testimony
• NPO 3: Herm Porter, Chair of NPO 3 referred to the
Northeast Bull Mountain Study and the
transportation proposals for this area. The two
proposals were:
1. A northerly route as a major collector which
was fairly directly aligned with Murray
Boulevard.
2. A westerly route that the NPO proposed as a
minor collector. Also recommended that the
turning radius be reduced so that the road
could fit the contours much better. In
addition, no driveways should front the road.
Mr. Porter advised that the basis of choosing
between these options has been argued by the NPO
that if there was a direct road connecting an
arterial (Murray Boulevard) with another arterial
(Pacific Highway) then that road would not function
as a collector but would attract through traffic
for the area. The NPO's suggestion would not
encourage through traffic.
The Council has not made a decision on the Study.
It is time to make this decision to avoid ending up
with an alignment which is chosen because it is
what is left after all the development has
occurred.
Mr. Porter also referred to, the Westside Bypass
Study. He advised that out of four possible
options, two suggest a connection from Murray
through Gaarde to Pacif is Highway down McDonald
Street then to Bonita Road to I-5. One option is a
three-lane road and the other is a four-lane road.
This illustrates the validity of the arguments made
by the NPO at the time of the initial review of the
Northeast Bull Mountain Study. The best
alternative, in the NPO's opinion, is to allow a
connection which does not encourage through
traffic.
He noted that no one has recommended that there
should be more than one collector street. The NPO
asks which way the collector will go west or
north. The NPO recommends a westerly route.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 5
Y
t
F
Mayor asked for clarification from Legal Counsel on the
issue before Council. Mr. Elliott responded that the
Council is reviewing the scope of the appeal but does not
need to plan the traffic for this entire area. The
Council must decide whether this subdivision can be
approved as the Planning commission did despite the NPO's
perceived contradiction with the northeast area
transportation plan. If this is contradictory, Council
could make a policy decision at this point on the overall
plan. The Planning commission found that this particular
proposal did not preclude realizing the goals of that
plan at a future date.
Councilor Johnson asked for clarification on what the
NPO's difficulty was with this particular plan. Mr.
Porter responded that the proposal would eliminate the
possibility of a route that's directly west. The
Planning commission suggested that there were other
routes that might be suitable that were not so direct to
Murray Road. In the Northeast Bull Mountain Study, no
such route was suggested and nothing has been discussed -
- only two alternatives were proposed one by the_NPO
and one by the Planning Department. The NPO is
suggesting that the proper procedure is for the City
Council is to choose one of the routes; that is, make a
decision whether the collector should head westerly,
northerly, or somewhere in between. Once this decision
has been made, it would be appropriate to lay out a
development plan for this area. He reiterated the NPO
would prefer a westerly route.
Councilor Schwartz commented on the City Engineer's
opinion concerning the topography and the expense of a
route such as what the NPO is suggesting. Mr. Porter
responded that a road to collector standards is what
would make the construction expensive. However, if the
road was made narrower, with a shorter, smaller turning
radius making the road fit to the terrain much better,
then the costs would come down. No one has made a study
of what the costs would be if that kind of collector is
built.
Councilor Johnson referred to the possibility that Gaarde
could be extended in a northwestern direction and connect
with 132nd before it intersected with Walnut. This would
be on flatter terrain. Did the NPO discuss this
possibility. Mr. Porter said the NPO did not discuss
this route; it was never raised before the NPO.
Councilor Johnson asked if the NPO's objection was
primarily procedural. Mr. Porter responded that there
were procedural concerns, but the appropriate thing would
be for the Council to look into all the possibilities and
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 6
r
choose what is the most appropriate road. Then, the
development should follow based on that decision rather
than the Council being left with what is undeveloped;
i.e., the last developer gets the road. This does not
appear to be the proper way to proceed.
Councilor Schwab said that it appears that the NPO has
made a value judgment that they would rather see a
connector go west and thereby keep the size of it down
and the directness of it to a minimum to prevent and
preclude a wider, more direct access to 132nd and to
Murray Road. Mr. Porter indicated that this was correct.
The staff proposal appears to the NPO to result in having
an arterial going through the neighborhood which would
start out at two or three lanes and could very well be
expanded to four lanes sometime in the future. The
street would then function as an arterial directing
through-traffic across the neighborhood.
• Paul Heavirland, 8685 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard,
OR 97224 advised that the Council should take a
hard look at the underground. He referred to a
study done for Unified Sewerage Agency which shows
major trunk lines going through Tigard. He noted
concerns with future development and the planning
for sewer lines with what is existing. He said
that before traffic issues could be addressed the
underground work must be completed first.
Mr. Heavirland also noted concerns with the with
the Western Bypass options and building
subdivisions without an overlay of where the roads
should be. He advised that planning was necessary
and piecemeal development should be avoided.
• Mr. Gene Birchill, Deputy Fire Marshall, advised of
the Fire District's preference for through streets
rather than for small islands accessed through a
series of cul-de sacs. Mr. Birchill advised that
the Fire Department did not have an opportunity to
comment to the Planning Commission and had only
reviewed in a preliminary fashion.
There was discussion on this particular plan and
the findings contained in the Planning Commission's
Final order which related to Mr. Birchill's
concern. (See Page 8 of the Commission's Final
Order.) In addition, the proposal (changed from
the Fire Department's initial review) was found in
the Final Order to meet safety standards as
follows:
` CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 7
i
t
"These cul de sac lengths also are not
anticipated to be detrimental to the public
health or safety or rights of others because
the proposed lengths, although not ideal in
the view of service providers, are within the
range of acceptable street lengths served by
those agencies and therefore are presumably
serviceable."
City Engineer also pointed out that future
development included a street stubbed out to the
north, which would considerably enhance the access.
• Thomas Demaree, 10105 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard,
Oregon testified against piecemeal development. He
noted his concern that it appears that the Western
Bypass is being built one step at a time. He
advised it was crucial to plan ahead.
• Deborah Shapiro, 9910 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard,
OR 97224 advised she, too, was concerned with great
volumes of traffic running through residential
neighborhoods.
• Carol Bullock, 10542 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard,
OR 97224, advised she moved to Tigard from Idaho
five years ago and lives in an older, historical
home. If McDonald should become a four-lane
highway, this would severely impact her property.
She requested that Council choose carefully and
plan for the future.
• Andrew Shapiro signed in to testify, but
declined to speak.
• James Shelton, advised he moved to 121st and Gaarde
Street about a year ago: He referred to a County
map and cautioned that the City should be aware of
8" concrete tile lines in this vicinity.
• Bev Froude, 12200 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard,
OR 97224 advised she was a member of NPO 3. She
said the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation
Study should be completed. The Council and
citizens should be part of the process; developers
should not determine the transportation system for
the area.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 8
c
}
Ms. Froude referred to earlier and ongoing work
connected with the Urban Planning Area Agreement
(UPAA). She suggested that agreement was imminent
between Beaverton, Washington County, and Tigard
with regard to transportation in this area. She
urged the City to pursue this.
She noted the importance of completing the plans
because of the options proposed for the Westside
Bypass.
• David Bantz, OTAK, 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road,
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (applicant) advised they
submitted their application on May 24, 1991;
therefore, their development must be evaluated on
criteria in place at that time. He referred to
Note 2 as outlined by the Community Development
Director. Note 2 was approved by the Council on
June 11, 1991 which was after the date of
application. Additional highlights of his
testimony are as follows:
- The NPO did not want to have lots exiting out
to a collector street; this would not serve
the purpose of a collector street.
- The street proposed on the west boundary would
move traffic through the area.
- He advised the Fire District currently serves
other jurisdictions with cul de sacs similar
to those planned for this development.
- The sewer service to this project does travel
a significant distance; costs will be paid by
the developer.
- The lots for this development are not small;
lot sizes are 35 percent over average lot size
required.
Mr. Bantz reviewed with Council some of the
problems to be solved with developing this property
because of topography. He advised that an east-
west road would not be feasible.
• Mike Davis, 11720 S.W. Gaarde Street, Tigard, OR
97224 advised he was concerned about development in
the area. He asked for assistance on how he could
keep informed. Mayor noted the requirements for
publicizing hearings and, in addition, he urged
Mr. Bantz to contact staff.
F CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 9
!
• Bruce Hollister, 14380 S.W. 114th, Tigard, OR
97223, advised that an extension of Murray across
the north face of Bull Mountain appeared on plans
as long as 30 years ago. This plan was abandoned
by the County 13 years ago. He said the Murray
Road connection should not be designated as the
Westside Bypass and that something should be done
to keep this traffic out of Tigard.
Mayor Edwards read the following written testimony:
• Elaine Moore, 13535 S.W. 121st Avenue, Tigard, OR
97223 - "Objection to proposed 40-foot street
entering our property from the south. Prefer
entrance at the 290-foot level. This alignment
would give the M.B. Phase I development access to
the greenway closed to them by the 40-foot road!
e. Staff Recommendation - Community Development Director
reviewed the Planning Commissions decision and said
viable options for transportation would remain open if
this property were allowed to develop as proposed.
A moratorium on development can be imposed for a limited
purpose and time; it was unlikely that this development
would qualify for moratorium. The time limit for a
moratorium is six months; the Westside Bypass issue will
probably not be resolved within six months.
Note 2, as adopted on June 11, 1991, was essentially the
same as the prior transportation map. (This issue was
raised by the applicant during his testimony.)
The Planning Commission thought safety issues had been
resolved (emergency vehicle access) with regard to cul de
sac length.
Staff recommended that the Council uphold the Planning
commission's decision.
f. Public Hearing was closed.
g. Council Comments/Questions
• Councilor Kasten noted the number of comments of
concern with the Westside Bypass going through
Tigard. He noted the process wherein all options
must be discussed. Tigard is opposed to the
Westside Bypass going through this area.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26,.1991 - PAGE 10
r
i.
He advised he supported the Planning Commission's
decision in that many other viable transportation
alternatives remained.
• Councilor Schwab advised he agreed with Councilor
Kasten. He referred to the problems presented by
topography and added that enough alternatives for
transportation in the area would remain.
• Councilor Johnson advised this development was
being tied to another issue (Westside Bypass) which
was not being considered. She agreed with
Councilors Schwab and Kasten that the Planning
Commission decision should be upheld by Council.
She added that the Northeast Bull Mountain Study
should be scheduled for Council review and
decision.
• Councilor Schwartz advised that approval of this
subdivision would not mean that a bypass road would
be created. He advised he would vote to uphold the
Planning Commission's decision.
• Mayor Edwards said he appreciated the citizens'
testimony and he shared their concerns with the
transportation issues. He said he had not heard
any testimony which demonstrated that the applicant
had not met criteria for development which was in
place at the time of application. He agreed for
the need for a Council decision on the
transportation issues still pending in this area.
He advised he would support the Planning
commission's decision.
h. Council consideration:
• Motion by Councilor Kasten,-seconded by Councilor
Schwab, to uphold the Planning Commission decision.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of
council present.
Council directed staff to take steps to initiate
study to bring resolution to Note 2 on the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map.
- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 11
{ 5. Gaarde Street Realignment
a. Motion by Councilor Schwab, seconded by Councilor Kasten,
to approve and authorize the City Administrator to sign
an agreement with Elmer's Restaurant for the Gaarde
Street realignment project.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
b. Council as the Local Contract Review Board:
Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor
Johnson, to authorize staff to advertise for bids on the
Gaarde Street Realignment Project.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
6. Adjournment: 9:11 p.m.
Attest: _ Catherine Wheatley, City Record
r
-,Vayor, Tigard
Date :
=0126.91
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - PAGE 12
t
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice~T 7096
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 x~- a~ ~~~~~r~ r♦ .
Legal Notice Advertising
R t C E I V Ea by theTigardty ~ounetldn Novem-?
City enter' To +n Ts>I,' 3125
• of Tigard r r~ty , U -11gatd Civi
13 Tearsheet Notice LB1Wd. igard~~Qre$on' Ft~rther1nf0 rmaaon'tr►a obtameiErs
PO Box 23397 Nov 2 0 1991{~ n y f a
=the om
Ct u~it)!~Deyal~ipmeil°t Dnu r or,.City Reeo er~t the
~at'on or b '*cal_ing'6399 1'Yoit` re mvi~ed tosul~`"tdit wrt s-`
• Tigands OR 97223 e 0 Duplicate Affidavit
+s + fan i i xa sc
of TIGARD one m advlittt a of the p I.4 hea~nitg,mmtien anQ ora te~tunon . ~1
• CITY go 3tdeied at the teanti t~ltapg ~i~healrneg ~cbn 3uCted ~
• arc "co`~ti~~'the~ap~~ltt~l6~lta~~r°~;>~3~ o jt1tC'~, ~ t'I`nttrilial
aintl riy rules of-rocdt~opted bythebuii ' dn~vailble
Ctty.Ha11`,t~' ,4k
ft 011
BDIVISIQN SUB.91-0009 ~ l~A
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 1" A
STATE OF OREGON,?,
z4 Lr
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, jss.
ANDINMM,
Judith KoehlerD i+~~~~ :°~„{NPO#3
l' ppeaI of tha'lainn g Commission's decist "n~8 tti o:.
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 $m tre Advertising z "
oramnd PartlUb~i a royal to dt~rd~ 03 acre
Director, or his principal clerk, of the_- Z`.i OK Tunes . A f3
par is of? 20 acres each; `Suihdivisibt relrM1
a newspaper of general circy t ion defined in ORS 193.010 glop ~enEconcfieptital } f$ppiavaltcidivad: a"-iti
and 193.020; published at
in the ii efiproperty nto 5$;s erfatlynes~ Pala 0
afor i ic° rildn~h t19 ce tracts, Reir
7~Snsw6es"edwp` v un y
~and~FtlOafC corl~'~ ~ ~
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the rcert grafde and ncCap co fo { 9 01.A o,
entire issue of said newspaper for elopmgnt ofd C-de~slocafrsbQ~f ~1 .
One 8000@SSIVe and 3 l's fl s
reas;Commt)rq~yal3e~pman~ Q
consecutive in the following issues:
3 ~~tum cal-c~~PElW~tt~.
November 14, 1991 ts~fee td~tt Ttlu.
- ~ 4 ~ a~ i; . s,,o'`skmUC~t,a?~5~l~eic~e~►f'4~.b ~
~ {1~Q', 0 $~maattr`t'um~T f$ ~Q ~o
entt Z ' XA- 5 (PD~`(RCSi ,
t=qeri~ w EStates,3tiUfiiv~'
Subscribed and sworn t before me this 14th day of November, 19910
,
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: µstf -
AFFIDAVIT
i ,
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal 716,~-
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664.0360 Notice TT
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
The following meeting tughlighfs`are published for your. information Futi
R E Cdddt Mice Advertising agendas may. be, obtained fr6iikhe City. Recorder , 13,125 S W Hall"
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 07223-,* by caUmg 639:417Y
• City of Tigard OF_C 4 2 1991 • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
G
PO Box 23397 CITY. COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETIN
• Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit NOVEMBER _TOW
TIGARD CI'I'Y;HALL.=T'OW'N HALL
131255 W:;HALL BOiJLEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON ;
• o
Board and Commi;tee o qe Members te}vigwS S 30 P.A
4nr--.
' ~~faR tk r ~!#r'.9 `1'..?t"
M eeb H alt n~e enCb Room) (6:30 P.M
mt Ell
SW~'
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Business Meeting ('Ibvm Ti0)(7,30 P M )
STATE OF OREGON, )ss PublicHeaangs~~+
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) • Appeal:;of Planning. Gommissioi+ Docision 'MB Develop
I, Judith Koehler menUOTAK (Subdivision SUB 91 0009; Planned Deyelogment
PDR 9l 0004, Vanan~e VAR 910012; Sensitive Lands 9i-0002
being first duly sworn, depose and say that_i am thg,gdvertismg MmorL:indpaititionMLP91-0db3
Director, or his principal clerk, of the 1;ar es~rt,
a newspaper of general circulatipn as, defined in ORS 193.010 + x
and 193.020; published at Mar in the • The Tigard+Clty.Councili~.+il1 go'into Executive Session un~ the
aforesaid county and state; that the ;provisions of OItS~192 660(1).(_ );;(e),i (h) to;discuss labornea
Notice of City Council Business Meeting d
e t and dwg lproprty rnctons, currenpentions, re al itigation is
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the sues ,
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and 4. k r; ' v" . t a fi}
Local 'Contract,Review.Boardlyieet!iW*., ~,cYx
consecutive in the following issues:
November 21, 1991 TT7102 Publish November 21,1991.'
i
Subscribed and swor o before me this 21st day of November, 1991
Notary Public for Oregon
My Comm`issio' Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
2 11/26/9] ?
AGENDA ITEM NA,.: 3 ~TISITORI S AGENDA DATE:.
(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
Depending on the number of persons wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council
may limit the amount of time each-person has to speak. We ask you to limit your
oral comments to 3-5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary.
Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM ..NO.. 4 = DATE : 11/26/91
k}
.APPEAL...,.. PUBLIC `RING SUBDI'VISIOW,- SUB ;91r-0009.-;
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0004 VARIANCE VAR 91-0012
SENSITIVE LANDS 91-0002 MINOR LAND PARITION"ALP
,91-0003. MB DEVELOPMENT/OT AK- (NP 0
PLSA.SE PRINT
NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS
*For appeal) OPPONIMMS (Against appeal)
01
Z
~'1~t 1 LAfiSJ
S~S,W M `,b o/✓/+L D Ti &A-A D AAA fd'~~
I:_ tL TJ F v
P DI TJ C Ka ~ `L .t C ~ G 1' !S [ Cf C o cL r~1 u rc-
I
(o 5~,. ~Ccra ti~L~? TIGR
- Oko )S&) ~Mc,,nAA -:::9~
J
L .6
3 ~ a ScJ m~ ~ T
Hoke SNAFtgo
IM ~ S ~ t L4L. Z O
i
~Jv
DATE: November 15, 1991
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mary L. Tobias
RE: President's Report
October 1991
REGIONAL PROGRAMS AND PLANNING
We saw a lot of regional program activity in Washington
County in October including the convening of a countywide
economic development professionals group, continued
organizational meetings for the Washington County Business
Consortium (WCBC), the visit of a delegation from South Korea and
TVEDC's teleconference on land use and transportation planning.
Also during the month of October, TVEDC staff met with Washington
County to initiate work on the county's economic development
plan.
Growing Pains: Economic Development in the Nineties On October
30 TVEDC in partnership with the Gresham Area Chamber of Commerce
produced a two-way video, two-way audio teleconference on land
use and transportation planning. KATU Channel 2 reporter Rick
Meyers moderated the hour and a half program from the Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue studio in Aloha where panelists Bill Blosser
(LCDC), Rich Carson (METRO), Keith Bartholomew (1000 Friends of
Oregon) and Mary Tobias (TVEDC) presented their respective agency
views. Joan Pasco (Gresham Chamber) moderated the eastside
panel, Charlie Hales (HBAMP), Sue O'Hallorhn (I-84 Corridor
Association), John Anderson (City of Gresham) and Robin McArthur
Phillips (ODOT) from the studio at Mt. Hood Community College.
This production was the first of its kind ever attempted in the
Portland area. Judging from reactions of the live studio
audiences in each location and from people who have seen the
program, it was a success. TVEDC plans to produce a series of
similar programs on other issues facing the region.
Washington County Business Consortium The chambers of commerce
are continuing to pursue the concept of a countywide network to
monitor and respond to issues of regional concern. TVEDC was
asked to submit a proposal for staffing services to the
consortium. Using the issues that had been identified by the
consortium as priorities, we submitted a proposal for consultant
services on four issues at a cost of $28,000 first year. The
consoxtium appears to feel the proposal is attractive, but is in
the process of deciding whether or not the chambers can find the
necessary funding.
5
TVEDC PRESIDENT'S REPORT
October 1991
Page 2
Washington County Economic Development Plan We have begun the
next phase of the plan development after discussions with
Washington County staff about the scope of work. Darin Goble, a
1991 graduate of Linfield College, has joined the staff as an
intern to work on this project. The current work plan calls for
reconvening the steering committee in mid-December or early
January for a briefing. It is hoped that the recently formed
countywide economic development professionals group will act as
an advisory board for the project.
Washington County Economic Development Professionals Group--
TVEDC, Tualatin and Beaverton invited the economic development
professionals from Tigard, Forest Grove and Hillsboro to meet for
roundtable discussions on issues of business recruitment and
retention in Washington County. There was consensus among those
attending that we need stronger professional linkages and
information sharing within the county. There was also
considerable discussion of the role the Portland Development
Commission plays in business recruitment. We have decided that
this is an important linkage for Washington County and we would
like further information on PDC's programs and to ..determine ways
we can all interact more effectively. The group will be expanded
to include Sunset Corriecr Association and WCVA at the next
meeting.
South Korean Delegation Visit At the request of Washington
County TVEDC assisted with the hosting of the delegation from
South Korea this month. TVEDC board members Pat Ritz, Bonnie
Hays and Greg Van Pelt visited South Korea in the spring and this
delegation was returning that official visit. Six Korean
businessmen, some of whom were also local elected officials,
comprised the delegation. TVEDC prepared Washington County
information packets far the visitors and board chairman Ritz
hosted a lunch on their last day in Oregon. We also assisted
with a business tour for three of the Koreans and Greg Van Pelt
hosted one of the visitor's lunches.
Council for Economic Development in Oregon (CEDO) The
executive board met to begin planning fro the regional meeting to
be held in Cottage Grove November 7 and S. Cottage Grove Mayor
Jim Gilroy has asked to host a meeting with an emphasis on some
of the community projects they have promoted over the past three
years. The CEDO economic development directory is now ready for
distribution. This is the only statewide directory of its kind
in Oregon and is very much in demand.
C
1
TVEDC PRESIDENT'S REPORT
October 1991
Page 3
INFORMATION SERVICES
October saw a slight upturn in requests for .information
about business relocations, demographics and market strength. We
continue to receive a number of job search calls. Most of these
seem to be from newcomers to the state, but we are also hearing
from employees of Washington County businesses where layoffs are
occurring. The primary out of state inquiries come from small
businesses, usually consultants.
I attended the National Association of Business Economists
economic outlook seminar this month. This was a good opportunity
to get an update on national and state economic trends. It is
interesting that Oregon does seem to be ahead of the nation with
respect of weathering the recession. However, it does seem from
conversations with members, that there has been a downturn and
that there is a certain amount of pessimism in the region about
the last quarter of 1991 and early 1992.
-ISSUES MANAGEMENT
The issues of primary concern to TVEDC continue to be the
Western Bypass, land use, growth management and the METRO
charter. During October the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) began its work on the state's urban growth
management study. This project is expected to take up to IS
months. The METRO charter committee is continuing its work with
completion scheduled for July of 1992.
Western Bypass Study ODOT presented the findings on the
strategies being considered as solutions to the traffic problems
in Washington County at meetings of the citizens and technical
advisory committees and the steering committee this month. The
study findings clearly demonstrated that a bypass in the area of
Hillsboro would be too far west to be of any good in addressing
the traffic problems in east county. The data also led the study
team to reconfigure several of the strategies and come forward
with four alternatives for further study: an arterial expansion
program within the UGB, a bypass in the general area recommended
originally, a transit intensive strategy with road expansion and
a no build-strategy. The study team recommended that any further
consideration of light rail beyond the Portland-Hillsboro line be
dropped. The citizens committee agreed with the study team
proposals, but the technical group decided to take the light rail
strategy forward for further consideration. There was serious
debate on the proposed alternatives at the steering committee
because of the impacts of the arterial expansion alternative on
the city of Tigard.
TVEDC PRESIDENT'S REPORT
October 1991
Page 4
METRO Charter The charter committee has been debating the
appropriate role the metropolitan government should play in
regional planning. There has been considerable discussion of the
amount of authority that should be assigned to a regional body
versus the amount of control that should be left at the local
government level. Particular debate has centered around the
issue of mandating comprehensive planning authority in METRO and
the connection between a regional comprehensive plan and local
city and county comp plans. In addition, there is a proposal
before the committee to mandate the development of a "Future
Vision" for the region that would look out at least 25-50 years.
In my opinion, this is not an appropriate project to call out in
a governance document. The planning proposals currently under
consideration for inclusion in the charter seem to be micro-
management of the region. Again, in my opinion, a governance
should not attempt to micromanage, but rather should provide a
framework that will allow the region to determine the extent of
regional government that will be encouraged as political, social
.and economic circumstances dictate.
DLCD Urban Growth Management Study The statewide urba-n growth
management study is underway following the Legislative Emergency
Board's funding of the portion of the project dealing with growth
inside urban growth boundaries. The study has been divided into
four subcommittees, each dealing with a specific aspect of urban
growth management. I am sitting on two of the subcommittees: 1)
Land Use and Transportation Planning and 2) Redevelopment and
Infill, Cooperative Microplanning, Interim Development,
Partitioning. At this point, it is too early to see where the
policy direction will take the state. However, as usual, there
is almost no private sector involvement in the process. Most of
the participants in the study represent local government or are
consultants involved in land use planning issues. 1000 Friends
of Oregon has representatives on all four of the committees.
Higher Education The Greater Portland Trust in Higher
Education held an all day retreat in conjunction with the Council
of Presidents (made up of the presidents of eight Portland area
colleges and universities). The purpose of the retreat was to
define the roles of the two organizations in providing support to
higher education in the region. Although some of questions about
the interrelationship between the two councils were resolved,
many of the questions about form and function remain on the
table. I expect the unresolved issues will continue to occupy
the energy of both councils for the next several months. At the
heart of the issues is the question of funding for the Trust-
how much, for what and from whom.
TVEDC PRESIDENT'S REPORT
October 1991
Page 5
MEMBERSHIP AND PROGRAMS
October is the final month for 1991 membership renewals with
the beginning of the 1992 renewal campaign scheduled for
November. We closed the records on 1991 with 147 members in good
standing. TVEDCIs renewal rate was 94% with 4 companies
officially declining to renew and 14 companies from whom we
received no response. In addition, we added 8 new members in the
last half of the year. The I-5 Corridor renewal rate was 55%
with 18 companies declining to renew. The renewals brought 54
new member companies into TVEDC. We expect to have 1992 renewal
notices in the mail in mid-November and will then want to pursue
a very aggressive renewal campaign throughout December and
January.
ADMINISTRATION
i
Administrative effort in October went -toward finishing up
the record keeping for the 1991 member.ship campaign and providing
support to the board and TVEDC standing-committees.- In addition,
P-at Ritz, board chairman, and I met with Jane Cummins (Meridian
Park Nospita1) and extended the board's invitation for
membership. Jane accepted that invitation and her name was
placed in nomination along with those of Frank VanDeventer (Baugh
Construction) and Mark Nicklas (MCI) at the October board
meeting. All three nominations were accepted and the new board
members will be invited to join the board officially in November.
Bert Gredvig and I met in October to continue discussion of
the organization of the Board of Advisors. We will propose to
the board that initial invitations be extended in early January.
A specific proposal along with a list of candidates will be
forwarded to the board in December.
Stephanie Baker joined the staff in mid-October. She will
be responsible for most of the public information components of
the corporation's work plan. Her duties will include research,
writing and program planning. In addition, there will be some
responsibility for membership retention assigned to her.
Keven Spellman and Bruce 'Ruminiski have informed me that
they will be leaving the board of directors. Kevin has
additional responsibilities this year with Associated General
Contractors that do not allow him the time for the board.
However, he does want to return when time permits. Bruce has had
a job description change and will not be able. to continue.
However, he has had assurances from PGE that they want to
continue their support to TVEDC on special projects.
a
TVEDC PRESIDENT'S REPORT
October 1991
Page 6
OUTSIDE MEETINGS
In the reporting period, TVEDC was represented at the
following outside meetings or events:
PRESENTATIONS
Women in Transportation Seminar - Joint Presentation on
Transportation and Growth
Management with Ethan
Seltzer, METRO
Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce/ - Update on Regional Issues
Government Affairs Comm.
REGIONAL MEETINGS
PDC Coordinating Council - Regular Meeting
Western Bypass - Citizens Advisory Committee
- Technical Advisory Committee
Steering Committee
- TVEDC/Sunset Corridor Strategy Mtgs. (3)
- Michal Wert/ODOT Update
METRO Charter - Regular Meetings (5)
- Planning Subcommittee Meeting
- D. Mulvihill/Washington County - Update
- R. Phelps/Associated General Contractors
DLCD Urban Growth Management Study - Micromanagement Comm.
- Transportation Comm.
Washington County/Korean Delegation - Planning Sessions
- Business Tour
- Social Functions (3)
Greater Portland Trust in Higher Education - Retreat
- Monthly Meet.
CEDO - Executive Board Meeting-
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce - Monthly Meeting
Rural Conservation & Development Council - Regular meeting
1000 Friends of Oregon/Home Builders - Affordable Housing
Washington County Public Affairs Forum - Regular Meets (4)
Washington County Business Consortium - Finance Committee
- Regular Meeting
Washington County Managers - Regular Meeting
NABE Economic Outlook
GTE - Customer Appreciation Luncheon
- New Facilities Open House
Washington County Economic Development Professionals - Meet.
E '
TVEDC PRESIDENT'S REPORT
October 1991
Page 7
TVEDC SPONSORED ACTIVITIES OR EVENTS
Teleconference - "Growing Pains: Economic Development in the
Nineties"
I-5 Breakfast Forum - "Sherwood Wildlife Refuge"
PRESS CONTACTS
Doug Browning/Hillsboro Argus - TVEDC Update
Tigard Times - Article/"It's Time to Start Building the Western
Bypass"
Roger Pike/KWJJ Radio - Teleconference Interview
INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS
During the reporting period TVEDC staff contacted the
following members and associates on TVEDC business:
Betty Duvall/Portland Community.College - TVEDC Update
Roger Meyer,..-Arthur Krueger/PGE - New PGE contact
Ann Nichols/Columbia Corridor Assoc. - Business Recruitment
Frank Nims/Oregonians in Action - Land Use Issues
Theresa Taaffe/OEDD - Programs and Projects
Bonnie Hays/Washington County - Korean Delegation
- TVEDC Programs
Britt Ferguson/Washington County - Economic Development Plan
Nancy Fargo/Fujitani Hilts - Project Assistance for Member
Larry Chalfan/OKI Semiconductor - Plant Tour & &eeting
Bill Buckley/Buckley, Montgomery - Office open House
Mark Clemmons/PDC - Business Recruitment Process & Prospect
Alan Purcell/Washington County - Metro Charter
TVEDC COMMITTEE STAFFING
The following TVEDC committees met during the reporting
period and were attended by staff:
Board of Directors
Executive Committee -
Membership Programs Committee `
Transportation Committee
Teleconference Planning Committee
RUBICON INC.
Mrs. Lawless
Japanese/American business opportunities
NORTHWEST MEDICAL CLAIMS
Sylvia Kilpatrick
Operating capital, business trends
COMPLIANCE PLUS
John Jameson
Market information, new business
EXCELLENCE IN SAFETY, INC.
Dick Hughes
Relocation information
BARBARA SUE SEAL
Monique Reichel
I-5 Corridor information
i
Page - 2
F
r
November 18, 1991
TO: Board of Directors
REGARDING: Information Services/Summary of Activity
INFORMATION REQUESTS:
July 23, 1991 through October 4, 1991
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK
David Cotter
Economic development professionals list
Jim Dingman
East Sound, Washington
Market information
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS, NORTHWEST
Phyllis Westervelt
Market information
Elaine Buhler
Beaverton
Market information for new business
HILLSBORO ARGUS
Doug Browning
Electronics/High Tech industry in Washington County
STAN WILEY
Robert Levy
Market information
DAMMASCH HOSPITAL
Laureen Hunter
.Forming foundation, healthcare industry
David Damm
Glendive, Montana:
Employment, development, tourism inform'atioin
Page ?
t>.
'04OP4
CURRENT ISSUES AFFECTING WASHINGTON COUNTY
OF INTEREST TO TVEDC
METRO CHARTER COMMITTEE The Legislature has given Metro a new
ability to govern under its own charter, thereby establishing its
own areas of power and authority and method of representation.
The charter is expected to clearly define the role of Metro and
its relationship to other local governments in the region. The
issues to be addressed are the breadth of powers granted to
Metro, the structure of the Metro Council and the administration,
the functions Metro will perform in the region, and the funding
mechanisms Metro should use to carry out its functions as defined
by the powers. A sixteen member Charter Committee has been
formed to write a draft charter for public consideration. The
charter is to be submitted to the voters at the general election
in 1992.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Member of the Metro Charter Committee.
Represent the cities of Washington County.
REGIONAL URBAN GROWTH GOALS & OBJECTIVES (RUGGOs) Recently
adopted by Metro, the RUGGOs establish a policy framework for
future regional growth management. Features of RUGGO include
emphasis on creating higher density "mixed use urban centers" in
selected light rail transit station areas and designating land
for "urban reserves" to accommodate growth in the 20-50 year
planning time period.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Member of Metro's RUGGO Technical Advisory
Committee.
Represent the economic development
associations and chambers of commerce in
the Portland metropolitan area.
REGION 2040: TRANSPORTATION/LAND USE CONCEPTS, Phase I An
outgrowth of the RUGGOS, this is a proposed study to develop six
different land use policy concepts. Proposals for this work have
been solicited through RFP. The work is expected to take
approximately 12 months.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Undefined as yet.
Minimum - actively monitoring the process.
STATE TRANSPORTATION RULE The state Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) recently adopted a transportation
planning rule. The effect of this rule:
* establishes evaluation criteria for the Western Bypass
Study
i
i
f
IN
CURRENT ISSUES/TVEDC
Page 2
TRANSPORTATION RULE, cont.
* encourages reduced reliance on the automobile by
requiring cities and counties to plan for other
transportation modes such as pedestrian, bicycles and
transit.
* requires adoption of targets for reductions in per capita
vehicle miles traveled.
* requires that proposed lard use changes be evaluated to
assure.that changes do not exceed the capacity of planned
transportation systems.
* requires local governments to adopt regulations resulting
in a 10% regional decrease in the number of parking
spaces per capita.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Transportation Committee followed the
development of the rule and offered input
to LCDC and ODOT during its development.
Held work sessions with LCDC and other
economic development organization to assist
with crafting the rule language.
Testified at hearings on the rule.
Raised the issue of impact on the western
Bypass and insisted on LCDC reviewing the
issue with the Attorney General's office.
Insisted that LCDC speak to the issue of
"legislative intent" for the rule's impact
on the Western Bypass when LCDC voted to
adopt.
WESTERN BYPASS Proposed to connect I-5 with the Sunset
Highway, this highway is currently in the second year of a 2-year
study (cost approx. $1.8 million) to determine what transporta-
tion problems exist to the west of Portland and if there is a
need for a major controlled access highway running essentially
north/south, circumferentially to relieve congestion. An
alternatives study is currently being conducted by the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) to evaluate the effectiveness
of six different strategies (including one for a bypass) in
solving the region's transportation problems.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Member of the Bypass Study Citizens Advisory
Committee.
Organized the Western Beltway Coalition.
Intervened in the LUBA case 1000 Friends v
e Washington County.
Intervened in the LUBA case & Court of
Appeals case STOP v Metro.
k'
CURRENT ISSUES/TVEDC
Page 3
AIR QUALITY EMISSION FEES The state Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) proposed in RB2175 that the
department be given broad authority to raise fees on automobiles
and possibly require parking fees from employees working for
major employers who currently receive free parking. The use of
the fees was described as a way to charge polluters for the cost
of polluting. The legislature did approve higher registration
fees on autos and authorize the formation of a very broad based
task force in the Portland metropolitan area to address the
issues surrounding automobile emissions and to propose strategies
to reduce emissions in the Portland airshed. The revenues from
the higher vehicle registration fees will be used to help
implement solutions. However, deciding on how the funds are to
be used will be an issue in the region.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Proposed the Interim Task Force to bring
regulators and the business community
together to design solution strategies.
Participated in the working group that
drafted the final language in HB2175.
IL Advocated involving business in the work of
designing the solutions with special
consideration being given to the problems
of implementing new strategies without
driving up the costs of doing business.
STATE AGENCY COUNCIL FOR GROWTH ISSUES IN THE PORTLAND AREA The purpose of this organization is to ensure that state
regulatory, programmatic, and capital investment decisions are
made in an integrated and comprehensive fashion to promote growth
which achieves sustained economic prosperity while maintaining
and enhancing Oregon's livable communities.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Monitor the activities of the council and
report back to Washington County and its
cities.
Currently provide the only direct business
input to the council on issues raised
during their deliberations. This is done
through the mechanism of the council's
public involvement time at council
meetings.
Update the council on the actions of the
Metro Charter Committee.
Aff
1
CURRENT ISSUES/TVEDC
Page 4
LCDC STATEWIDE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY/TASK GROUP ON
DEVELOPMENT INSIDE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES This is a major
effort by LCDC to draft legislation and administrative rules to
implement Goal 14 (urbanization) of the statewide land use
planning goals. The project is just getting underway and the
work plan will be better designed in September.
Member of .the.-Task Group.
- Gd4ERNlrtEI3T"CONS6Z'IZ➢AfiZON -'''Wi.th :recent ~ntereat ."focused --on
growth. and - g.ov.ernarce , t:here. -i..s....increased ...talk :.of- government
.,•co:2.sml1dat1os:..as •:a:-method f:or,•.contrnllin_g::Xeg.ional;:.growth ::while -
••_.mainta•ini•ng :a -healthy --regional.--economy.
TVEDC'S ROI.Er- toring the issue
..Pacili.tating .discussions 'as strangest
- : pubiic./private. partaership:.in . county - b-e
_._INBT•ITDTE :D "Pp RYLAND'.METROPOZ;Z^.A•N STUDIES -3!scpCoed__to',
-bovsed at- PSU as•. part -of .the: school-of._Urban.:.and7_.11,mblic 'Affa3ss
-with -..1:n1tial _funds' provided by: the --Parr-tl•and .:C•sty: Vouncil. The
purpose of -..the institute would b•e..-to serve as _a-:ne=tral :-forum to .
:-.stndy.:regivnal issues;.'local ::leaders°:.•conld-:-not -.resolv-e.•
Mul.tnomah,..Clackamas,--•aud: Washingto_n..Co.untlas _.amd Metro are
.expected :to-'sup-port -the - progratm.` The •Ins-E.itute•s.•'fin•dings -and-.
conclusions. could. _be•..•us.ed..as. a.:ba.sis. -for -legislative proposals
f.os-_changes..in .p.ublic.-policy in. the- region.
_'.TVEDC'..S--ROLE: ---Undefined..
:'Watch the .-dev-e.1-opment.-cf:.the.-"Inst:Ltute --and
its- mission.
'Member of PSU President Judith Ramaley's
President's Council.
Member of the Greater Portland Trust in
Higher Education.
HIGHER EDUCATION As Ballct Measure 5 continues on toward full
implementation, the status of funding for higher education
becomes ever more critical. Without adequate funding for the
colleges and universities in Oregon and for graduate level
education in the technical fields, Oregon will lose
competitiveness in the national and international marketplace.
The state of Washington is making a substantial investment in a
new university to be located in Clark County. Much of Washington
County's high technology a•nd manufacturing sectors rely heavily
on access to higher education for training, research and CURRENT
r
t
4 ISSUES/TVEDC
Page 5
HIGHER EDUCATION, cont.
development and continuing education. The Greater Portland Trust
in Higher Education has been appointed by Governor Roberts to
address the issues of funding for higher education projects that
will enhance opportunities within the Portland metropolitan area.
The projects include a regional research library, the proposed
Joint Graduate Schools of Engineering and the Portland
Educational Network.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Member of the Greater Portland Trust in
Higher Education.
Monitor the issue of higher education through
the Issues Research Committee.
Member of PSU President's Council.
DEVELOPMENT LOSS TO THE SUBURBS There is a continuing debate
over the movement of businesses from downtown Portland to the
suburban office parks. To address these concerns, there are a
number of possible remedies that could adversely impact the
county's economy. Efforts may be made to decrease the amount of
available free parking in the suburbs or to otherwise increase
the costs of suburban development through raises in fees and
taxes. Much of the discussion centers around the need to
"recover the true costs of development." Some of this effort may -
be done under the auspices of the State Agency Council or by
state agencies like DEQ or Water Resources through the regulatory
process.
TVEDC'S ROLE: Monitoring.
EWA
citizen
Con ®i businesses to Says Brooks: "There are a whole
+o find
industry and service bunch of initiatives on the horizon
•'1 he h+ture role and author+ty that will have a major impact on
it worm in•fiand with the . Defining and financing air and
By BILL CHIDESTER }tit works cham ber' s Government over 1.1,11 communities of the thesubur s, how we live. We in governmem
Metropolitsan Service District, ter quality standards, would like to see more involvement
land-o"L' ,Financing Oregon's education by the private sector."
of the Argus Affairs Committee, which meets at Metro 'lici esfor wa
noon on the lourth Wednesdays of new urban pocenters and Iran' system. '
Taking the big issues of land-use, the month in a Tuality Co new
econom sporlation alternatives over the next ic growth and government conterence room, just a so years,
-topics that scare most hospitaldoors down the hall from ithea's .Regulations set b
regulations y the Oregon
people-directly to those same State Land Conservation and
hospital
citizens and asking for their opinions hiuch.tficeasthe success wive.
of[ the success will depend on Development Commission eC f auto
is the aim of a new Washington committee activity, says committee public , transportation o'
County Business Consortium. chairman Judy Taylor. e
Flo Rhea, executive director of An immediate need is a broad, usa. C~aiuation of the Oregon
Tuality h ealthcare Inc., is the Department of Transportation's
consortium's chair. She's dedicated based committee mem6crsl+ip
wiling to tackle current issues. The D1 p ectiveness in solving
to getting citizens involved in the efftl+e county's
+ robCems.
committee welcomes members and lrlnsporlalion I in for 'auto
decision•making. n.n•members of the Hillsboro Methods of t • y 6 ,
-rile group she leads represents chamt~er emission regulation„
local chambers of commerce vfrom Wink Brooks, !{illsboro's direct" Consolidation • of local govern-
Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverton. 'of tanning, informed the committee
Wednesday of several issues of meats tl'orlland with East .Mull-
and other communities-and Plant
nomahcounty,etc.).
executives on overriding • + business mportance. , Compensating Portland for losing
organizations. They include:
Tllosc leaders are lleC11in t its
government, especis'areshaping
regulatory role, and
Oregonians' lifestyles
redefining their communities
.without grass-root, citizen p3t•,
ticipatfon or understanding.
"Somehow we have to reach to
people, bring them into the system
she says.
The consortium. with becomes
better structured,
issues through local chambers
Economic
the Tualatin Valley Ec Ec of local
Development Corp. opinions hood
business and neighborhood
as will be culled brought to the attention of the
county-wide group.
The emphasis, she says, will he on
the grass roots'Input.
"We're not interested in being a .
voice for the consorl'+utn•'We want to
be a voice of citizens and their
chambers of commerce," Rhea
says.
Originating iri Hillsboro, the consortium has melemonthly since
Since
July in the Tuality
Center.
lJ
Bypass not lacking
leadership or talk + to suit the needs of just special inter-
est groups but instead for the' entire,
. Your recent editorial stating there . Washington 'County community.
is a lack of citizen leadership on the , TVEDC, along with other citizen-
western bypass project overlooks based organizations, is the voice for
the very strong role played by busi. fellow area residents. Together with
ness organizations in the region. other business groups, we are work-
ing to provide the much-needed
I have seen firsthand the involve- 20-20 vision that is necessary for
ment of various citizen: organiza- shaping the next 20 years.
Lions such as the Tigard, Beaverton, Although the study is far from
Hillsboro and Tualatin chambers of being completed, progress has been
commerce. They are. using a variety largely duo to citizen involvement.
of methods to keep their members For the westside bypass, citizen in-
involved and up to date on the volvement is one of the main in-
progress of the study. gradients.
To ' imply there is' no local
dialogue or leadership is erroneous . MARY L. TOBIAS
and doesn't recognize Washington President
County's citizens as an important Tualatin Valley Economic
and valuable element of the westside Development Corp.
bypass study.
The study is not being conducted
Maybe it's time for ODOT to pay
dictions to reduce vehicle miles attention to what other transporta-
Traffie solution traveled over the next 20 years• tion planners are discovering
• None of the proposed strategies throughout the rest of the world -
that works needed reduces our reliance on automobile that we can't build our way out of
travel, one of the primary goals of congestion.
Your editorial, "Bypass options ass Study. No mat- If the real purpose of the Western
would divide neighborhoods (Oct. the Western Bypass
ter which strategy is built, we will, Bypass Study is to solve our grow-
3), seeks to alarm residents of according to the study's projections, ing traffic crisis, it needs to incor-
Beaverton and Tigard neigh- continue to make 96 percent of our porate new ideas that will make that
borhoods without giving them the trips by single-occupant vehicle - happen. Ideas like:
benefit of the whole story. and by the year 2010 there will be . Clustering housing around tran-
You are absolutely right in stating an additional 160,000 of us on the sit lines to make transit ridership
that the proposed alternatives to the road! economically feasible.
western bypass would hardly solve . None of the proposed strategies s Mixed-use zoning for new
Washington County's traffic significantly reduces congestion on development that allows us to live
problems. the major arterials (TV Highway, closer to where we work and shop.
Trouble is, neither will the, 99W,, Murray Boulevard, Far- . Economic incentives to carpool
western bypass. In fact: mington Road, etc.). or rideshare, instead of always driv-
In other words, after spending ing our own cars.
• All of the proposal strategies y known It's time to move the discussion
actually increase the vehicle miles 56~,~ to have national!
traveled in the study area. This consultants study our congestion for beyond conveniently inaccurate
18 months, the Oregon Department labels and disruptive scare tactics to
creates a rather sticky problem since of Transporiltion can't come up the real task of coming up with, a
state policy now requires local juris- with ANY solution that will work! solution that works.
MEEKY BLIZZARD
Executive coordinator
Sensible Transportation Oplions .
for People
Scholls
low
~ ~ . alingwi th its situabab. ' U_K.isn'td underlying inflationary.
worky
He Said were subsiding as a
reslil
ey ad last year e rss paysand benefi{os aroP more as
1 pert mommiiiiiiiiiwoosowp as was h v
erages are likely
a rowth,
d Chris'
g
tiw a figs " edaugh layoffs co i wenor"
credit
BY JANtiT h said, reflects a
GO@fZ~ e.wor5e this Year° _R Alan M v crunch ery and lov
onfan staff /OS _b Medaug oney growth, icing
' of The Oreg York it ~ persists ,
TIN - X. New bonds and ill p
steep
T13 ALA any president fore- g Treasury How the condition.
investment comp money intoU• • bonds risky, inflation. IS I not a quality municip private debt ae0ple are not buy,
sees a bleak Christmas and new Y
droppuig high some municipaena ng diversi ecause people such rs as cars.
O -
with the gconomY anent recomm decline bnationally' uutil1993. Alan . Sionbenefits aoffs of perm ever, big-ticket items, in private
ca
± brightening lay going on since he warned, loan ' ing 20 billion p ast two
York, told the 15 Large s have been anies such as fled portfolios— . sand W ith a over the p
The business executive, that. emp y 0~ comp tate, Asked about the saving over credit demand ,the system
Medaugh of New On Thursday bgorb the
Br, las,Firstlnterl"t he said it's mostly national Years Medaugh said,
eakfast Forum bankruptc18s and , sumineC el may " GTE, Ititel, debacle, be able to a from the
expects more seeking McDonuellT)oug otors, or should and
he businesses fiord, General Sears, '-0"' B0e exce p effects on the dealt with increased credit demands
n. budget; deficit, Eastern Europe .
problems for bell SOUP,
credit. resident o vestments ing p and RaY ative growth "it's very good that h said we "we could.. federal chairman and
. ia."
Medaugh, T and In uarter ne? ° Me a Russ
Pat Hitt, the forum
+
asking . li said ,do es not set W a e the issue+it over osit Title insurance
tional Strategy ton Coun A feda q have papered eeting
rate, Medaug . Christmas. ear. resident of Oregon the
spoke to about eople at the forum, d trice tone for was bad last year' ,.It was a test of whether 1f iphad pro ;commented after the m
ty business p works;' lie Satd• have led county and
b the Tualatin valley uredChristmas Washington ,
ment Corp, thisVear. Is'
onsored Y insurance it could that
of the state didn
Howevler
Sp the
are at been papered over, rest
• Economic Develop Treasury as
the Tile U. S • ercent-. How to a depression— dom has a real wave of recession- lucky next
MCI' f
Dint, Medaugh Snns 2 may
At some p lie predicted a low growth raJapan 2 P as a m The United Kha is about as bad county
will restart. rates he added, the United Problem S S erience, he said.
that nY w11e11 mortgage ever, ; e Canada, country Medaugh said,
that would be3 percent. Nationally, angdom and Germany haV. low as estate this &L exp die Year, percent drop below at s lA percent. King he said-However,
they are now . rate is dropping rates, too-' ended putting ,
The inflation Medaugh Said, Medaugh recomm.
close to 1950s levelS,health and pen'
but employees' pay,
,
j~~~ 1
r~~m
mom
gown
It's time to start building the western bypass
The Oregon Department of "new order" soon enough to make a of the project?
Transportation's Western Bypass significant difference? After more than 40 years of plan-
Study is coming to grips with the There is also the issue of cost. ning, five studies and hundreds of
limited number of realistic options Light rail funding is anticipated to thousands , of dollars spent on
for relieving congestion in the urban It's You be available at a rate to build one
portions of Washington County. analysis, the region is finally coming
Business new line every 10 years, unless tax- to terms with the need to address the
Two strategies under considers- r M,' payers are willing to raise local inadequate north/soudt road systems
tion highlight the challenges of Mary Tobias taxes and accelerate the construction in Washington County. Let's hope
trying to solve this problem. They process. Under current plans, it will that 10 years from now we won't be
are NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) be at least 20 ears before the region
NIMBY met NIMBY. For man y in the middle of a sixth study at the
and expanded transit usage through any could build the Highway 217 line. cost of several million dollars more..
the extension of light rail. people, the issue has now become.
The-study now faces some hard It's time to set the course and
In 1987, when Metro's South- one of balance. The question has questions. Does regional consensus build the western bypass.
west Corridor Study demonstrated 'come down to what is reasonable, side with the urban or the rural land
the need for a major north/south prudent and makes the most sense use solution? Is it reasonable to ex- Mary Tobias is president of the
highway west of Highway 217, the for the region's future. - pect light rail to be operational Tualatin Valley Economic Develop-
NIMBY issue first came to light. The second problem to be ad- within the 20-year planning horizon ment Corp.
People in the Scholls area of dressed is the issue of transit and al-
unincorporated Washington County ternative transportation. Opponents
were directly affected. Some of of the western bypass have pressed
them began to organize in opposi- for a major expansion of the coun-
tion to the concept of a highway out- ty's bus and rail system. They argue
side of the urban growth boundary. that people should be educated to
They maintained that Oregon's land the advantages of using the bus and
use process was improperly applied light rail, instead of driving their
and that the highway would be an cars. They also believe that people
urban facility on rural land. In their should be encouraged to walk or
opinion, this would clearly be a ride bicycles to work. K
violation of the intent, if not the let- Tri-Met can only expand service - / •~~j l
ter, of the statewide land use goals. where there is sufficient demand.
In October 1991, the Can enough people be expected to
Oregon leave their cars at home and take the
Department of Transportation came bus or light rail to create the needed rr~ q
back with a possible street and road demand within this very short plan- O C~"~v~-- J t J I
expansion alternative. The transpor- ning horizon?
tation planning experts hired by One answer put forth by the
ODOT looked at reasonable cor- bypass opponents is that we can
ridors for moving people from the change our land use patterns. The
north side of the county to the south idea is to put more people in less
- from Highway 26 to Interstate 5. space, build more apartments, build
To serve expected traffic in- on smaller lots, put commer-
creases inside die urban growth cial/retail centers in the middle of
boundary, they recommended a six- housing developments, and build
to eight-lane Highway 217, an ex- bikeways and sidewalks so people
tension of Murray Road south from can ride their bikes or walk to the
Scholls Ferry to Interstate 5, and stores and their jobs.
many other street widcnings These, indeed, are good ideas.
throughout eastern Washington However, the important question is
County. can it all be done in timt.. 'an Oft
This is where the issue of enough people be won over `iv the
r
lg t991 • Pa a 38
b . The Times • tMeek of Se tember l2 -
rks0
is...
jjjjtYf the W vcr, all die ct(ons wriU be
c set aside icaI'd group °t Vat does not
ett,e Co
lire region? Can ut Y s stem d the electoe
die d one politic al Y tt naught tiverY voter follow
i gation to
• f H for biases t° "m work toward dm lay p an obli
councilors to tnratio region and to vol
ver another acrd that will Serve Po cello l the isv
volunmcr voter o 200
Z the
thic revisions current system of ing a "constwell f next h of
could rc re, . to• of th titan well for the a impot-
v mmiuee wiU debate. f-~uc
ntze ur i "on
in jiecommittee equal ual rPeseotauon. a 1.9cuop° the region 11
Q1e n t to let an n
the e a
M I which we The function pn they r~0g n which they oP r c° c problem-
y
vv / yovenranee. in MYuhical istrict and its relauoQV~ ce of the effort uP° made a charue
devise rite decisi ns
da a structure county Have they am ciuzen de that
e . ome service Der state eatnnea It gility to bavc embarked. munities •i e. or decides then a
ago the one larg could bee to all 0"' its ab th
_ ng?
the C°s
commitment, 10 mcp°c ci
than 200 y~ created County menu will be red out its ap will be apt
ther.
more Country was Willamette ornmet, raise money to Cam. deter- Ce tuture they vital hotcc has been m
ade to give UP arc hty, could rec wll ba who. these es
miuae tnments inted functions C1ure will be swcs to c
aon
YES. The itizcns of
ovemance to anO i tee +s trol'of determined by The tom hu file an.
itical future °atsmall group YDUrS
tcd Y
auiots who helped write ~tr$ b c Com w i th
dctcsm ' where local go- Metro su° h Ill, MMU pol wor
United BUsines .e s stem for land Us'; incd• s questions is a well roc sen
the and design die
dedicated p• • a ? u their p°wccs fanning to ht rcJcsigncd and its Yulc i" our P° the region ac uo Charter r
,be Consn tu on of .L p the just begtmm~g fort
area T(ab S g : ns rLtlip° planning mfg cal system revised. decisions the members of 16 delegates to uonthe States time to join the e
titan tor- Ia and •p° T1,odcsig
. , d metropo Mary ,only. delivers is making of our Sys- The vcn
only W elute Committee. icon future.
In the Pordan is going In,a regional and drat Who ,s co o u
president
va ghd Tobias P
is Ucve °
sovem a cthe mate The mgt0n in nsutuu thou
new roc of hY the zoo and tut
liigcnt, s.tntc ube
resembles drat of d,e clcctamwaY in call foe a M s tike l g°vcm tem about of 1 d1C°cal
today, a na process
neJ a tae Tonal service. re Mary Valley
are dcdicalcd i . poratton c
nergele 1 stem shod Economi
YCg
ward that closely small group it it is adnl to Chang whle iota bring
l°nal sig. S7o they which a ul
ears ag°• A hacked 0% terift in this sotrd waste, ae of reg Ve breadth of experience and c Sy
200 y Ila. lac P° d counucs function in a cooperau require ° the p°liu~il,e Legions constiw' meat Cor future Of which ctu o one another menu define thc'r o1111cal am ni6canca through Prot Tepceent the
dedicate) many diverse c
dc{tning constitution" relation until. u,,Y s litical interests sec°Le wh~ed
ctatung a t~ %suict teg have so overnmc°mi C0 call for a coon pie,
region by service ton. r could metro court, rural. social and P° of the en lion is cOm
the Meuopolitan seldom in r ecant history to affect g The charts the citizenry
make UP
for th Ballot u,c ability council u
(Meuo)• passage of few citizens had do the 16 mam- ell of three tu1l propose a that the m N ember 140rcg the olitical c e e as Charter Commit- cilors, oft could P 40 P
with art me
Measure Of on ors of 1h euO for ° e 15, 30 or even
the
state drafting of a home w tee. The P° tbaruwi~a
could tangs °t of
citizens °f
aulhonzed the 'nits
for tvleuo• and include
rule charter
document. whCA ttiscomple
low
Solving affordable housing
problem -not a simple task
Recently Metro sponsored a _ County does not offer the type of
regional conference to bring the housing affordable for assembly
private and public sectors together workers and semi-skilled tech-
to discuss the issue of housing from nicians in the electronics industry. •
their individual perspectives. It's You r The solutions to the affordable
Local home builders and lenders Business housing issue are uncertain. How
pointed out that increasing regula does society encourage construction
tions have added to the cost of Mary Tobias of median and low income housing
building a home. New regulations f• F close to jobs? Land use controls
governing savings and loans have alone have not worked and market
resulted in stricter lending practices tified in the report were: conditions do not lend themselves to
and have tightened the availability Housing Density - As land be- the development of this type of
of money. comes more scarce, the issue of housing.
Professionals working with low building up or out becomes critical. Solutions to meet this housing
income families and the homeless Housing Affordability -There needs challenge must come from a
believe it is the loss of federal dol- is a widening gap between a joint effort of the public and private
lars for subsidized housing that has sectors. The solutions must incor-
i m p a c to d significantly the household's income and the cost of porate the lessons of the past and the
availability of housing for this por- housing. creativity that comes with abandon-
tion of the population. Additionally, Housing Balance - The spatial ing old notions about how the sys-
there is the notion that builders in relationship between jobs, housing tem should work.
this region only build expensive and transportation infrastructure.
homes and not affordable homes. Housing is an issue of economic
A local home builder commented development, particularly as Mary Tobias is president of
that Oregon is unique in that most availability relates to the labor force Tualatin Valley Economic Develop-
home builders in this state are small and location of jobs. Washington ment Corporation.
businesses that build only three to
four homes per year. In many areas
of the country, development com-
panies build hundreds of homes per
year and achieve an economy of
scale. Thus, they are able to con-
struct median priced homes and pass
on the savings to the consumer. This
kind of savings does not occur in a
market where there are many small
builders and the margin of profit on
median priced homes is very small.
The consensus from this meeting
was that more interaction between
the private and public sectors is
needed. Many misconceptions about
the players in each sector still exist.
In conjunction with the Housing
Forum, Metro released the "Housing
Issues Report." The goal of this
report is to initiate a region-wide
` discussion about housing problems
and encourage the many participants
to discuss and work toward common
solutions. The primary issues iden-
i
.MEMNON
~i
Ires
1 .
s ftjnd
*ng1* een the citizenry and the local
tw
re a-lwayWashingt°n •County ovemtnents• much discussion
provements'ii+ example of. For example, +rding traffic
provide an excellent cif+7ens• has taken Place g
• ent and its constnrction
local governor jecide what im- ,congestion, hrghway a auto.
, in ; a loge ther to ( reliance on the
the third, and last working most imp ortant, sed are a
This is resenting, the arc and reduced
of articles P rovements table and how the solutions ptQp°,
that accom- your P are accep Among to be polo at Zo11
policy choices 0L'S what costs the job done. pollution tax
series aces
public p and growth manage- for getting $15 re }stmt+on'
time of vehicle' parking sP
t~usilless r; to best pay Washington County
growth In with local on P
Pany gion. A
ked roads or taxes the re
Series, wor as
ment. of roblerrt of throughout being -
In the first article e choices `Mary Tobias developers lifestyle urban overnment to solve the P1
ibl}c1Pr vat, task farce im~etro area
we presented ttte increa ing atn the haying for improvements a% Islew P m the ptyrtland
with farms , . be borne development, scmUled
5 with new riding ad- issues free lunch,
associated ratection of dates remains to
}gal level- f Measure System to address these is be
densities and the pro
choices passage ° with a Projects contribute ing hefty lRecause choices be'
and how we fund
and forest and.
ust The },egislature there will always
the dents r++ resented the St t1e's Sys. jac ent roads by P' cs and traffic ++r+- e
Next, we address resi
ton County Polley P • e the , development chirp tween priorities
ct fees. The best way to of us
Washing t a pt+blic P d+rcctive tri change
the red, lbeuon Of water pt sed demand for out solutions. 1ci
as we adopt
make tem of taxat+an and school finance. To address increa• voted to these policy decisions is for
that promotes New federal • clean air and capacity, the region voters ether PrW~te citizens.
}.f
wire the state t anpin- road ht rail line. • to work tog are all
autamoU;le use and an lnC[CaSC in
- overnments.
standards req ut•it}ons build another fig supported in and
. on's future.
transit ridership. the is- ment stricter . re
. z `with pollution' . toil County governments
This final arucle addraend methods Washing the local partners in Oreg
crease f~s'assoctatLand Conser in taxation to pay To~ipresi~e~
t Commis- • cre construction M.n,. Econo»ttc De~~~ `
sues of the dollar costs licy choices contsot. The Oregon
mea
velop u° "''^Vattey'
of payment as these p° wtfion and D@ led a transporta-' match.far nae0is ons~remain ntaftnt.
. „•ManY;Policy a ats:+ o!bzst~be';, • oration.
is adop 20
Sion can. entCorp
are made. riceu+g ieccntly ires;a~ em.
In our private P+o~ 1 a he goods and tanning,ru1e tha4Ye u hicle,,miles.:abeVtn~te Eacti *oh a partnership be- ' m
attached to each buy , Equalty a:; tipe t; rediieuon:'i on over the next ' ° addressed throng
rvic ea•we ct+oo to local governveled for tra
in our pu blic.llves 'this reE
the 5e come wi th _ ears.
rvices w ' shoo trite it 3Q How do we fund the shortfall?
ment se N° matter how The best way to solve those
a price tog lunch: to work
may be.-there is n0 a~~ faced with local policy
ate ex- problems is for thwi ri z
-
Currently, between en
in partnership ermine priorities, ac
resolving the conflicts makers to roprtate
retrial policy pressures a ououfuture. able costs and aPP
for contro be- of cent` a ing for the solu-
desire flits is the conflict " mechanisms for p Y
Polilically, mandates and flans. MST}p
tatthi raj ma - The M
local road
tween and federal
state STIp-I a '
kc al control im-
,
local policy Programs for funding
_ dates are eliminating man-
options, but the cost of these
NNE
4e mac, 51QI wJ
visit Washington
Korean officials to
Business-government leaders' mission Doo-Youll Youh, Dalsuh Business permitting, said Suzanne Birkel, a
Association secretary; and Sang-Kon county staff member who is arrang-
. Choi, head of Dalsuh County's local ing the itinerary.
is to promote the exchange of expertise economic department. Thursday afternoon the group
Dalsuh County has a population will visit Washington Park Zoo. That
ruled the peninsula nation. In May, of 370,000 and includes the largest night, they will don Western ban-
Hy JANET GOETZE South Korean counties elected corn- industrial complex in Asia. danas and cowboy hats for a Hallow-
of TheOregonian staff missioners. Next year, cities will Washington County has a concen- 'een party with the Washington
tration of expertise in medical, eco- 'County Board of Commissioners at
HInment l-eaders Six from business Dalsuandh will hold have a elections. presideIn , nt ial ial the ballot' country nomic and governmental areas, said the Rock Creek Restaurant and Bar.
Charles Cameron, county admirals- Friday, they will shop at-
government l
Washington South Korea, will arrive in The Korean officials, with few his trator. Washington Square, dine at the Uni•
Washington County late Tuesday for toric democratic institutions to fol- Exchange agreements, lie said, versity Club in Portland and tour
three days of tours and talks, low in their own country, will exam- "will give people in this county a downtown sites before they leave. ,
Officials from Dalsuh and ine how Washington County con- chance to export some of its expert- about4 p.m.
Washington counties will sign a ducts its business. ise to people who are rapidly under- Among local hosts will be Greg
proclamation at 10 a.m. Wednesday They also will look at how going democratization and want to Van Pelt, St. Vincent administrator;
aimed at strengthening opportuni- Washington[ County corporations use the U.S. as a model." and Pat Rltz, chairman of the Tuala-
ties to exchange government and produce peanut butter and wine, The visitors' tours on Wednesday tin Valley Economic Development
business information. The ceremony athletic clothing and computer will include the Hoody Corp. in Bea- Corp. They traveled to Korea in
will be in the Public Services Build- chips. Some visitors also will hear vertonn, Intel in Hillsboro, Montinore August with County Board Chair-
Ing,155 N. First Ave. presentations from health care insti- Vineyard in Forest Grove and Nike woman J so ni Bonn Hal cHa ys and C t eelon.
The visitors, who played host to tutions. Inc. in Beaverton.
Washington County officials in The visitors will be Geung•Pyo On Thursday, visitors interested national Relations Department at
August in Korea, include some of Jang, Dalsuh County mayor; Jeong in health care will visit Tuality Coin- Lewis and Clark College in Portland,
South Korea's first popularly elected ' RSoo Han, ok Chung, county chairman, ng.
asses bly- Vincent Hospital an 11Med cal Cen• arran B keltsaidt corporate sponsors
leaders.
After World War II and independ• man and president of KAYA Chris- ter in Southwest Portland. ' are helping Washington County pay
ence from Japan, a central govern- tiara Hospital; Hyun-Do Lee, Dalsuh The group also will see Washing- for the Koreans' visit since the event
ment in the capital city of Seoul Economic Association president; ton County by helicopter, weather is not part of the public budget.
.
County delegation cites Korean aims.
By JANET GOETZE cities will have their first mayoral velopment makes it a country of
of The Oregonian staff elections. contrasts.
"It's incredible what's happening "It reminded me of a huge village
HILLSBORO - South Koreans of cottage industries," he said. Peo-
want to raise their standard of livin in that country;' Cameron said.
g Seoul was rubble after the 1950-53 vpie egetable operate a bicycle shop .
without worrying about political Korean War, the United Nations vegetable stand outside their homes.
power plays, said one member of a police action that kept the Commu Health care is delivered in much
Washington County delegation to the same way, he said. Physicians
the Asian nation, nist northern and Western-oriented operate small clinics that provide
southern halves of the peninsula And if South Korea's Dal So Coun- politically separate. many of the medical services.
ty is any indication, said Pat Ritz, However, Van Pelt said, small
chairman of the Tualatin Valley That means, Cameron said, many hospitals also are available though
Economic Development Corp., the of South Koreas physical structures they seem very crowded. At the
country's high educational and and its impressive industrial base same time, lie added, they have some
work standards will make it highly are little more than three decades modern diagnostic equipment.
competitive in the new world econ- old; Cameron noted that South Korea,
omy. They have some significant with a population crowded into val-
environmental problems that they leys below the country's mountains,
Ritz traveled earlier this month to are starting to address right now," has an urban growth boundary like
Dal So, one of South Korea's newly lie said. that in the Portland metropoitan
formed counties, with two Washing- The country's workplaces also area.
ton County government leaders and show the absence of employee safety Koreans are careful to hold to
a hospital administrator. Dal So, in programs, he said. that boundary, he said, because resi-
the central part of the peninsula "yet," Hays added, "they think dential, industrial and farming com-
nation, is south of the capital city of they're heavily regulated." munities must share the relatively
Seoul. The country has high educational narrow livable regions of the coun-
The local delegation included standards with virtually no high try.
I3onnie flays, chairman of the Coun- school dropout problem, Hays said. ri-ansportation and traffic con-
ty hoard of Commissioners; Charles South Korea also has a higher per- gestion also are problems in Dal So
Cameron, county administrator; and centage of students completing uni- County, as they are in Washington,
Greg Van Pelt, administrator of St. versity studies than England, she County. Many buses are on the
Vincent Hospital and Medical Cen- said, streets, Cameron said, but most are
ter. Nevertheless, St. Vincent's Van operated by private companies for
Dal So County political and busi- pelt said, South Korea's rapid rode their employees.
ness leaders invited the Washington
County group to gain governmental,
social and business information to
help them retool their own rapidly
changing society, said members of
the delegation.
And, Hays added, they are so
eager to learn more that Dal So
County leaders will send a delega-
tion to Washington County in
October.
Administrator Cameron said
South Korean social, economic and
political institutions are in rapid
transition.
The country, a colony of other
nations for much of its modern his-
tory, "is on a rigorous march toward
democracy," Cameron said.
This includes the development of
local governments in a country that
has been ruled for more than 40
years by a strong central leader.
In May, newly formed counties
elected boards of commissioners for
theLfirst time and appointed admin-
istrators of operations. Next year,
i
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3~t
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
=i
DATE: September 27, 1991
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, November 191 - January 192
Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If
generally OK,"we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the
Monthly Council Calendars.
November '91
*19 Tue Council Business Meeting (6:30)
*26 Tue Council Business Agenda (5:30 B&C Interviews;
6:30/7:30)
28,29 Thurs/ Thanksgiving Holidays (City Hall Offices Closed)
Fri
December '91
*10 Tue Council Business Meeting (6:30/7:30)
12-15 Thurs- National League of Cities Conference
Sun
*17 Tue Council Business Meeting (6:30/7:30)
25 Wed Christmas Holiday (City Hall Offices Closed)
January '92
1 Wed New Years' Day - Holiday (City Hall Offices
Closed)
*14 Tue Council Meeting (6:30/7:30)
State of the City - Mayor Edwards
Executive Summary - City Administrator Reilly
Employee Reception - Service Awards
20 Mon Martin Luther King Day - Holiday (City Hall
Offices Closed)
*21 Tue Study Meeting (6:30)
*28 Tue Council Business Meeting (6:30/7:30)
h:\login\cathy\cccal
Council Calendar - Page 1
M
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: November 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: November 14, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize City's PREVIOUS ACTION:
Participation in the Forum on Coonei a-_
tive Urban Services PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Patrick J. Reilly
ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL
Deliberate City of Tigard participation in the group formed by the Metro Area
Managers to create the Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the attached resolution.
2. Designate an elected official to represent and participate in the
organizational meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 4, 1991, 7:30 -
9:30 p.m. at the Red Lion-Jantzen Beach.
( INFORMATION SLV14ARY
Attached is a memorandum from the FOCUS Committee Metro Area Managers Group
which summarizes the issue for Council consideration. The document refers to
several appendices which are not attached because of copying volume; they
will be made available upon request. Also attached is a proposed resolution.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the resolution which:
a. Authorizes participation in FOCUS;
b. Agrees to payment of membership fees; and
c. Appoints an elected official and the City Administrator as initial
representatives at the first general membership meeting.
FISCAL NOTES
Cost Impact: $875 per annum
cwcfocus
C
ry
Awl
To: Metropolitan Area Cities, Counties, and Metro
FROM: FOCUS Committee of Metro Area Managers Group
RE: PROPOSAL TO FORM ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
DATE: November 4, 1991
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt resolution or otherwise authorize participation in the
Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS) including payment
of dues.
2. Designate official representatives and participate in the
organizational meeting of FOCUS on December 4, 1991.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
History
The Metro Area Managers Group is comprised of the chief administra-
tive officers of local governments in the region. In the fall of
1990, the Metro Area Managers discussed the need for a neutral
forum for all local governments in the region to get together and
share perspectives and information on the issues of the day. A
committee was formed which organized the first Forum on Cooperative
Urban Services (FOCUS) which was held February 2, 1991 at the Red
Lion-Jantzen Beach.
Eighty-nine local government elected and appointed officials
attended the first FOCUS meeting and direction was given to the
Metro Area Managers Group to explore an ongoing mechanism to
encourage discussion and information sharing between local govern-
ments in order to encourage further cooperative efforts. Staff
from the Public Administration Program of Lewis and Clark College
were enlisted to help a committee of the Metro Area Managers
develop the outline of a proposal for an association of governments
whose purpose would be to continue the discussions among local
governments begun in this process.
A second meeting of elected officials and chief administrative
officers called FOCUS II was held in Beaverton on May 14, 1991.
About 35 local government officials attended to review the initial
work of the committee. Several questions were raised at this
meeting centering on the participation of Metro in the association,
the potential providers of staff services to the new association,
and the relation of this proposal to other proposals for regional
cooperative efforts. However, the general concept of the associa-
tion was supported, and the Metro Area Managers were requested to
1
r
gather additional information and bring it back to another "FOCUS-
type" meeting.
After the FOCUS II meeting, the proposal was refined into the draft
bylaws included in Appendix A. A request for proposals process was
undertaken to evaluate potential providers of staff services to the
association. Appendix B describes in more detail the results of
the RFP process, and the initial staff services needed to get the
association operational. The participants of FOCUS II had ques-
tioned whether Metro should be invited to be a charter member of
the association. Appendix C explains the Metro Area Managers group
recommendation that Metro should be included as a charter member of
the association.
On September 11, 1991, a FOCUS III meeting was held in West Linn to
discuss the more detailed proposal. About 25 local government
officials attended and expressed support for the proposal. The
recommendations to include Metro as a charter member and to engage
the League of Oregon Cities for association staff support were both
accepted. The FOCUS III participants also discussed the relation
of the Regional Governance Committee to the FOCUS proposal. The
Metro Area Managers' recommendation described in Appendix D was
accepted to keep the proposals separate.
The direction from the FOCUS III participants was to prepare a
package of information and send it to each of the cities, counties,
and Metro within the region. A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday,
December 4, 1991, 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m., at the Red Lion-Jantzen
Beach to begin organizing the association for those jurisdictions
willing to participate in the formation of FOCUS.
Purpose
The purpose of this proposal is to establish a voluntary associa-
tion of general purpose governments in the Portland metropolitan
area. The Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS) will provide
its members with a neutral forum to collect and share information
and ideas for the common benefit of the residents of member
communities.
Membership in FOCUS is open to cities, counties, and the Metropoli-
tan Service District within the Portland Metropolitan Region. The
costs of the organization are supported by a sliding scale of dues
based on the population served by each jurisdiction.
Staff support for FOCUS will be contracted out and expanded to
accommodate the needs of the organization. Initially, this support
will be provided by the League of Oregon Cities and will be limited
to organizing regularly scheduled meetings, recording and dissemi-
nating a record of discussions, and collecting and disseminating
information of mutual interest to FOCUS members.
2
The proposed bylaws in Appendix A provide a more detailed discus-
sion of the various levels of service that FOCUS could provide.
Please note that the Metro Area Managers group envisions that only
the basic levels of service would be provided initially. The
authors of this proposal see FOCUS as an evolving organization
based on the degree to which mutual trust is established and needs
identified jointly by the member jurisdictions.
Structure
As described in the proposed bylaws, the governing structure of the
proposed association is intended only to guide the practical
aspects of the organization and to organize the discussions.
Serving as an officer is designed to be a rotating short term
responsibility. The general meetings would consist of one elected
official and the chief administrative officer of each jurisdiction.
However, it is likely that the association would organize one or
two meetings annually where all local government officials would be
invited to participate.
The question of who can participate in FOCUS meetings was left to
the association to determine. However, the authors of the proposal
envisioned that all jurisdictions would be invited to participate,
but only dues-paying members would have a voice in association
affairs and election of officers.
Dues
A sliding scale of dues is recommended in Article VII, Section 1,
of the draft bylaws. In order to cover the $18,000 expenses of the
League of Oregon Cities to provide staff services for the initial
year, the base fee would need to be $175 if most jurisdictions
participate in FOCUS. The base fee will be higher if fewer juris-
dictions participate, but will not exceed $250. Jurisdictions are
asked to assume that the base fee will be between $175 and $250 for
purposes of considering cost implications.
"Population served" is the basis for the sliding scale, although
the proposal is not for a per-capita assessment. "Population
served" is assumed to be a general measure of the size and finan-
cial capability of the jurisdiction. Therefore, the dues for a
particular jurisdiction will be the base fee or a multiple of the
base fee depending on "population served."
The exact amount of the base fee will not be known until it becomes
clearer as to how many jurisdictions wish to participate in FOCUS.
Jurisdictions wishing to participate are requested to send one-half
of their dues using an assumed $175 base fee with the understanding
that a followup billing may include an adjustment to reflect a base
fee of up to $250.
3
Relation to other organizations
As explained in Appendix D, FOCUS is intended to be a long term
neutral forum in the region for the discussion and sharing of
information on regional issues and development of cooperative
efforts. The association is unique in that it would be the only
forum where all general purpose local governments would be invited
to participate. The authors of this proposal see FOCUS as inter-
acting well with the Institute for Portland Metropolitan Studies at
Portland State University; in fact, FOCUS could provide a vehicle
to give local government input into the research agenda of the
Institute.
As discussed in Appendix D, the Regional Governance Committee was
developed as a task force to provide input into the Metro Charter
Committee process for developing a home rule charter for Metro.
Once a draft charter is placed before the voters and approved, the
mission of the Regional Governance Committee would be completed.
FOCUS is intended as a more general, long-term neutral forum.
The Regional Policy Advisory Committee (RPAC) being developed by
Metro is made up in part of representatives from local governments,
but for practical reasons not all jurisdictions can be included on
the Committee. FOCUS seeks to provide a mechanism that all general
purpose local governments and Metro can discuss and share informa-
tion on issues in a neutral setting.
The participation of special districts and jurisdictions from other
counties has been left by the authors of the proposal as a discus-
sion item for the new organization. It was felt that starting with
a smaller organization, developing a track record, and then invit-
ing participation from other jurisdictions was a more logical path
to follow.
Timetable
This report is being sent to all cities, counties, and Metro in the
tri-county area. An organizational meeting of the association has
been scheduled for Wednesday, December 4, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at the
Red Lion-Jantzen Beach. Future timeframes will be discussed at
this meeting, but if enough jurisdictions have committed to the
association, then future topics and meeting dates will be
determined.
4
s
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM L
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: November 26. 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: November 5, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Plan- PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
nin Commission approval of SUB 91-09 hr g. on Se tember 1991
PDR 91-04 etc. Mt. Highlands sub PREPARED BY:Jer, ffer Associate
submitted b OTAK. Inc. and MB Dey/.JAJ Plann r
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:Ed Murphy, Comm Dev Dir
ISSUE BEFORE HE COUNCIL
Must the approval of a subdivision preliminary plat/planned development
conceptual plan within the Transportation Plan Map's study area for the
northeast side of Bull Mountain leave open all road development options in
this area, either as mentioned on the Transportation Plan Map or within the
unadopted Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study?
In the absence of an approved collector road alignment in this area, can the
Planning Commission determine that a possible road route in this area is not
a viable option and approve a development plan that would preclude that
option?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
U
Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of this subdivision/planned
development, thereby affirming the Commission's authority to deal with
development applications within the area covered by study area designations
on the Transportation Plan Map.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The subject property lies within an area designated as a study area on the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. As a result of previous hearings in
conjunction with the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study, two
general options remain under consideration for alignments of collector
streets in the study area. One option proposed by City staff would provide
a route east of the subject property; this option is not affected by the
proposed subdivision. A second option, proposed by NPO #3, would extend
Gaarde Street westward from 121st Avenue to 132nd Avenue. The NPO option
would potentially cross the subject property.
On August 19, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by the
applicants to divide the subject property into a 52 lot, two phase
subdivision that would have included an east-west road through the site
providing for a possible collector street connection. The Commission was
unable to conclude that this plan was consistent with Plan Policy 8.1.1 which
requires that streets created through the development process provide a safe
Und efficient transportation system. Commissioners were concerned with the
steepness of the proposed connecting street, its proposed narrow width, and
i
i
i
the number of driveways that would enter the proposed street. The Commission
ontinued the hearing on the application to allow the applicant to revise the
plan to eliminate the proposed connecting street. Y
The applicants submitted a revised plan in response to that continuance. The y
revised plan eliminated the previously proposed east-west street through the Y'
subdivision. On September 23, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the
revised subdivision plan by a 6-2 vote. Those Commission members supporting.
the approval indicated that, based on information provided by the applicant,
the subject property appeared to be too steep for construction of an east- s
west collector street. Some suggested that an east-west connection could'
still be considered with future development of the property to the north.
NPO #3 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision on grounds that the
approved development plan does not include provisions for the westward ;s
extension of SW Gaarde Street. Attached are the appeal filing form, minutes
of the NPO's September 4, 1991 meeting, Planning Commission Final Order No.
91-09 PC, minutes of the Planning Commission's August 19 and September 23, !
1991 meetings, and the applicants' statement which includes reduced size
copies of the approved preliminary plat.'
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the subdivision/planned
development. l
C. 'Deny the request on appeal, thereby overturning the Commission's decision.
3. Remand the application to the Planning Commission for additional review.
Provide direction to the Commission with regard to the road issue.
C
■ Nffi K
kV Si r uRIRfM n. O
•
na
■
1 sr.
Ya ~[I+ CT
x '3 s
}
HINGT J = C
I S L A D
,K WAY
~ Et•IGNNEri ~ ! 1 t f , lY, fd
• tfy a~
v
rr.SE •s`+
r SITE. ' s
\ S
\ - F w # VIEWUOIN/T OA
t A W VIEWYOUNT• lN.
4 3 nv.
9 CO
1
HIN N '
A ASK
COUNT ❑
cRRIT1[II/yRt
s W. OUC LLi Cr
+ s... nsTl / .
rwlaalu
ti
.v[
s CT.
t(
l n.
It l }
t
I
I
1
r
?w /
s / . y ae
oh ~ o
~r
sue, .i•.,.\
11 ag
wll 30.
1
1
t •
cR .F wwltu~ ~ ~
Ct ~ ~
i
i
E
MINUTES
NPO #3 MEETING
September 4, 1991
1. Meeting called to order at 7:08 pm.
2. Present: Porter, Bishop, Froude, Garner, Mortensen & Smith.
Absent: Hansen
3. Approved minutes from August 7, 1991 meeting as submitted.
4. Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff held discussion regarding fences. A major
concern was stated that homeowners would like to construct a front yard fence
considerably higher (6 to 8 feet) than the present 3 feet height limit. One reason
cited was to help the homeowner shield high volume traffic noise on busy streets.
Motion: A motion was made to approve the revised fence ordinance with one
change. On sloping comer lots where slope is from local street up
to an arterial or collector and the stop sign is on the local street, the
height of the fence should be measured at the stop sign and not
down the hill. 3 in favor, 3 abstentions, motion carries.
5. Discussion held on Burton Engineering regarding Phase 26 of the summit at Bull
Mountain Subdivision.
Motion: A motion was made to approve SUB 91-0013 / SLR 91-0003 / MIS
91-0013 / VAR 91-0013 / PDR 91-005 - Burton Engineering and
Survey as requested. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Discussion held on Otak/MB Development. Planning Commission has
continued this item until their September 23, 1991 meeting.
Motion: NPO #3 strongly opposes the Otak Development proposal as it
directly contradicts the N.E. Bull Mountain Transportation Plan.
Motion carries unanimously.
Motion: NPO #3 will immediately move to appeal the Planning
Commission decision on Otak if Planning Commission approves
the Otak Development as proposed. Motion carries
unanimously.
a
F
i
f
7. Other Business:
• Bishop has requested and is attempting to get additional information
regarding urban renewal issue so that NPO #3 can review and make
comments.
• Motion made to add election for secretary at October meeting. Motion
carries unanimously.
8. Meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Smith
Secretary
I4n**Vo3min
f
CITY OF TIGARD
Washington, County
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Concerning Case Number(s):SUB 91-0009/PDR 91-0004/VAR 91-0012/
SLR 91-0002/MLP 91-0003
2. Name of Owner: MB Development
Name of Applicant: OTAK Inc.
3. Address 17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd. City Lake Oswego State OR Zip 97035
4. Address of Property: East of Benchview Estates subdivision, south of t_he_
present terminus of SW 132nd Avenue
Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 4, tax lot 140
5. Request: A request for approval of the following development
applications: 11 Minor Land Partition approval to divide a 40.03 acre_
parcel into two eels of 20.31 and 19.72 acres; 2 Subdivision
preliminary plat Planned Development conceptual plan approval to divide
the 20.31 acre portion of the subject property into 52 single-family
residential lots and two private open space tracts; 3) Sensitive Lands
Review approval of preliminary plans for road and home construction of
portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade; and 4)
Variance approval for the following: a) to allow development of three
cul-de-sac local streets of 510 feet, 560 feet, and 680 feet whereas
Community Development Code section 18.164.030 (ICI allows a maximum cul-
de-sac length of 400 feet; b) to allow development of local streets with
28 feet of pavement and sidewalks on one side within a 40 foot right-of-
way whereas Code section 18.164.070 (A) requires sidewalks on both sides
of local streets; c) to allow local street grades of as much as 15
percent whereas Cede section 18.164.030 (M) allows a maximum local
street grade of 12 percent ZONE: R-4.5 (PD) (Residential, 4.5
units/acre)
6. Action: Approval as requested
X Approval with conditions
Denial
7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall,
and mailed to:
X The applicant and owner(s)
X Owners of record within the required distance
X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization
X Affected governmental agencies
8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON October 9, 1991
UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can
be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW
Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in
accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that
a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and
sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied
by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs, (varies up to a
maximum of $500.00).
The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. October 9 1991
10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
Planning Department, 639-4171.
bkm/SUB91-09.BKM
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION
FOR A 52 LOT SUBDIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED BY OTAR, INC. (M-B
DEVELOPMENT-PROPERTY OWNER.
The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at public
hearings on August 19, 1991 and September 23, 1991. The Commission has based its
decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below.
I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
CASE: MOUNTAIN HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION
Minor Land Partition MLP 91-0003
Subdivision SUB 91-0009
Planned Development PDR 91-0004
Sensitive Lands Review SLR 91-0002
Variance VAR 91-0012
SUMMARY: The applicant requests Minor Land Partition approval to divide a
40.03 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately 20 acres each.
The applicant requests Subdivision preliminary plat/Planned
Development conceptual plan approval to divide the westernmost 20
acre parcel into 52 *lots ranging in size between approximately 8,675
and 21,035 square feet in size, as well as two commonly held open
space tracts. The applicant requests approval of special setbacks
of 10 feet for front yards and 3 feet for side yards for the
proposed development. Special setbacks may be requested for planned
developments without requiring variance approval.
Sensitive Lands Review approval is requested to allow home
construction, road development, and utility construction on slopes
in excess of 25 percent and to allow utility construction within a
drainageway.
Variances have been requested to a number of Community Development
Code standards. Specifically, the following variances have been
requested.
1. To allow development of three cul de sac streets of
approximately 510 feet, 560 feet and 680 feet in length
whereas Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.8.1
allows a maximum cul de sac length of 400 feet.
2. To allow sidewalks on one side of all local streets, whereas
sidewalks on both sides of local streets are required per Code
Section 18.164.070.A.1.b;
3. To allow a reduction in local street pavement widths to 28
feet from the required 34 feet width (Code 18.164.E.1.a);
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 1
t
c
4. To allow for a reduction in local street rights-of-way to 40
feet from the required 50 feet width (Code 18.164.E.1.a);
5. To allow an increase in the grade of local streets to 15
percent from the Code permitted maximum of 12 percent (Code
18.164.030.M.1).
APPLICANT/OWNER: M-B Development
12725 SW 66th Avenue #102
Tigard, OR 97223
ADDITIONAL OWNER: Quaestor, Inc. (Mike Levin)
1990 SW Bundy Avenue, Suite 725
Los Angeles, California 90025
REPRESENTATIVE: OTAK Inc. (David Bantz)
17355 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING: R-4.5(PD) (Residential, 4.5 units/acre, Planned Development
Overlay)
LOCATION: East of the southern terminus of SW 132nd Avenue, southeast of
Benchview Estates Subdivision, north of the Woodford Estates
subdivision that is currently under construction, and north of
Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 4, Tax Lot 1400).
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84,
18.88, 18.92, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, 18.164 and Comprehensive
Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1,
7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:Approval of the Minor Land Partition request subject to
conditions.
Approval of the Subdivision/Planned Development requests as
well as the Variance and Sensitive Lands Review requests
associated with the Subdivision preliminary plat. Approval is
subject to several conditions listed at the end of this order.
II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
A. Site size and shape: Tax Lot 1400 is 40.02 acres in size in a square
shape.
B. Site location: Tax lot 1400 is located east of the current southern
terminus of SW 132nd Avenue and southeast of Benchview Estates
subdivision. The parcel is also approximately 2,000 feet north of Bull
Mountain Road and north of the Woodford Estates subdivision that is
currently under construction. The proposed subdivision would include the
development of approximately the western 1/2 of the site. The eastern
one-half of Tax Lot 1400 would remain undeveloped.
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 2
C. Existing uses and structures: This site is presently vacant. Tree cover
Apt. consisting of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous species is found on the
southern half of the site and eastern portion of the northern half within
a ravine. Open meadowland takes up the majority of the northern half of
this site.
D. Topography and drainage: The property slopes generally from the south to
the north and east. Distinct drainageways bisect the property roughly
between the sections to be partitioned and within the area shown as tract
A on the preliminary plat. The applicant's submittal includes a site
analysis map that indicates that significant areas of the western section
are sloped in excess of 25 percent.
E. Surrounding land uses: Benchview Estates Subdivision, Phases I and II are
located to the northwest and west of tax lot 1400. Phase 1 is partially
developed. Phase II has not yet been developed. A southward extension of
SW 132nd Avenue was proposed and approved for phase II of Benchview
Estates. This extension of SW 132nd Avenue is the only approved public
access to the site that is the subject of the current application. The
preliminary plat approval for Benchview II expires on October 20, 1991.
The area to the southwest of tax lot 1400 contains single-family homes on
lots larger than the minimum lot size for their respective zones. Limited
current redevelopment potential presently exists in these areas due to the
lack of sanitary sewers. A 40 acre mostly undeveloped parcel lies
immediately north. A steep, wooded, undeveloped parcel lies immediately
south (tax lot 1200). The Woodford Estates subdivision, which is
currently under development, lies to the south of tax lot 1200.
F. Plan designation and zoning: Surrounding properties to the east, north
and west are also designated for Low Density Residential use by the City
of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the east and west are zoned
R-4.5 (PD) by the City of Tigard. Properties to the north and northeast
are zoned R-7 (Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum lot size) by
Washington County. Properties to the south and southwest are designated
for Medium Density Residential development by the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan as well as the Washington County Comprehensive Plan.
The Woodford Estates subdivision is zoned R-7 by the City of Tigard.
Properties to the southwest remain in Washington County, and are zoned R-5
(Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum lots).
G. Proposal Summary: The applicant requests Minor Land Partition approval to
divide the 40.03 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately 20 acres
each, split north-south. It has been brought to the City of Tigard's
attention that the sizes of the resultant parcels may instead be
approximately 16 and 24 acres in response to a recent court judgement
affecting the parcel and its joint owners. If it is divided into 16 and
24 acres, these parcels would require subsequent lot line adjustment
approval to readjust the boundary between the parcels into two parcels of
approximately 20 acres each. Since this came to the City's attention too
late to satisfy statutory requirements relative to submittal of necessary
elements of an application, the lot line adjustment cannot be considered
as part of this application and a subsequent development approval will be
necessary.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the western section into fifty-two
single family residential lots ranging in size from approximately 8,675
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 3
to 21,035 square feet. No development is currently contemplated for the
eastern section. The applicant requests subdivision preliminary plat and
Planned Development conceptual plan approval for this plan. As permitted
for planned developments, the applicant requests approval of different
setbacks for the project than required by the underlying R-4.5 zoning
district. The applicant requests that minimum 10 foot front yard setbacks
and 3 foot side yard setbacks be approved for use in this subdivision
along with the other setback standards of the R-4.5 zone.
The general street pattern for the proposed development includes an
extension of SW 132nd Avenue from the northwestern corner of the site from
Benchview II subdivision to the southwestern corner of the site. This
minor collector street would be stubbed at that point with a future
connection to SW 132nd Avenue in Woodford Estates Subdivision to occur
sometime in the future. An approximately 560 foot long dead end street
terminating in a cul de sac bulb would-be provided off of SW 132nd Avenue
in the southern portion of the site. This street is intended to serve 17
lots within the second phase of the development. A network of two cul de
sac streets of 510 feet and 680 feet in length is proposed to serve the 35
northernmost lots within the proposed subdivision's first phase. A short
stub street would be provided at the northeastern border of the proposed
subdivision to provide for a future extension to the north, possibly to
include a connection to a future Gaarde Street-Walnut Street connection.
The application requests a number of variances to Community Development
Code public improvement standards for public streets. Those variance
include:
t 1. To allow development of three cul de sac streets of
approximately 510, 560, and 680 feet in length whereas
Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.8.1 allows a
maximum cul de sac length of 400 feet.
2. To allow sidewalks on one side of all local streets, whereas
sidewalks on both sides of local streets are required per Code
Section 18.164.070.A.1.b;
3. To allow a reduction in local street pavement widths to 28
feet from the required 34 feet width (Code 18.164.E.1.a);
s
4. To allow for a reduction in local street rights-of-way to 40
feet from the required 50 feet width (Code 18.164.E.1.a);
5. To allow an increase in the grade of local streets to 15 to 18
percent from the Code permitted maximum of 12 percent (Code
18.164.030.M.1).
Sensitive Lands Review approval is also required because the development
calls for road and building development on slopes in excess of 25 percent.
B. Previous land use and development applications affecting this parcel:
Two separate subdivision applications were submitted in the fall of 1990
for development of both portions of the subject parcel, as well as an
adjacent parcel to the east (SUB 90-0011/PDR 90-0007 and SUB 90-0012/PDR
90-0008). Both applications were withdrawn prior to hearings on the
requests.
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Bighlands PAGE 4
On August 19, 1991. the Planning Commission reviewed a somewhat similar
subdivision plan for the property as compared to the current plan. The
earlier plan, however, proposed a connecting street between SW 132nd
Avenue and a future extension of SW Gaarde Street to the east of the
proposed Phase One. The Commission was unable to conclude that earlier
plan was consistent with Plan Policy 8.1.1 which requires that streets
created through the development process provide a safe and efficient
transportation system. Commissioners were concerned with the steepness of
the proposed connecting street, its proposed narrow width, and the number.
of driveways that would enter the proposed street. The Commission
continued the hearing on the application to allow the applicant to revise
the plan to eliminate the proposed connecting street. The current
proposal is in response to that continuance.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
The applicable approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition proposal are found
in Community Development Code Sections 18.162.040 and .050.
The approval criteria for a Planned Development are found at Code Section
18.80.120. The approval standards for a preliminary subdivision plat are listed
at Code Section 18.160.060.A. The hearings authority may grant variances to
Community Development Code standards if the variance approval criteria of Code
Section 18.160.120.8 are satisfied.
The approval criteria for sensitive Lands Review approval relative to development
or landform modifications on slopes of 25 percent or greater are listed at Code
Section 18.84.040.B.
In addition, the proposal must also be found to be consistent with the
development standards of the following Code Chapters: Chapter 18.50 (R-4.5 zone);
Chapter 18.88 (Solar Access Requirements); Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations);
Chapter 18.150 (Tree Protection); and Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility
Improvement Standards). Standards of other Community Development Code chapters
may apply to subsequent development of the subject site but are not applicable
to the current review.
The Commission also finds that Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2,
3.5.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 apply to the review
of this development proposal.
IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS
1. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and
offers the following comments:
a. Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map designates the area of the
proposed subdivision as a study area. The Map notes indicate that two
options for the extension of Gaarde Street must be considered in this
study area.
The recommendations of the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study
Report are one option to be considered. This option would extend Gaarde
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 5
F'
}
t'
north and west from 121st Avenue to connect to Walnut Street. The
AIR- proposed subdivision would adequately accommodate this option, as the
proposed route for this option lies east of the proposed subdivision.
The other option to be considered is a minor collector extension of Gaarde
Street west from 121st to connect with 132nd Avenue, as previously
recommended by NPO #3. The NPO has reviewed the proposed subdivision and
concluded that the proposal does not adequately provide for the NPO option
for the Gaarde extension.
At the August 19th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed
the feasibility of constructing a collector street connection through the
area of the proposed subdivision. Based on information provided at that
hearing, there seemed to be a consensus of the Commission that
construction of a collector street through the property as recommended by
the NPO is not feasible due to the site's steep grades. The Commission
reviewed the Study Area options and concluded that the NPO alternative
should not be constructed or, perhaps, should be routed further north
where grades are less steep. If this accurately reflects the thinking of
the Commission, appropriate findings should be included in the final
decision to document the reasons for accepting a plat that does not
provide for the NPO option. Engineering staff would support the
conclusion that grades on the subject property are too steep to provide
for an east-west collector street.
b. Streets
The applicant is proposing to extend SW 132nd Avenue through the
subdivision as a minor collector street, as required by the Transportation
Map. As proposed, only approximately 180. feet of 132nd would be
constructed in Phase I. We disagree with this phasing for two reasons.
First, we feel that the construction of 132nd should occur before homes
and landscaping are established on the adjoining lots. Substantial
grading will be required to construct 132nd Avenue. Second, once Phase I
is completed there is no assurance that Phase II will be completed as now
proposed. It is not uncommon for the remaining property to be sold to
another developer or for a new design to be submitted for a subsequent
phase. If this were to happen, it would seem unfair to place the burden
of constructing Phase I improvements of 132nd onto a future development of
the Phase II property. Therefore, we recommend that 132nd Avenue, at
least to the south limit of Tract A, be included in Phase I.
The applicant has requested variances for street widths, and sidewalks on
the internal subdivision streets for both phases. The primary argument
for the variances is the desire to preserve open space and tree cover.
The argument may be valid for Phase II where there is currently a heavy
tree cover. However, the streets in Phase I are located almost entirely
outside the treed area of the property and are not within the area
proposed for open space. Therefore, we recommend that the variances be
denied for Phase I; we have no objection to the variances for Phase II.
If the variances, for the streets within Phase I, are approved, we
recommend that it apply only to the cul-de-sac streets. The entry road in
Phase I and the proposed stub to the north should be built to full local
street standards.
MLP 91-03/St7B 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 6
The applicant has also requested a variance for the length and grade of
the cul-de-sac streets for both phases. These standards were established
primarily to assure adequate fire vehicle access. The steep terrain and
adjoining steep ravines make it difficult to develop than entire project
area in conformance with the standards. If the proposed variances are
satisfactory to the Fire District, we have no objection to the variances
for both phases.
The proposal assumes that streets will be extended to the subject property
in accordance with the preliminary plat of Benchview II. Without these
street extensions, the proposed subdivision has no access. Therefore, any
approval should be conditioned upon dedication of right of way through the
Benchview II property and assurance of construction of the road
improvements through Benchview II.
C. Sanitary Sewer
The applicant indicates that sanitary sewer lines will be constructed to
the site by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). The applicant has
submitted a plan which calls for an extension of a 10 inch sanitary sewer
line from S.W. Walnut up to the site. At this time, we have no evidence
of USA's intention to construct the sewer line. Therefore, any approval
should be conditioned upon adequate assurance that sanitary sewer service
will be made available to this property.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the on-site sanitary
sewer system. There are numerous portions of the main line and manholes
that are not within the public right-of-way and will cause maintenance
problems. Therefore, approval should be condition upon assurance that
access to the manholes outside of the right-of-way will be assured.
d. Storm Drainage
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the storm drainage
system. Based on the information presented it appears that it would be
adequate to serve the development. There are two concerns that are
apparent after reviewing the plan; (1) how will the City maintain the
manholes and outlet structures that are not within the public right-of-
way, and (2) what are the plans for individual lot runoff. Therefore,
approval should be conditioned upon assurance that individual lots will
have adequate drainage facilities and that access to the manholes and.
structures outside of the right-of-way will be assured.
e. Engineering Department Recommendation:
If the subdivision is approved, we recommend approval with the following
exceptions:
i. Grant variances to the cul-de-sac streets length and grade only
after approval from the Fire District; and
ii. Deny variances to the internal streets width and sidewalk request
for Phase I. No recommendation with regard to Phase II.
iii. Approval should be conditioned upon satisfaction of conditions of
approval attached to the end of this staff report.
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 7
f
2. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the preliminary
plat and has provided the following comments:
a. Long dead end streets such as presented for this project are not
acceptable to the Fire District. Wherever possible, streets should
be extended to create circulating roadways, or alternate means
should be provided to maintain shorter cul de sacs off of
circulating driving systems.
b. Turnarounds at the end of cul de sacs should be placed on level
ground with the exception that normal street crowning may be
provided to provide for adequate drainage.
C. Hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Tigard Water
District.
3. The City of Tigard Building Division has commented that private storm
drain lines and easements should be provided for lots 1-9, 22-26 and 41 to
allow roof drains to be directed to public storm sewers or existing
drainageways. In addition, the finished slope of all lots with cuts or
fills should have a maximum slope of 2:1, or else an engineer shall
certify the stability of any steeper slopes. This. would include the slope
and fill from excavation for foundations for the structures.
4. Tigard School District 23J reviewed the proposal and has noted that the
proposed development lies within the attendance areas of Mary Woodward
Elementary School, Fowler Junior High School, and the Tigard Senior High
School. The proposed'development is projected to generate the following
additional enrollment at those schools: 17 students at the Woodward
School; 8 students at Fowler Jr. High; and 4 students at Tigard High
School. The School District notes that school capacities are projected to
be exceeded as a result of this proposed development and other recently
reviewed and approved developments within those attendance areas. The
District notes that core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be
able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be
provided by other options under consideration by the School District,
including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary
adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future
bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school
housing options.
5. The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (cable television) has
reviewed the proposal and requests that the developer install two PVC
schedule 40 2-inch conduits at street crossings for underground cable use.
6. NPO #3 unanimously recommends denial of the request. The NPO states that
the proposal directly contradicts the Northeast Bull Mountain Study. The
NPO has decided to appeal any decision which approves the subdivision plan
as currently proposed.
7. NOTE: THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS RELATE TO AN EARLIER PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION. NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO THE CURRENT
PLAN. The CPO 4B Steering Committee has reviewed the revised plans (staff
note: the plan reviewed by the Commission on 8/23) and has commented that
the proposed street system is consistent with the CPO•s preferred ideas on
traffic circulation between Benchview I and the proposed Gaarde extension. ;
The CPO supports the proposal to leave a portion of the proposed
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 8
r
development as open space. The CPO urges the City to consider acquisition
of the open space as parkland. The CPO also recommends strong
restrictions on tree removal within the open space tract.
8. Northwest Natural Gas has commented that there is a 10 inch diameter high
pressure feeder main on the east side of this subdivision. The
developer's representatives should contact Northwest Natural Gas to have
the main located prior to any excavation on the site.
9. The City of Tigard Operations Division has reviewed the proposal and notes
that streets with a gradient in excess of 12 percent will be difficult to
maintain with street sweepers, sanding trucks, and other equipment. In
addition, the Division is concerned with access to sanitary and storm
lines that would not be within public right-of-ways.
10. The Tigard Water District, PGE and GTE have reviewed the proposal and have
offered no comments or objections.
11. NPO 3 representatives Herman Porter and Beverly Froude testified before
the Commission that the NPO had serious concerns with regard to the
proposed development's potential impacts upon options for developing a
connecting road between SW 132nd Avenue and a future Gaarde-Walnut
connection as was raised in the review of the Northeast Bull Mountain
Transportation Study.
12. No other written or oral comments have been received.
V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A. Compliance with Community Development Code - Minor Land Partition
The proposed minor land partitioning of the 40.03 acre parcel into two
parcels of 20.31 and 19.72 acres is consistent with the approval standards
for a minor land partition contained in Chapter 18.162. Both proposed
parcels would be substantially larger than the 7,500 square foot minimum
lot size for the R-4.5 zone; no setback violations would occur; and there
is no need for additional public facilities or services as a result Of the
partition alone. Partition approval shall be conditioned upon the
applicant demonstrating that all parcels to be created will be provided
with adequate access if the proposed subdividing of the western parcel
fails to occur.
B. Compliance with Community Development Code - Subdivision/Planned
Development/Sensitive Lands Review/Variances
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the approval criteria
for a subdivision because:
a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan
Map designation density opportunity for the site and with the
applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R-4.5 zone,
and other applicable regulations, except as noted within the
accompanying paragraphs that point out specific deficiencies.
b. The proposed name of the subdivision, mountain Highlands, is
not duplicative of any recorded plat within Washington County..
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 9
F
C. The proposed extension of SW 132nd Avenue is laid out so as to
conform with the approved alignment for SW 132nd Avenue in the
Benchview Estates II subdivision to the west. Development of
the site obviously is dependent upon SW 132nd Avenue or other
roads being extended to the site. Therefore, any approval of
the preliminary plat should be conditioned upon development of
SW 132nd Avenue or another public roadway being extended to
the site either by the developers of this subdivision or
! others. Development of the Benchview II subdivision or at
least the development of SW 132nd Avenue is necessary for the
creation of proposed lot 35 which is shown to include some
land from tax lot 5700 to the west.
In addition, the subdivision proposal provides for street
stubs to the south for a further extension of SW 132nd, and to
the north for a possible connection to a future extension of
SW Gaarde Street. As such, the proposal does not close out
the opportunity for an indirect street connection between SW
132nd and a future Gaarde extension as sought by the NPO - it
just does not provide for a creek crossing towards the assumed
future Gaarde alignment on the subject property as was
previously proposed.
The Commission finds that the proposed road system would be
consistent with Plan Policy 8.1.1 which calls for a " safe and
efficient street and roadway system that meets the current
needs and anticipated future growth and development" at least
with regard to the road pattern and with regard to traffic
passing through the development. Internal road safety and
efficiency is discussed below with regard to the requested
variances. The Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study
calls for a major collector street connection between SW
Gaarde Street and SW Walnut Street to the north. During the
review of this study, the NPO and others suggested that this
connection between these existing streets should be a minor
collector street instead and that an indirect connection by
(a) minor collector street(s) be developed between this
proposed collector and SW 132nd Avenue. No final action has
been taken by the City Council with regard to the Northeast
Bull Mountain Transportation Study. However, a recent
revision to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Map
designates this area as a study area and notes both the
alternatives raised by the Study and by the NPO (amendments to
Plan Map adopted by the Council on June 11, 1991).
The Commiission finds that the applicants earlier proposal
that we reviewed on August 19, attempted to partially
accommodate the NPO•s suggested road plan, but instead, the
proposal would have created an unsafe road situation by
providing an opportunity for a connection that might carry
levels of traffic anticipated on a collector street on a
street that would not even be built to local street
improvement standards. The applicant asserted that a
connecting street through this area would need to be narrower
and steeper than local street standards in order to minimize
cutting and filling on the site and in order to keep costs ;
within acceptable levels with respect to the amount of.
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 10
d.
Ik:
i
t
development proposed. This earlier proposed connection
through Phase I would have been steep, winding and narrow, and
the road would intersect with at least 15 driveways within a
fairly short distance. In addition, a sidewalk would have
been provided on only one side. The Commission's review of
that proposal found that the previously proposed road system
would have posed significant traffic hazards to residents,
pedestrians, and motorists due largely to the amount of
traffic that might be anticipated to use this connection
between SW 132nd and a future Gaarde extension. Because of
this apparent problem with the design of the proposed
subdivision, the Commission continued the Subdivision
preliminary plat approval request and requested that the
applicant reconsider a layout largely as is currently
proposed.
The Commission finds that the proposed layout would provide an
opportunity for a future connection between SW 132nd Avenue
and a future Gaarde extension to be developed through the
proposed northern stub street that has been proposed,
dependent upon future development of the property to the
north. It will be required that this stub street and the
connecting street to the west be constructed to full local
street standards in order to best accommodate future traffic
flows. It appears that development of a connecting street to
the north would be more feasible than across the subject
property due to lesser slopes and therefore less cutting or
filling that would be necessary. This is not to say that the
only remaining option for a connection between SW 132nd and a
Gaarde extension would necessarily have to cross the property
immediately to the north of the subject site. It may be
possible that a connection could be more easily accomplished
further to the north. The Commission therefore does not find
that the current proposal is inconsistent with the Northeast
Bull Mountain Transportation study as the NPO asserts since
other options exist for a connection between SW 132nd and a
future Gaarde extension than across the ravine on the subject
property and the proposed plan partially accommodates such a
future connection.
d. The subdivision is proposed to be developed in two phases of
35 and 17 lots. The proposal to develop the subdivision in
two phases is largely consistent with the approval standards
for a phased subdivision/planned development because necessary
public facilities are proposed to be constructed in
conjunction with each of the phases and because no temporary
public facilities will be required for either phase. SW 132nd
Avenue will be required to be built to at least the southern
edge of Lot 29 in conjunction with Phase I in order to reduce
future construction impacts upon the future residents of
proposed lots 29-35 and to provide for a connection with the
apprioved, but as yet unbuilt, street to the west in the
Benchview II subdivision. It will be necessary to barricade
this sectiooi of the street after construction and before it is
extended further in order to avoid creating an excessively
long dead end street without a turnaround. The Commission ;
rejects the Engineering Department's recommendation that this
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 11
r
street be extended as far south as the southern limit of tract
A. Construction of this street in advance of any need for the
street could result in unnecessary maintenance
responsibilities for the City for streetlights that may be
broken or signs that may be stolen if this street is
undeveloped but not used or policed.
A schedule for total development of the site will be required
to be submitted prior to development of the initial phase.
The time for total development of the subdivision/planned
development shall not exceed seven years.
e. The proposal requests variances to several of the local street
improvement standards contained in Chapter 18.164. The
applicant requests reduced right-of-way (50 feet required; 40
feet requested) and pavement widths (34 required; 28 feet
requested) for internal subdivision streets. The applicant
requests to be required to provide sidewalks on only one side
of local streets. The applicant also requests approval of
three cul de sac streets of 510 feet, 560 feet and 680 feet as
opposed to the 400 foot maximum length standard of the Code.
In addition, the proposal-would provide for local streets in
excess of 15 percent grade whereas a maximum grade of 12
percent is allowed.
Code Section 18.160.090 authorizes the Commission to grant
variances to Code standards if the requested variance can be
found to be consistent with the variance approval criteria of
Code Section 18.160.120. The applicant's statement relative
to the variances (at pages 10 and 11) instead addresses the
variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.134.050 which is
intended for variance requests not made as part of a
subdivision application. Nevertheless, the applicant's
justification statement can still be applied to the
subdivision variance approval criteria, although not point for
point.
The applicant's justification relies upon the existing
topography and tree cover of the site as special circumstances
affecting the property in support of all of the requested
variances. Reduced grading relative to street -improvements
would be expected to allow larger lots and greater
opportunities for tree retention through better home siting
opportunities, with further benefits of reduced erosion and
increased open space. The applicant's justification states
that these larger benefits can be obtained without the reduced
street improvements negatively affecting the 'order or
efficiency of* the transportation system or public facility
system and thus will not be detrimental to public interests or
the rights of neighboring property owners. The justification
statement also points out that similar variances were approved
for both of the adjacent Benchview subdivisions which also
possess site characteristics similar to the subject site.
The Commission concurs with the applicant's justification for
the requested variances as applied to the steep, tree-covered
slopes of Phase II. The combination of the steepness of this.
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 12
s
area and the desire to retain as many of the mature trees as
possible are special circumstances affecting the property
which necessitate the design of this phase with the variances
to reduce street and right-of-way widths, omission of a
sidewalk from one side of the street, and a local street grade
in excess of 12 percent in order to reduce grading and its
effect on tree removal. The existence of drainageways to the
north and east as well as the steepness of this area are
special circumstances necessitating the over-length cul de sac
and steepness of this local street. It appears that not
allowing these variances to the public improvement design
standards could so severely restrict the developability of
this area as to make the site undevelopable and thereby
creating an extreme hardship to the property's owner. No
adverse effects upon the health or safety of others are
foreseeable if the variances are granted. The majority of the
Commision understands the Fire District's preference to avoid
steep roads and long dead end streets but we find that while
the proposed road is less than desirable, it is within the
Fire District's abilities to serve based upon other developed
areas within the Fire District. The prospective developer and
subsequent owners of property along this proposed street
should be aware that the steepness and length of this street
may make it difficult for the City to provide the full range
of City services including street sweeping and winter sanding.
The commission does not concur with the applicant's proposed
justification for the same variances with regard to the
proposed first phase of this development on the northern
portion of this parcel. The northern portion is mostly an
open field; therefore it is faulty to say that the requested
variances could have a substantial effect in reducing tree
removal. The Commission does not find that the applicant has
adequately shown why the variances are necessary for this
phase, except possibly to reduce the prospective developer's
cost of grading and road improvements. The Commission does
not find that the costs of subdivision alone are enough of an
'extraordinary hardship" that would merit relief through the
granting of the requested variances for Phase I. The
variances for Phase I are denied, except for the variance to
allow the two over-length cul de sacs. These cul de sac
lengths are also necessary to avoid excessive cutting and
filling, excessive street grades from potential connectors
between the streets, and to avoid crossing the ravine between
the two phases. These cul de sac lengths also are not
anticipated to be detrimental to the public health or safety
or rights of others because the proposed lengths of the cul de
sacs, although not ideal in the view of service providers, are
within the range of acceptable street lengths served by those
agencies and therefore are presumably serviceable.
2. The proposed lots comply with the use standards of the R-4.5 zoning
district because the lots are intended to be used for single family
detached dwelling units. All lots are consistent with the minimum
7,500 square foot minimum lot size of the zone and the average lot
width requirement of 50 feet, even though the Planned Development
MLP 91-03/SOB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Righlands PAGE 13
s
'r'
overlay zone applied to the parcel provides for flexibility with
regard to lot dimensional standards.
3. The proposed development scheme is consistent with the approval
standards for a Planned Development (Chapter 18.80) as demonstrated
by the findings presented for the various Plan policies and Code
chapters that the staff has found applicable to the request. The
requirements of the following Code chapters are not directly
applicable to the current review, although future improvements on
the subject site will need to conform with the requirements of these
chapters: Chapter 18.144, Accessory Structures; Chapter 18.96,
Additional Yard Area Requirements; Chapter 18.98, Building Height
Limitations: Exceptions; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening;
and Chapter 18.1060 Parking. Staff is charged with reviewing the
conformance of future improvements with these standards through the
building permit and sign permit review processes as well as through
continuing Code enforcement actions.
With regard to the additional Planned Development approval criteria,
the Commission finds Section 18.80.120.A.3.a(i) most applicable to
the review of this proposal. This section states that
streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed and
located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural
drainage to the greatest extent possible." Although the
subdivision's streets and residences will necessitate the removal of
a number of mature trees, the proposal is relatively considerate of
the site's existing topography through the reservation of a 2.5 acre
portion of the site for private open space and drainage purposes
rather than including this area within lots or crossing it with
streets. Because this area would have limited recreational
potential and dedication would remove this area from the tax roll,
dedication of this area to the City is not considered desirable. In
addition, the proposal does not provide for crossings of the
drainageways on the site.
Minimum front yard setbacks shall be reduced to 10 feet (except for
garages) and side yard setbacks of 3 feet as requested by the
applicant. However, the reduced side yard setbacks are permitted
only if a minimum 10 foot separation is maintained between abutting
buildings and the reduced setback is allowed on. one side of a
building lot. These special setbacks will provide additional
flexibility in home siting in order to provide additional
opportunities for tree retention and limiting grading on steep lots.
The reduced front yard setback would be consistent with setbacks for
the neighboring Benchview I and II subdivisions. For these reasons,
the reduced setbacks should apply for all lots and should not be
applied only to internal lots.
4. The proposal is consistent with the Sensitive Lands requirements of
Chapter 18.84, although substantial site grading will be necessary
to facilitate the proposed development. Review of the grading plan
shows that grading of areas in excess of 25 percent slope is
primarily limited to areas within and abutting proposed public
right-of-ways and where necessary to construct utilities.
opportunities to further limit grading of the site are restricted
because of the number of building sites that must be prepared due to
the single-family residential nature of the proposed development and
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 14 a
y
F,
~t
r,
the need to provide limited grade public streets. Plans for methods
for maintaining slope stability shall be required to be submitted as
a part of individual building permit applications for the individual
lots.
The erosion control requirements that now apply to development
within the Tualatin River basin require that an erosion control plan
be filed and followed during development of a subdivision as well as
prior to construction of individual homes.
5. Exhibit 5 of the applicant's statement contains a solar access
evaluation demonstrating consistency with the solar access
requirements of Chapter 18.88. Lots 22, 23, 32, and 33 have been
exempted under the basic 20 percent exemption. Twenty other lots
have been exempted due to the effects of the existing topography
providing a primarily northward slope for these lots thereby
excluding these lots from possible favorable solar orientation. Lot
35 is exempted due to its orientation being predetermined by the
prior approval of the alignment for SW 132nd Avenue through the
Benchview 2 preliminary plat approval. The other 27 lots satisfy
the basic solar requirement. The proposed subdivision is therefore
consistent with the requirements of chapter 18.88.
6. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of
Chapter 18.92 because the 12.2 acre net developable area of the site
(after deductions for streets and excluding original slopes of 25
percent and greater) yields an opportunity for 11 dwelling units
under the R-4.5 zoning designation. Fifty-two single family
residential lots are proposed. The applicant's submittal includes
a density calculation on page 7 of the applicant's statement report.
7. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in
diameter that are removed during construction be minimized. The
proposed development's public streets, utilities, and residences and
related grading will necessitate the removal of a significant number
of trees, especially in Phase Two. However, the number of trees
removed can be minimized through careful study of the site to be
accomplished through phased tree removal.
No tree removal shall be allowed to occur prior to Planning Division
review and approval of a tree removal permit, or phased permits.
Initial tree removal should be limited to the proposed public right-
of-way areas and areas approved for site grading. Individual trees
will then be easier to identify relative to the individual lots,
potential driveway locations, and potential building sites. The
developer and city staff can then identify which trees will need to
be removed to construct residences on the lots. The developer will
be required to provide the services of a certified arborist for this
analysis. Care should be taken to retain as many mature trees as
possible through careful site planning, curved driveways around
trees, and care during the site development process. Minimizing
tree removal should be a benefit to the proposed development in both
increased property values as well as atmosphere.
8. The proposed subdivision's streets and other public improvements,
with modifications recommended by staff, comply with the
requirements of Chapter 18.164 because:
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 15
i
a. The applicant will be required to dedicate additional right-
of-way for and improve SW 132nd Avenue to minor collector
street standards. The further extension of this street will
bring this street closer to providing a needed connection
between SW Walnut Street and Bull Mountain Road. As noted
above, construction of this street should be required to occur
with development of Phase I at least to the southern edge of
lot 29 in order to avoid future construction related effects
to residents of abutting lots. Also, if SW 132nd is not
constructed through the approved proposed Benchview Estates II
subdivision, it shall be the responsibility of the developer
of mountain Highlands to provide for this street extension to
the subject property.
b. Internal subdivision streets should be able to be developed
consistent with City standards for local streets, except as Y
recommended to be varied as described above.
C. The preliminary plat provides for street stubs to the south
and north to provide for a future extension of SW 132nd Avenue
and a possible indirect local street connection to a future
extension of SW Gaarde Street as has previously been
recommended by the NPO and CPO. When the subdivision is
built, reserve strips and barricades shall be provided for
these street stubs. The stubs should be posted with signs
indicating that future extension of these streets is
anticipated with future development.
d. The proposed lots are consistent with Code standards for
maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum street frontage, and
other lot dimensional standards.
e. Access to SW 132nd Avenue shall be prohibited for lots 33, 35,
36, and 52 which have frontage along this collector street.
These lots as well as all other lots can receive access from
local streets. Lot 33 is a through lot necessitated by the
substantial drop from SW 132nd Avenue.
C. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies Subdivision/Planned
Development/Sensitive Lands Review/Variances
1. The Subdivision/Planned Development proposal is consistent with
Policy 2.1.1 because notice of the application and the public
hearing on this item was provided to the neighborhood planning
organization and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site.
The proposed site has been posted with a sign noting that a
development application on this site was pending. The commission
has conducted two hearings on this proposal, on August 19 and
September 23, 1991, and therefore has provided substantial
opportunity for the public to comment on this development
application.
2. Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because the Code allows development of
hillsides that are steeper than 25 percent when sufficient detailed
information is provided which shows that adverse environmental
erosion or slope instability will not result.
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 16
> 4,
u`
1
The applicant has submitted a general description of the site;
however, specific techniques for mitigating any potential problems
related to steep slopes have not been described. The Commission has
been advised by staff that significant construction difficulties are
not anticipated for development in these areas provided that
appropriate construction and erosion control measures are employed.
Since many issues regarding slopes are site specific, it shall be
required that methods for maintenance of slope stability and erosion
control be submitted for approval in conjunction with the detailed
grading and public improvement plans and building permits with
particular attention being paid to grades over 25 percent. As
recommended by the Building Division, finished grades of lots with
cuts or fills shall be limited to a maximum 2 to 1 slope or else an
engineer shall be required to certify the stability of the greater
slopes.
3. The proposal is consistent with Policy 3.4.2 because the development
application is being reviewed through the Planned Development
process and because wildlife habitat along drainage corridors will
be protected through the establishment of a private open space tract
along the drainage corridors on the site. The private open space
tract should serve to limit tree and understory vegetation removal
in the drainageways to only what is necessary for utility
construction. The undeveloped nature of this area will allow the
vegetative understory to return after construction.
4. The proposal is consistent with Policy 3.5.1 because 2.5 acres of
long-term open space will be provided for by tract A which will be
commonly held and maintained by the residents of the subdivision.
Mature trees will be retained in this area except for trees that
must be removed to construct utilities. Because of the steepness of
this area, its usefulness for active recreational opportunities is
limited. However, the applicant shall provide for pedestrian
easements with either asphalt or soft-surface pathways from each of
the three internal streets to Tract A so that all residents of the
development will have access to the tract for walking or for
children's play.
5. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to
require the developer to submit an erosion control plan ensuring
compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River
Basin, as part of the grading permit application.
6. This subdivision proposal complies with Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and
7.4.4 because the applicant will be required to extend public sewer
and water systems to this site prior to development or else the
development of this site will be dependent upon others extending
these utilities to the property. Extension of a sanitary sewer to
serve this area is presently being contemplated by the Unified
Sewerage Agency. The prospective developer of this subdivision may
need to work with USA to assure that the extension will be
constructed prior to expiration of approval for the proposed
development plan. The Tigard Water District did not raise any
concerns with regard to the applicant's plans for extending water
service through the site or with regard to the District's ability to
provide for the additional water demand.
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 17
In addition, development of this site will require provisions for
underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television
lines. No significant concerns were raised by the providers of
these services.
7. The Commission finds the proposal would provide for a safe and
efficient street system as required by Policy 8.1.1 for the reasons
stated in sections 1 and 8 of the section above describing the
proposal's consistency with Community Development Code public road
requirements and the need for road consistency between abutting
plats.
8. The subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.3 because required
improvements to the public streets and utilities within this
proposed subdivision will be consistent with City of Tigard
standards, except as specifically approved for variances by the
Planning Commission.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Minor Land Partition
The Tigard Planning Commission approves Minor Land Partition MLP 91-0003 subject
to the following requirements (Staff Contact: Chris Davies, 639-4171, ext.318):
1. Prior to recording the partition plat with Washington County, a final
minor land partition plat shall be submitted to the Engineering Department
demonstrating compliance with Section 18.162.080 - Final Plat Application
Submission Requirements:
A. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor or
engineer licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or
narrative.
B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the
minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS
92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
2. It shall be demonstrated that both proposed parcels will have guaranteed
access as required by Code Section 18.162.050.0 either through a minimum
of 15 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way or through an access
easement of at least 15 feet in width connecting the parcel(s) to a public
right-of-way.
Subdivision/Planned Development/Sensitive Lands Review/Variances
The Tigard Planning Commission approves Subdivision 91-0009/Planned Development
91-0004 with minor modifications based on the foregoing analysis. Because the
Sensitive Lands Review request is a necessary component of the
Subdivision/Planned Development proposal, the Commission also approves the
Sensitive Lands Review request as well. The Commission approves all requested
road improvement relkted variances for Phase II only, as well as the request to
allow cul de sac lengths of 560 and 680 feet within Phase I. The other variance
requests for Phase I are denied. Approval shall be subject to the conditions
listed on the following pages as well as the plat preparation and recording
F MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 18
k
Lb
requirements and public improvement requirements of the Community Development
Code:
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
SHALL BE COMPLETED OR COMPLETION SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING
THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, STAFF CONTACT IS
CHRIS DAVIES OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
3. The preliminary plat shall be limited to the creation of 52 lots. All
lots shall be fully dimensioned on the plat and shall be consistent with
R-4.5 zoning district dimensional requirements.
Tract A shall be platted as a common open space tract for the subdivision
to be maintained privately by the homeowners in Mt. Highlands subdivision.
The manner by which this tract is maintained by the homeowners shall be
approved by the Planning Division. The plat shall be revised to provide
extensions of Tract A to the proposed cul de sac streets in order to
provide access to Tract A for all residents of the subdivision.
Alternatively, pedestrian access to Tract A may be provided by easements
from these streets to the tract. Access to the tract shall be provided by
a minimum 5 foot wide soft surfaced trail from each of the cul de sac
streets to the tract.
Tract B shall also be maintained by this homeowners association, however,
it may be combined with the property to the east in the future for the
purposes of development. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division.
4. The subdivision/planned development may be constructed in two phases as
proposed. Total development time for the proposed planned development may
not exceed 7 years.
5. The applicant shall be required to show evidence that the Benchview
Estates II subdivision plat has been recorded with Washington County or
that public right-of-way required to make the connection between this
development and the existing southern terminus of SW 132nd Avenue has been
dedicated to the City of Tigard and improved to minor collector standards.
6. Special building setbacks on all parcels shall be as follows:
front yard - 10 feet
side yard -3 feet on one side only, minimum 10 foot separation
between buildings
Special setbacks shall be stated within. the covenants, codes and
restrictions for the subdivision. All other setbacks are as required by
the underlying zoning district.
7. Any tree removal or grading on this property must be approved by the
Planning Division through approval of a tree removal permit and approval
- of the grading plan. Trees over six inches in diameter shall be removed
only as necessary to construct streets, utilities, and residences. Tree
removal permits will be necessary for two stages: public right-of-way and
utility construction and lot preparation. The applicant shall provide for
an arborist to review the plans for grading and tree protection. The
arborist or the Planning Division may prescribe protective measures for
trees to be retained on the site. Areas not covered by structures or
impervious surfaces shall be re-vegetated as soon as possible after
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 19
completion of grading. A copy of the tree removal permit and approved
grading plan shall be available on-site during all tree removal
activities.
8. A detailed 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. If trees are to be
removed as part of grading activities, the grading permit is not valid
without a tree removal permit also being issued.
9. 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."
10. The extension of 232nd Avenue shall be included in Phase I from the
northern project boundary to a point even with the southwestern corner of
lot 29.
11. No construction plans for this subdivision shall be approved until the
Engineering Department has received evidence that right of way has been
dedicated, and assurance has been posted to assure construction of
improvements to provide, public roadway access to the subdivision
consistent with City roadway standards.
12. No construction plans for this subdivision shall be approved until the
Engineering Department has received evidence that sanitary sewer service
will be made available to the property and that construction of necessary
w off-site sanitary sewer lines is assured.
13. 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.
14. Lots 33, 35, 36, and 52 shall not be permitted to access directly onto
S.W. 132nd Avenue. A 1-foot wide non-access reserve strip or plat note
restricting access must be provided.
15. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be
discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting
properties downstream.
16. 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.
17. The finished slope of all lots with cuts or fills should have a maximum
slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability
of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits for
( MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 20
i
® construction on all lots with slopes in excess of 25 percent, building
permit applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed structure will be
sited and designed to ensure structural stability. Foundation plans shall
be stamped by a registered engineer. Approved erosion control measures
shall be employed throughout the construction process on individual
building lots. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171).
18. Private storm drain lines shall be provided for lots 1-9, 22-26, and 41 to
carry roof drainage to public storm sewers or existing drainageways.
Easements shall be provided where the storm drains will cross other lots.
A joint access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded with each lot
accessing a private storm drain line. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast.
19. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public conforming to the alignment
shown on the submitted preliminary plat for the internal streets and 132nd
Avenue. Right-of-way shall be 60 feet for SW 132nd Avenue; 50 feet for
streets within Phase I; and 40 feet within Phase II. Five foot easements
shall be provided along both sides of the internal streets.
20. Full width street improvements shall be constructed to the alignment shown
on the submitted plan consisting of a 60 foot wide minor collector street
right-of-way for 132nd Avenue with street built to minor collector
standards, 50 foot wide local streets including right-of way throughout
Phase I, and a 40 foot wide local street within Phase II with 28 foot wide
streets. Five foot sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of 132nd
Avenue, all streets within phase I, and on one side of the street within
Phase II. At a minimum, improvements shall include asphaltic concrete
pavement, curbs, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights and
underground utilities.
ea APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT FOR PHASE ONE IS SUBMITTED FOR
CITY APPROVAL WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. THE
MAXIMUM TIME FOR COMPLETION OF ALL PHASES OF THE APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS
SEVEN YEARS
It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order.
PASSED: This "GG"~'aay of September, 1991, by the Planning Commission of the City
of Tigard.
Vlasta Barber, Vice-President
JO/Mt.Highlands.FO
MLP 91-03/SUB 91-09/PDR 91-04/SLR 91-02/V 91-12 Mt.Highlands PAGE 21
i
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 19, 1991
1. 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: President Fyre; Commissioners Boone, Castile,
Fessler, Hawley, Moore, and Saxton.
Absent: Commissioners Barber, and Saporta.
Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Associate
Planner Jerry Offer, City Engineer Randy Wooley, and
Planning Commission Secretary Ellen Fox.
President Fyre welcomed Commissioner Wendy Hawley to the Planning
Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
missioner Moore moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to rove
the 'nutes of the previous meeting as written. ~9otion Carr' d by
majori of Commissioners present, with Commissioners Fess r and Hawley
abstainin .
4. PLANNING COMMI ON COMMUNICATION
o President Fyre prese d to former President Mo a commemorative gavel
and a card expressing a reciation for his m years of service.
5. PUBLIC'HEARING
5.1 135th AVENUE STREET VACATION (GRO (NPO #7) A request that the City
of Tigard vacate an approximate1 34- t wide portion of the SW 135th
Avenue right-of-way adjacent t the prop ty located on the west side of
the corner of SW 135th Aven and SW Schol Ferry Road. Petitioners
parcel: (WCTM 1S1 33CA, t lot 100)
Senior Planner Bewers rff provided a synopsis o the requested street
vacation. He said aff was recommending approval ubject to the
conditions of pro ding a 60-foot right-of-way for t city.
o Commissioner essler requested clarification for having s rm drain
returned t private maintenance. Senior Planner elaborate nd noted
that thi private storm drain would not affect any other stor drains.
/ APPLICANT' PRESENTATION
< o Bill Gross, 3019 SW Hampshire Street, Portland, advised he had no
further information in addition to that provided in the packet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 1991 PAGE 1
t
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Each of the Commissioners indicated they were in favor of ap rovi
t.
* Commissio~Fe CommissionBoone seconded to recommend to
City e the stree Motion was passed by
nimous vote of Commissioners present.
5.2 SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0004 VARIANCE
VAR 91-0012 SENSITIVE LANDS 91-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 91-0003
MB DEVELOPMENTiOTAK (NPO #3) A request for approval of the following
development applications: 1) Minor Land Partition approval to divide a
40.03 acre parcel into two parcels of 20.31 and 19.72 acres; 2)
Subdivision preliminary plat/Planned Development conceptual plan
approval to divide the 20.31 acre portion of the subject property into
52 single-family residential lots and tow private open space tracts; 3)
Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for road and home
construction of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent
grade; and 4) cul-de-sac local streets of 510 feet, 560 feet, and 680
feet whereas Community Development Code section 18.164.030 (K) allows a
maximum cul-de-sac length of 400 feet; b) to allow development of local
streets with 28 feet of pavement and sidewalks on one side within a
400-foot right-of-way whereas Code section 18.164.070 (A) requires
sidewalks on both sides of local streets; c) to allow local street
grades of as much as 15 percent whereas Code section 18.164.030 (M)
allows a maximum local street grade of 12 percent. ZONE: R-4.5 (PD)
(Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: East of Benchview Estates
subdivision, south of the present terminus, and west of SW 121st Avenue
(WCTM 2S1 4, tax lot 1400) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.134, 18.150,
18.160, 18.162, 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.2.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2,
3.5.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3.
Associate Planner Jerry Offer handed out minutes from the NPO 3 meeting
of August 7th. He explained they were not in the packet as they were
received this date. He used a wall map to point out the site location
of the 40-acre parcel being considered. He described the Minor Land
Partition and advised that staff was recommending approval subject to
the conditions that applicants demonstrate that each parcel will have
sufficient access through an access easement to public right-of-way.
Associate Planner discussed the Subdivision and Planned Development
requests. He pointed out the study area on the Transportation Map. He
noted HPO 3 has indicated concern about the need for a minor collector
to connect Gaarde/Walnut and 132nd. He explained the plan suggested by
the applicants. He discussed the request for variances to maximum
street grade for local streets and to allow sidewalks on one side of
street for internal streets. He stated a Variance was being requested
to allow for a 560-foot long cul-de-sac and sensitive lands approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 1991 PAGE 2
C
Associate Planner said staff recommended denial of the SUB and PDR
because Policy 8.1.1 would not be met. He said staff found it would be
a dangerous traffic problem because the street which would connect
Gaarde would have steep and winding slopes, would have many driveways
entering the street, and the street would carry a heavy volume of
traffic.
He discussed the comments received by staff from interested parties
including Tualatin Valley Fire Department, NPO 3, and CPO 4.
o Commissioners requested clarification pertaining to the road as possible
minor collector and other traffic issues. Associate Planner clarified
the term "Study Area" on the Transportation Map and said it does not
place a moratorium on development. He talked about the Gaarde/Walnut
extension and the alternative approaches to address this issue.
o City Engineer Randy Wooley answered questions pertaining to the two
traffic alternatives, stating that the applicant needed to show proof if
these are not feasible.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o David Bantz, OTAK, Inc., 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, said
he was representing the property owners. He explained there are two
owners of the property and showed on the map the one owner's additional
parcel of property with access to Gaarde Road. He discussed variances
C requested, which he said pertain to internal streets. He noted that
Benchview and Benchview II both have received variances for 15% grade as
the terrain is similar. He discussed the feasibility of crossing over
the ravine which would require importing a tremendous amount of fill
dirt, and he said this was not a viable option. He showed the
Commissioners the previous plan which involved two long cul-de-sacs and
did not provide a crossing as the NPO and CPO wanted. He displayed the
newest plan which provides a crossing intersecting with Gaarde Road. He
said the crossing would be a local street rather than a minor
collector. He discussed the issue of vegetation and described plans to
preserve trees, and he explained how the variances would help with these
goals.
o Mr. Bantz discussed the sequence of events noting the plan was submitted
before the Comp Plan Transportation Map changes came about. He
explained the grading problems and purpose for narrower right-of-ways.
He advised there was no problem with putting in 132nd, a collector. He
talked about the sewer which needed to be a gravity flow, and he stated
USA had advised they could put the sewer in within about 6 months.
o Commissioners Saxton and Moore questioned whether there is a need for a
collector between 132nd and Gaarde Street extension, and the suggestion
was made that there might be a better place to locate this collector.
o City Engineer Randy Wooley answered questions pertaining to the Comp
Plan Transportation Map changes recently adopted. There was discussion
about the City Council's role in resolving these issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 1991 PAGE 3
a
o Commissioners sought clarification pertaining to the two plans.
Discussion followed concerning some alternative ways to re-align streets
in a more efficient way.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Herman Porter, 11875 SW Gaarde Street, Chairman of NPO #3, talked about
the Northeast Bull Mountain Study which offered two alternatives: an
east/west minor collector or a north/south collector. He reiterated
several times that the NPO does not want to see both routes built, but
rather one extension of Gaarde. He stated the NPO has directed a letter
to City Council urging that they make a decision resolving this issue.
He requested the Planning Commission to table this request or postpone
any decision until after the City Council has made their decision on
this traffic issue.
REBUTTAL
o David Bantz spoke once more urging the Commission to approve the request.
o Commissioner Castile commented on the issue of too many driveways on the
street. lie suggested possible changes to rectify this problem.
Discussion of these ideas followed.
o President Fyre discussed the NPO's suggestion pertaining to the
north/south and east/west connections. He noted the concerns about
by-pass traffic and talked about the steep ravine which was not well
suited to a minor collector street.
o There was lengthy discussion of traffic volume and needs in the area.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Boone talked about the 15% grade, which he said did not
bother him, and he predicted that the traffic on the street which
connected to Gaarde would carry a lot of traffic in the future. He
commented on the driveway problems and the 45-foot width. He said he
would tend to approve the request is the street width were wider.
o Commissioner Saxton suggested it was a little unreasonable to require a
through connection in an area of this unsuitable topography. He favored
Plan B with the 2 long cul-de-sacs and no minor collector. He said he
would agree there is a need to urge the City Council to make a decision
about connecting the streets.
o Commissioner Hawley concurred that a connection between Gaarde and 132nd
should be built, but she did not find this subdivision a good site for
the connection. She also was in favor of the design with the 2 long
cul-de-sacs (Plan B).
o Commissioner Moore agreed there was a need for a connection; however, he
did not favor this location for the crossing. He preferred the design
of Plan B.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 1991 PAGE 4
1
M
o Commissioner Fessler spoke about the confusion as to the whether the
through street was to be a collector or a local street. She advised she
was inclined to turn down this request and ask City Council to decide
upon a location of the east/west tie.
o Commissioner Castile did not agree with turning down the project, as the
matter would not be heard by Council, but would be returned to the
Commission. He said he would be inclined to approve the plan. He
favored widening the street, and he talked about the access from lots 9
through 16. He noted that this might encourage a decision from Council,
if it were appealed or called up for review by Council.
o President Fyre discussed the various suggestions the Commissioners had
made. He talked about the expense and practicality of building the
subject road. He said he agreed with other Commissioners preferring the
Plan B design with 2 long cul-de-sacs.
o Senior Planner Bewersdorff explained the options, which included
approval, denial, or to continue the hearing to allow time for staff to
re-evaluate "Plan B".
o Associate Planner Jerry Offer spoke about the Conditions of Approval
which would need to be reviewed prior to deciding the matter. He
explained that the first plan submitted (Plan B) was withdrawn by the
applicant and replaced with the current plan before the staff had looked
at it.
o There was further discussion concerning the options, and the applicant
was questioned concerning his preference. He stated he would prefer to
have the hearing continued to a date certain in order for him to present
Plan B. He pointed out the disadvantages of denial.
o Commissioners discussed the Fire Department standards, street widths and
grades. Plan A and Plan B were compared as they would impact the
transportation needs. Associate Planner spoke about the Transportation
Plan and the conditions of approval.
o There was consensus that Plan B would be favored over Plan A, with
Commissioner Boone stating he opposed Plan B.
* Commissioner Castile moved and Commission Moore seconded to continue
this hearing to September 23rd, at which time the Commissioners will
review Plan B along with the Conditions of Approval. Motion passed by a
majority vote of Commissioners present, with Commissioner Boone voting
"Nay. 11
MEETING RECESSED - 9:45 PM
MEETING RECONVENED - 10:00 PM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 1991 PAGE 5
i
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991
1. Vice-President Barber called the meeting to order at 7:30 Pfd. The
meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Barber, Boone, Castile, Fessler,
Hawley, Moore, Saporta and Saxton.
Absent: President Fyre
Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Associate
Planner Jerry Offer, Development Review Engineer Chris
Davies, City Engineer Randy Wooley, and Planning
Commission Secretary Ellen Fox.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm Toner Moore moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to ap the
minutes the September 9th Work Session meeting as writ . Motion
carried by m ' ity of Commissioners present. Commis ' ers Saporta and
Saxton abstained.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMM TION
o Associate Planner Jerry Offe vise-that staff included in the packets
the Ordinance dealing wi he Transpor n Plan Amendment and a list
of subdivisions appr d by the Planning Comm 'on and Hearings Officer
as per Commissio ' request.
o Communic ons were received pertaining to the Summit at Bul untain
Subdi 'sion, item 5.2 on the agenda, to be read into the record g
t earing for this item.
PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 CONTINUATION OF HEARING FROM AUGUST 19, 1991 SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0009
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0004 VARIANCE VAR 91-0012 SENSITIVE LANDS
91-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 91-0003 MB DEVELOPMENT/OTAK (NPO
#3) A request for approval of the following development applications:
1) Minor Land Partition approval to divide a 40.03 acre parcel into two
parcels of 20.31 and 19.72 acres; 2) Subdivision preliminary
plat/Planned Development conceptual plan approval to divide the 20.31
! acre portion of the subject property into 52 single-family residential
lots and tow private open space tracts; 3) Sensitive Lands Review
approval of preliminary plans for road and hone construction of portions
of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade; and 4) cul-de-sac
local streets of 510 feet, 560 feet, and 680 feet whereas Community
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PAGE 1
s
Development Code section 18.164.030 (K) allows a maximum cul-de-sac
length of 400 feet; b) to allow development of local streets with 28
feet of pavement and sidewalks on one side within a 400-Foot
right-of-way whereas Code section 18.164.070 (A) requires sidewalks on
both sides of local streets; c) to allow local street grades of as much
as 15 percent whereas Code section 18.164.030 (M) allows a maximum local
street grade of 12 percent. ZONE: R-4.5 (PD) (Residential, 4.5
units/acre) LOCATION: East of Benchview Estates subdivision, south of
the present terminus, and west of SW 121st Avenue (WCTM 2S1 4, tax lot
1400) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code chapters
18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, 18.164;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.2.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1,
7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3.
Associate Senior Planner Jerry Offer reviewed the previous hearing of
August 19, 1991, explaining that the applicant has reworked the design
which was the original plan for the subdivision layout. During the
previous hearing, Commissioners were not in favor of designs which
promoted traffic problems with steep, narrow roads with too many
driveways entering the street. He explained the plan being presented at
this hearing included cul-de-sacs which exceed 400 feet and need a
Variance. He noted that the plan also includes a street stub to the
north to provide for a future crossing to the Walnut/Gaarde connection.
He also mentioned that the property has been subject to a court decision
and has been partitioned, but he said there was still a need for the
property owner to process a lot line adjustment. He said this was an
unexpected change.
Associate Planner noted some corrections as follows:
1) p. 1 3rd to last line should be "increase in grade of local
streets to 15%."
2) p. 18 F. "...properties to the N and HE are zoned R-7
(Residential - 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)." It
should read "...minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet."
3) He handed out an additional page explaining Condition 20 which was
revised and replaces Condition 20 in the packet (see Exhibit A).
He explained that staff recommended approval of this plan subject to
conditions noted in the staff report. He explained why the Variances
were needed and elaborated on why staff did not feel criteria were met
for the street width Variance in the northern portion of the project.
He discussed the cul-de-sacs which exceed the length permitted and
require Variances. He talked about the future connection street which
needs to be full width with sidewalks on both sides. He stated that
staff prefers extending SW 132nd to the northern edge of lot 36.
o Commissioner Boone requested clarification concerning the Fire
District's street requirements. Associate Planner stated that the Fire
District serves areas including cul-de-sacs 600 feet long, but they do
not prefer cul-de-sacs of this length.
PLANNING C014MISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PAGE 2
o Development Review Engineer Chris Davies spoke about the Tract A and
Tract B portions and Phase I of the project explaining how the street
system will develop.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o David Bantz, 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, with Otak, Inc.
answered questions for Commissioners. He explained why the sewer line
was located in the common area. He noted that Benchview II will share a
right-of-way for the street. He gave a brief review of the discussion
during the August 19th Commission hearing, explaining the unfavorable
factors. He stated the plan being presented now was one of their
original designs, and he explained why it had not been presented
previously because the NPO did not favor the plan since there was no
street crossing over to Walnut/Gaarde.
He stated that narrower streets would be preferable. He showed graphics
demonstrating grading and impacts on vegetation if wider streets and
sidewalks on both sides are required. He noted that impact on trees was
the primary consideration rather than cost.
Mr. Bantz answered questions from Commissioners pertaining to the
variances, topography, and financial impact of additional roadway south
of lot 29. He suggested it would be preferable to do the grading
without the full improvements on the roadway beyond lot 29, and thereby
lessen the impact to future homeowners if the road is later completed.
o Commissioner Fessler expressed concern about liability for erosion if
this area were left unimproved.
o Beverly Froude, 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road, representing NPO #3, stated
the NPO is strongly opposed to any subdivision proposal which occurs in
the NE Bull Mountain Study area until the City Council resolves the
question of the traffic routes.
o City Engineer Randy Wooley spoke about the previous City Council
discussions of the Transportation Map. He reviewed the Commission's
discussion (August 19) in which there was a consensus that the subject
area did not present the best route for a crossing to Walnut/Gaarde
based on topography. He concluded that the Commission looked at
alternatives and options and, therefore, worked within the public
process. He described the staff recommendations for a Gaarde Street
extension to Walnut Street which was not a specific route, but a general
corridor to extend Gaarde west from 121st curving northward and
intersecting Walnut Street just east of 132nd. Commissioner Fessler
discussed Goal 12.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Alan Spinrad, 4640 SW Macadam, Suite 200, Portland, 97201, stated he is
an attorney for Quaestor. He described which portion of the property is
owned by his client. He advised that his client fully supports this
application.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PAGE 3
_ o Beverly Froude answered questions from Commissioners concerning the
NPO's opposition to subdivisions proposed in the NE Bull Mountain Study
area. Associate Planner reminded Commission there has not been a
moratorium placed against development. He suggested this application
should be judged on its merits, and findings need to be made relative to
current policies dealing with transportation.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL
o David Bantz said approval of this proposal would not preclude any of the
options connected with the study area. He noted this plan was not
proposing any road alignment changes. Fie pointed.^out the original plan
was submitted May 24, 1991, prior to adopting the Transportation Plan
Amendment.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Boone stated he was not in favor of cul-de-sacs, especially
with these steep grades. He advised he did not favor approval of this
request.
o Commissioner Fessler commented that she visited the subject property.
She said she agreed with staff concerning the need for wider roads. She
talked about the possible connection to Gaarde, and stated she would
prefer to see SW 132nd continued as far south as possible to address the
erosion issues. She was not in favor of approving the application.
o Commissioner Moore advised he leaned toward favoring the narrower street
for the easterly cul-de-sac, and he did not favor extending SW 132nd.
Concerning the Bull Mountain Transportation Study, he did not believe
the subject property provided the best route for a crossing due to
topography. He stated he did not have a problem approving the
application.
o Commissioner Saporta stated he did not favor granting the variances for
the cul-de-sacs. He favored constructing SW 132nd as far south as lot
29. He said it was a dilemma when considering the Bull Mountain Study.
He advised he was not sure whether he would vote for or against the
application at this point.
o Commissioner Hawley stated she favored approving the subdivision. She
did not consider this area a good one for minor collectors to improve
traffic on Bull Mountain. She favored denying variance concerning
sidewalks, as she favored sidewalks on both sides of the cul-de-sacs.
E She advised she was in favor of approving the application, as it is a
good plan. She also preferred extending SW 132nd as far as the south
corner of lot 29.
s
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PAGE 4
s
o Commissioner Saxton expressed appreciation for the frustration NPO #3 is
experiencing. He advised he agreed that the terrain of the property is
not suitable for an East/West connection. He favored approving the
Variance for the south portion but not the north portion, as per staff
recommendations.
o Commissioner Castile agreed with Commissioners who did not find the
subdivision an appropriate location for a connection route to
Walnut/Gaarde. He favored approval of the application.
o Commissioner Barber said she favored approving the development, with SW
132nd extended to lot 29, and not allowing a Variance for the northern
portion, Phase I. She commented that approval of this subdivision did
not preclude options in the study area.
o There was discussion about the 3-foot setbacks for side yards. Minor
Land Partition was discussed in light of the previous court decision,
with Associate Planner Jerry Offer suggesting the MLP be left in the
decision.
* Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve
MLP 91-0003; SUB 91-0009, with the stipulation that SW 132nd extend to
the southerly line of lot 29; PDR 91-0004; SLR 91-0002; VAR 91-0012 of
the extended cul-de-sac length, but maintain the 50 foot right-of-way in
Phase I as per revised Condition 20 and sidewalks on both sides of the
street in Phase I only; and side yard minimum 3-foot setbacks on one
side only with a minimum 10 feet separation between buildings.
Motion carried with majority vote of Commissioners present.
Commissioners Boone and Fessler voted "Nay."
Meeting recessed - 9:20 PM
Meeting reconvened - 9:30 PM
SUBDIVISION 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0005 SENSITIVE LANDS
SLR 91-0003 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MIS 91-0007 VARIANCE VAR 91-001
ON/SEIYU INTERNATIONAL (NPO #3) The applicant requests S vision
prel 'nary plat Planned Development plan review to divide
approxim ly 21.4 acre site (WCTM 2S1 9BA, tax lot 1 and portions of
WCTM 2S1 4, lots 1000 and 1100) into 58 lots ging in size between
7,042 square fe and 19,582 square feet. dition, the proposed
development would i ude creation of a ention pond tract. The
applicant also requests t Line A ' ent approval to add a 15 foot
wide strip to the east side 1 of the High Tor subdivision (tax
lot 100) from the western a the parcel to be subdivided. In
addition, the applica equests Lo ine Adjustment approval to attach
approximately 3,0 square feet from the rcel to be subdivided to tax
lot 1400 to southeast in exchange for ap imately 4,500 square
feet of of 1400 which would be dedicated for lic road purposes
in ciation with the subdivision. ZONE: R-7 (PD) idential, 7
is/acre, Planned Development) LOCATION: Bull Mountain and SW
139th Avenue at the south, and the existing southern terminus o
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PAGE 5
"a
OUN
••1
~ aest for
plaunO
vgsio
..j
Prepared J'or=
rX-33 DevelopmentsC.
Portland, Oregon
RECEIVED P~p,NNiNG
May 24, AUG 3 ®lg9,
:J
l
Ot&
rM .
1
~11
p. ~;~jr3
powwow"
molls*%
}
i
E
s
a
\ - E 3 i - t i
/ - \ ~ i
E E ~ i I / r
\l i ' 1
~ S w ITT'
~ < 3 (
~ .
F _ ~
'yam t ! ~ / -
F~ i / ~ '
• s ~ ,
1
! ~ f
• 1
n ll ,Y ~ f ~
• / 1 l.wu..ri.ws
• ~ ~ f i AYR il~rl/lK
/ rrpwrrr~llnlwu~y
i A~~
1 ~ / lrwmrrw rw Wiq
N11~
l , 1 ~ rrOnlislbl wlrlurl.
1 ` / ,
` ♦ i
1
w 1 / ar Nlla
IY M
AI '
/o
10
* ~ '
(.7/ A r ~ tW } 1 i ~ { i~
1.. - ~ d
.I.
?
Q BJ IW .'VP
NgXN Stal~l'•IOP•P~
EXHIBIT'A'
~ 11-26-91 AGENDA #4
' ~ 1 OF 6
• 3126
i
r:
.r-
~.n) • ~ i
f
,z ~ ~a _
n
' ~
- ~
A
tlMrmo- Ii n;, X-;; - - - -
~ ~
. ~ ~
~ ,
_
.
'
a,~
-
.
. ~ _
}
T~
,
„ '
~ §
a
•
,
~r ,
_ t
k
.
'
k"
• - _
s< ,
„r,
,r._ .
~u ~ ~ , ,..i - ~ ~ -
,y
i
` _ -
_ ~ - ~
- v=
' '':V
s's ~
r•.
.
~itf~:
'w ' ~ - .u
S
j'
I,... . .
Y'
i4i.LnY '
i 3, r ~ ~ -
i .
~ jj ~ N - E
j6 r
- - ~ k : ~ ~ ~
a - ~ ~ ~ +
F
~ MidIR
1 1 r~rt 8Yr ar.rrbc
! ~ ' sos~
~ /
- 11 ~ ~
~ ,
i, f
F
r f
, ,
f ~ ~
' ' ~ !
~ ~ 4
r
1
' ~ I ~ ~
~ ~ r~
+ ~ ~ ' 1 ~ f .
1. , / tee.
~ 1
;~'a ~ ~ eclm~or~us
~ •
~ : r
} I ~ I~NlIT~W Al1sAf
- ~ ` : ~ l i
i
I:i ~ ~
~ ; I
\ I I ~ I ~ ~I ` 1`,~ I ~ I~ I1 ~ f
'l~,.l~
~ ~ a s -
• I a w Im iaa _
I ~ I _ -
NCmN kdx l'.IOQ•C
s - -
~ ~ ~
+ 11-26-91 AGENDA $4
2 OF 6 ~
, axe
f t ;
, ,
1 a
- „,.,,.__I , 5, ,Mr
' .mac „ ~ ~
tUiE If M s ~ ' _ _ ~'Y
.
,
' ~ ~ _ ,
, . F
of tNE ~i~ z .
~ .
~
'
y~
f - ~
4
.,n~
y.
z ~
~Tyti
. ,
. .
_
'ai
I ~
_ ~
_
, ~ ,
_ _
~
3 , n.... •
~ ~
:t' , ' , t - .r 1.-.
. ~i:_ . .
~ ,
rt liar
t f„k i
- ,
~r ~ -
' ~ l) '~4
_.t., _ 7;
~
r~~~
~1
a } >E s r + s ! ! ~
\ 1; i ~ ~i 3 1 3 ~ r~/~/ /
~ ~ 777 ~ l ~w
; _1 ~
G~ i t _
~ ~
l e ♦ ~ d
.q...__.
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ I
1- i E t~
E ~ ~ ~ ~ fA
} t ~ ~ T
~ ~ { ~ s
~ ~ r 1/a[31r.~C7p!
'l
~ ~ ~ ~
,n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ r
' f ~ t ~
r/ ; ~ f ,
f ~ ~
i ~ 1 ~ t t l
' 1 /f i e r
r i ' t
s r ~ ~ rlLpr.fecnu~
I ~ /
~ r i 't
I ' ~ a ! ~ UTI4CMES LEGEND
• r ~
`l. ~ \ i ~ ' ( r e NiTAer sane
I , I , i ~ ~ l / ~ eorwe sA
' I ~ J / ~a ►e0lOfeD fTOeM feMLR
.w ~ I ~ l,t ~ ~
i I •7 11 y 1 ~ reorofeo rATee
~ / f ~.N.
~ r / eelmNO 1ANnAer serve
1 1 I I ~ • • _ eelsrlNO eroew sewee
' ~
I i
_ ~9 ~ I f !%gTINO rATP.e
1 ~ 1 TIIOfOSID Flee IIYORANT
s:
~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ . reoroeen wANUOte, cacu enslN p~
{{t I t I. l r I I OX ItTINO M N O
1 1• ' I 1 e • A IIOLe, CATCII eA71M
' 1 ~ 1 ~ , I r ~,I, ~
1
7 i I ~ ~I~•.;I ` `~~1~II~I i i r 1 i
6 r _ ~ ~ i 1
! 3 _
a mT I@ 707
. V1GlI\-=
i ~ I
_
I ~NdIM SCdcI'•IOR•V~
i
EXF~1' C'
~ 11-26-91 AGENDA #4
3 OF 6 l
3426
_
a I _
~ •
_ ,
,
_
~ ~q~` Ir i
~
~~r'"i0~' .,.NU1E: If ~f13S K]ggFi _
y
~ ~ `
, _ ,
_ ~w: > , ,
~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ `
• a ,
. _ _
r~
k ~ ;
r, ~ 1 ~ ~ ,
f
~^'S1uiS3
~ I ~ I. -
; . ,
1.-- - ~
r-+
i
•
~ ~ u 1
~ ~ 1
a
. ~
~ G
Y
.
> _ ,
K
r.....:.
. .i ,
a., ~ r
''t +
~ n
~
r ~ ~
t?
j
Fr
` ~~s~
. .
~y..,
~t
~
yy i$.e3 ~ ~ \
f~ ~ 1~8
y it3 1 I
- ~ r i l/ !
' ~ ! ,
1
{ ~
n , ~
~ ; r ,
f
f ~ .
, ~ ; ,
r- t t f F
~ r
~ r~
~ { ~ ~ ~t 6t
' .t
~ ~ f \
w ` I /f ~ I ~ ` _ `ww
' . e., /
.r ~ ~ ~ •5 1 ~
' ' ~ I ~
+~r
~ ~ 1 /
~ ; ~ /
H ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~
i ~ ' I ; I
1 \ t ~ ~ ~ ~ carrouR iM~~ • r
i ~ i I I I f j \
~ ! ~ ~ ~
I °
i ! ~
4 _ a ~ ~ ,
3
o m me mn _
a:;
i ~tldml Sm4:1•.107~P~
• ti
11-26-91 AGENDA #4 i 2
4 OF 6 3q 6
M M
' A~. r
c.
1 ^ '
a
,.y
r
T~~
, .
_
v
; '
nrK
k a
.
..y;.
t~~. aRmnau ~
r ,
{
J r' c
z. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -#s
,
r
,
y
~.g_~ ~
- ~
~~e
~
. 4 ,
` :f ~
, , ,x. . _
~ _ . , 1',~ f ~
Si a
r
i:.
. ' _
''.v ~ `v
y.
' ~ ~
~ iN'
^L~1~H~
'~3
+_t"~..
'
~j,,.
,
Y
~i,
u., -~A.
s
- ~ ~ _F 3 3
- y
~ _
} # ~ 1 ~
~ ~ e E ,g E $ n ~ x _ f ~
i J
~ . ~ f
~ ~ ~ ~
.r, 1
~ ~ ~
x
, „
w . I
.
~4 - - -
wM t .
f' / J ~ ~'S,
.5+.. 4 r , r-..
~ p
,L .
~ i ~ f
' C
w
~ ~ ~
~ ~ . ~ -
~
'
st < < ~ ' w ~ ~ ~ ~
:1 ~ t ~
~ I ' I
I ~ r
i
,j, .t. 1 r
l , , . .
ir'
. 4 f s,'. 3 ! r
' v er roc m
~ I
{
WM11 !Calk l'•IW •P
~ 11-26-91 ~ '
AGENDA p4 ~(~~'~q~
6 OF 6
' 3426
1. ' ~ ~,:f- ~ ±r
_
,
~ a, ~ , '
~ ~ ~ ~
V
~ID1E :3F'~C~Ifl~1iDFI ~ . l
~ dRMti1~ Ys lESS .i. 4 - -
~ : ~ ~ . ,m ~ ~ ~
~ " ,
N
a,
71E CRDGfI1N. _ r
7iID: , i a r
1 ~
~-~i $ , . ,
r
~
: -
f
~ s ~
x
~ 1
a
~ a.R!1.,d.
.p;
..;r,- ~
~ . ~
~ „ .
e
" ~ 1 k1T .i
U... . M ` o,
y ~`,r
~ ~
- ~
o~ ~M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l„
MOUNTAIN HIGI I1AND S
OWNER/DEVELOPER: MB DEVELOPMENT, INC.
12725 SW 66TH AVE., 1#102
PORTLAND, OR 97223
CONTACT PERSON: BERT MITCHELL
PLANZNERJENGLNEER: OTAK, INC.
17355 SW BOONES FERRY ROAD
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
(503) 635-3613
CONTACT PERSON: DAVID BANTZ
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 2S1 4 TAX LOT 1400
AREA: 40.03 ACRES
ZONING: R-4.5 P.D.
r
t
342611nformacshc
591.23
S
ry
MOUNTAIN HIGHLANDS
I. Statement of Intent
H. On-Site Analysis
Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit B - On Site Analysis
M. Off-Site Analysis ;
IV. Utilities
Exhibit C - Preliminary Utility Plan
Exhibit D - Preliminary Grading Plan
V. Compliance with Applicable Development Code Provisions
APPENDIX
Exhibit 1 Application
Exhibit 2 Pre-Application Checklist
Exhibit 3 Drawings Regarding Road Crossing Drainageway to Gaarde Road
Exhibit 4 Drawings Regarding Road Crossing Drainageway to Gaarde Road
Exhibit 5 Solar Evaluation
r
t
P '
t,
3426Wontents
581.23
^~1
• 1 >tti
I. STATEMENT OF INTENT
The intent of this request is to receive preliminary approval of a minor partition in
order to divide the subject property into two parcels of approximately 20.31 acres and
19.72 acres. In addition, we are requesting preliminary approval of a 52 lot Planned
Development for the 20.31 acre portion of the subject property. Variances are
requested from section 18.164.030 E.1a which specifies local public streets.and cul-de-
sacs have a minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and a minimum roadway width of 34 feet,
section 18.164.030 M.1 which limits the grade of local streets to 12%, and section
18.165.030 K.1 which limits cul-de-sac lengths to 400 feet.
The subject property is described as tax lot 1400 of Section 4, T2S, R1W and contains
40.03 acres. The zoning designation is R4.5 P.D.
r
34261Statemnt.Int 1
591.23
1
j:
^3
II. ON SITE ANALYSIS
C
That portion of the property proposed for the Planned Development generally slopes
down to the east and north. A drainageway bisects the property from west and east
through the southern half of the site. An additional drainageway exists immediately
east of the property. Grades are in the range of 10% to 35% with the average being
approximately 20%.
Significant vegetation is limited primarily to the southerly half and the easterly
portions of the northern half. The site is not unlike other properties in the vicinity.
34261Statemnt.Int 2
591.23
t
e
M. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
Immediately west of the property is the yet undeveloped Benchview Estates Planned
Development, which consists of 46 single family lots. As part of the approvals for _
Benchview Estates, the alignment of S.W.132nd was established and a partial right-of-
way dedication was included in the conditions of approval. S.W. 132nd Avenue is
designated a collector street with a 60 foot right-of-way. To the north of the subject
property is a large undeveloped parcel with similar characteristics as the subject
property. To the east of the subject property is a developed single family neighborhood.
To the south are found undeveloped properties.
r
t ~
r•-
r
P
3426%StatAmatlat 3 : -
591.23
E?.
a
i
IV. UTILITIES
The subject property is served by Tigard Water District, which has a 12-inch line within
S.W. 132nd. Storm drainage will be channeled to the drainageway within or adjacent
to the site. The Unified Sewerage Agency has indicated their intention of extending
sanitary sewer service to the site from an existing line in S.W. Walnut Street to the
north. This extension will provide a 10 inch sanitary sewer to the site.
34261Statemnt.Iat ¢
591.23
V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE
PROVISIONS
A) Dimensional Requirements
The subject property is zoned R4-5PD. The PD (Planned Development) overlay
exempts the lots from meeting the minimum lot size, depth and lot width J
standards. However, all lots exceed the minimum requirements for each of these
standards.
B) Setbacks
Front yard setbacks for structures excluding garages may be less than 20 feet
due to the steep grades but are not expected to be less than 10 feet. All garage
structures will be a minimum of 20 feet from the front property lines. Interior
setbacks may be less than 5 feet as allowed within properties with a PD overlay.
C) Access, Egress and Circulation
1) Section 18.104.030 provides standards for the creation of streets and
improvements within public right-of-way. Subsection 18.164.030(E)
requires public right-of-way to be 50 feet wide for local streets and 60
feet for minor collectors. This section also requires cul-de-sacs to have
a 50-foot radius for their turn-arounds. Roadway widths for local streets
are required to be 34 feet and cul-de-sac to be constructed to a radius of
42 feet. The proposed Mountain Highlands development will meet the
above standards with the exception that the local streets are proposed to
have roadway width of 28 feet within 40-foot right-of-ways. The
justification for this variation will be discussed in a later section.
2) Section 18.164.030(10 requires all cul-de-sacs to be as short as possible
and not to exceed 400 feet. The proposed development contains cul-de-
sacs of 560 feet, 510 feet and 680 feet. The justification for this
variation will be discussed in a later section.
3) Section 18.164.030(W requires all arterial streets to have grades of 10
percent or less and collectors or local streets to have grades of 12 percent -
or less. The proposed subdivision provides for a minor collector having
a grade of 12 percent- and local streets with grades of 15 percent. The
justification for this variation will be discussed in a later section. Section
18.164.030(M) also requires minor collectors to have a minimum
centerline radii of 350 feet and local street a minimum 100 foot radii.
The streets within the proposed subdivision meet these standards.
All other requirements of Section 18.164.030 will be met. Plans will be
submitted for review prior to construction of all public improvements.
~J
34267statemnt.Int 591.23
I
4) Section 18.164.070 contains provisions for the installation of sidewalks.
This section requires sidewalks to be located on both sides of arterial and
collector streets as well as local streets. The sidewalks for local streets
may be installed in conjunction with the development of the individual
lots. The proposed development will meet the above standards with the
exception that sidewalks are proposed for only one side of all local
streets. The justification for this variation will be discussed in a later
section.
D) Sensitive Lands
Chapter 18.84 of the Tigard Development Code deals with properties determined
to be sensitive. This designation may be due to floodplains, natural
drainageways, steep slopes or unstable ground. The subject property contains
land determined to be sensitive due to the presence of a drainageway and the
steeper slopes associated with the drainageway.
Section 18.84.015(A) lists the uses permitted and prohibited for sensitive lands.
Among the uses permitted is "Public and private conservation areas for water, r
soil, open space, forest and wildlife resources." Tract A, a 2.5-acre parcel, is
being proposed as an open area for the purpose of a private conservation area.
The only disturbances proposed within Tract `A' will be approximately 400 feet
of sanitary sewer construction including a manhole. Plans will be submitted to
the City and permits will be obtained prior to any construction being
commenced within Tract A. _
E) Planned Development
The subject property is being developed as a planned development and has a
planned development overlay designation. The purpose of the planned
development overlay is to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing
landscape features and amenities. An additional purpose is to provide a means
for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards.
Section 18.80.020(B) requires planned development requests to have a pre-
application conference with City staff. A pre-application conference was held on
April 18, 1991 with City staff to discuss the proposal and get input to help in
the application.
Section 18.80.080, Applicability of the Base Zone Provisions, provides allowable -
variations in lot size, depth and width as well as setbacks. As mentioned -
previously, the only variations from these standards are front yard setbacks.
The front ya.rd setbacks may be as close as ten feet to the structures but will be
twenty feet to garage structures in order to allow adequate off-street parking.
Section 18.80.100 provides for phased developments. The proposed Benchview
Estates 11 development will be constructed in two phases.
Section 18.80.120 provides Approval Standards which are necessary to satisfy
prior to receiving Planned Development approval. These standards are: _
34261.Statemnt.Int 6
591.23 :
i
• i
1) Solar Access Requirements Chapter 18.88
This chapter contains rules and regulations regarding solar access
provisions. The solar analysis (Exhibit 4) indicates that 87% of the non-
exempt lots meet the basic solar requirements.
2) Density Computation and Limitations - Chapter 18.92
This chapter provides a formula for determining the number of dwelling
units permitted. The density calculations for the subject property are as
follows:
Gross Site = 20.31 Acres
minus street
dedication = 3.09 Acres
Sensitive Lands = 4.87 Acres
Net Site = 12.35 Acres (537,966 square feet)
Net Units = 537,966 sq. ft. /7,500 sq. ft. per unit =
71.7 Acres
The total number of units allowed is 71.7 while the total number of units
proposed is 52. This equals 72.5% of the allowable units.
3) Additional Yard Area Requirements - Chapter 18.96
This chapter provides for additional setbacks on lots adjacent to streets j
with insufficient right-of-way or where better light, air and vision
clearance may be needed. As the proposed preliminary plat provides
sufficient right-of-way for all streets and adequate vision clearance is
being provided for all street intersections, no additional yard area
requirements are needed.
4) Building Height Limitations - Chapter 18.98
This chapter contains provisions for height exceptions for non-residential
zones and for buildings located on flag lots. Neither of these provisions
apply to the lots proposed. The building height provisions of the R 4-5
Zoning District will apply to the lots within the proposed subdivision.
5) Landscaping and Screening - Chapter 18.100
This chapter provides standards for the buffering, landscaping and
screenings as well as specific standards for the location of street trees.
The buffering and screening standards include a minimal level of
screening and buffering along property lines between specific zoning
districts. In the case of the subject property all of the surrounding
properties are of the same zoning. The buffer matrix found in subsection
18.100.130(a) does not require a buffer between R 4.5 zoned parcels.
Subsections 18.100 and 18.100.035 contain requirements and standards
for the installation of street trees. Street trees will be planted by the
individual property owners as construction proceeds. The standards of
these sections will be followed during the planting of the street trees.
3426\Statemnt.Int 7
591.23
S
S
• 4
(v) Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet in height from
ground level shall be saved where possible;
All trees will be saved whenever possible. Approval of the variance
request to reduce street width will allow additional retention.
t
3426Wtatemnt.Int 9
591.23
VI. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCES
As part of our submittal we are requesting variances from the following Development
Code Standards:
- Section 18.164.030(E)(1) which specifies that local public streets and cul-de-sacs
have a minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and a minimum roadway width of 34 feet.
- Section 18.104.030(M)(1) which limits the grades of local streets to 12%.
- Section 18.164.070 which requires the installation of sidewalks on both sides of
local streets.
- Section 18.165.030(K)1) which limits cul-de-sac lengths to 400 ft.
The purpose for each of the requested variances is to help reduce the impact on the
natural vegetation and existing topography. Approval of the requested variances will
result in less disruption of the site and the increased retention of vegetation without
changing the efficiency of the street system. -
Section 18.134.050 of the Tigard Development Code establishes five criteria that must
be met in order to grant a variance. These criteria are stated and discussed below:
(1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this
Code; be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other y
applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning
district or vicinity.
The proposed variances will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of
the Tigard Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Approval will help
protect the quality of water resources by minimizing erosion and maximizing
retention of vegetation in close proximity to a drainageway. It will also
conserve needed open space and help protect natural and scenic resources. All
this while also providing a safe and economic transportation system and an
orderly and efficient arrangement of public services. All of these are purposes R.
found in the Purpose Chapter (18.02.010) of the Development Code.
Approval will allow public streets to be constructed with a pavement width of
28 feet, a 15 percent grade and sidewalks on one side. These standards are
identical to those found in Phase 1 of Benchview Estates.
(2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or
shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no
control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning
district.
As shown by Exhibit B (Aerial Photo/On-Site Analysis) the site has a consistent
tree cover. Also, Exhibit E (Preliminary Grading) shows the existing
topography. Both of these exhibits give a good example of the special
circumstances found on the site which justify the variance requests. The
existing conditions have resulted in a reduction in the number of lots from the
+ allowable 71 to the proposed 52. Denial of the requested variances would not
result in fewer lots but would result in smaller lots and additional grading and
vegetation removal. -
34264Statemat.Int 10
591.23
i
(3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City
standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible,
while permitting some economic use on the land.
Approval of the requested variances will not change the use of the property.
As mentioned previously denial will result in smaller lots but not fewer lots.
(4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as, but not limited to, traffic,
drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more
than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code.
The primary purpose of the variances requested is to minimize any adverse
effects on the natural features found on the site. The only existing pubic street
in the vicinity is S.W. 132nd Avenue which will not be affected by the
requested variances.
The cul-de-sac could be eliminated or shortened by extending the two northerly
cul-de-sacs south across the drainageway. This however would have a very
negative effect on the drainageway.
(5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum
variance which would alleviate the hardship.
The hardships mentioned are not self imposed but are a function of the natural
topography and vegetation that exists on the subject property. The reductions
in the standards that are being requested are the minimum that will alleviate
the hardship while still allowing safe and efficient access and circulation.
34264Statemat.Int 11
591.23
i
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT 1 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT 2 PRE-APPLICATION CHECKLIST
EXHIBIT 3 DRAWINGS REGARDING ROAD CROSSING DRAINAGEWAY TO
GAARDE ROAD
EXHIBIT 4 DRAWINGS REGARDING ROAD CROSSING DRAINAGEWAY TO
GAARDE ROAD
EXHIBIT 5' SOLAR EVALUATION
3426/.appeaau
591.24
F
4
CITY OF T6GARD, OREGON
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY
CASE NO.
OTHER CASE NO'S:
RECEIPT NO.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY:
DATE:
1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted:
PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION east of the southerly (A) Application form (1)
Terminus of S.W. 132nd Avenue (B) Owner's signature/written
TAR MAP AND TAX LOT NO. 2S1 4 TL 1400 authorization
(C) Title transfer instrument (1)
SIZE 40.03 acres (D) Assessor's map (1)
PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* MB Develooment (E) Plot plan (pre-app checklist)
ADDRESS 12725 SW 66th avenue PHONE 624-8517 (F) Applicant's statement
CITY Portland _1 ZIP 97223 (pre-app checklist)
APPLICANT* 0TAR, Inc CG) l,i r, 9~ ?'c9^•P~t~ Q4:~°~ S end
. ~ ~
ADDRESS 17355 SW Boones FerryPHONE 635-3618 -addr
CITY Lake Osweoo OR ZIP 97035 (H) Filing fee
*When the owner and the avvlicant are different J`
people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record
or a leasee in possession with written authorization DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE:
_'rom the owner or an agent of the owner :r_t1 ,rritten
authorization. The owner(s) must sign this
application in the space provided on page t:.o or FINAL DECISION DEADLINE:
submit a :mitten authorization with this aDD?'.cation. -
COMP. PLAN/ZOti- DESIGNATION:
r
Y 2. PROPOSAL SbDD ARY
The owners of record of the subJect proDert7
request permission to create a Planned N.P.O. Number:
DeveloDment consisting of 32 sinale-
Conceptual ?,'_an Apo-oval gate:
' f 3:1_ v lots and oten S,3ace ac s
i Alf Detailed Plan AoDroval Date:
Planning
Eng neerin-
0526?/13? 0VLJIC5IT' 4
3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered _
as part of this application: variance to'cul-de-sac length, road grade
and width and eliminate sidewalk from one side of street.
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.
I .
5. THE APPLICAN'T(S) • SP.ALL CERTIFY THAT:
A. The above request 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 -Z( day of
SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property.
o r-
E
R
,
i pm07':7?)
k -
F
t
I
CITY OF TIGARD
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES
DATE: 4P.1L 1,5 M/
APPLICANT: J)raRT /YiT6RCLC. AGENT: OIAK -A4VID c3~A) rz
(_;EIJC
Phone: LncZ -f' S1 7 Phone: 6•3:-3W8
PROPERTY LOCATION rr
ADDRESS: rOQME1LCV AouNrAI,I Rlo6E AvPL/CP,r/Gn/
TAX MAP & TAX LOT : _rAk 40r 1250
NECESSARY APPLICATION (S) - AL AI• JA) Q =c r_ OPA14F I 7_, t f3t~/ (/l SJO PO5 5/BC 6
LoT L.lNc Ac)Jusi•M6;ir WI i N OAectC Vr eA57 . .5E-,Q51r 1 ✓E ZAAJDS Rc JE&! FpP. P.OAD c /rsUSF
p6Vc opine-, IT ON Q57_ D1-cPt- V/1V91, •/VC iz7S
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:- PL / ~1_ 4i
RrLII['(v rcr2_ 34 407- t5uODIV1510"') VFrR/An.KE5 ~DeCue Dc SF.C5
LrwCEfL -1ftFn/ `IOC CE=i 40 FCot 6;j0F' 9OW 4A 1 , OF PRL'E7~IenIT S/DcuJRiKs Ou OAJc SIDE STcE-
i
nnof
COHPRBHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Derj.51 V /Cc 51 ycNTI41- n
zoxlNG DESIGNATION: 45 PD1) 6',c51vEnr7 iA6 Al af/( rsA,,a rc/1nINrD D VEZopRe~lr)
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION a~ CHAIRPERSON: 57P TGFZ
PHONE : 5!5
ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIR1DIENTS -/pp R-4 PD OV6v-W de Lows AYcal 6muc- Or
Minimum lot size: Z sq. ft. tor :SczES TO Mtn 7,5700 F SfANOfrRD
Minimum lot width: TO ft. AND SPEC 166 5c7-j3AC;1 S
Setbacks: front- _9,0 ft. side-_5 ft., rear- /5-ft.
garage-_,~JQ ft. corner-ll ft. from both streets.
Maximum site coverage: Jv1}-9s
Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area:
Maximum building height: 3T ft.
ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land
partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a -
minimum of 15 feet Of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access
easement.
Maximum lot depth to width ratio of 2.5 to 1.
SPECIAL SETBACKS
Streets: ft. f=m centerline-of
Est shed areas: ft. from
Ldwe intensity zones along tlie'site's / baiTfidary
Flag lot: 10 ft. side yard setback
Accessory structures: up to 528 sq. ft. in size=5 ft. setback from side
and rear lot lines
Accessory structures: up to 1000 sq. ft. (where allowed) - See
applicable zoning district setbacks
Zero lot line lots: minimum 10 foot separation between buildings
Multi-familv residential building separation: See Code Section 18.96.030
i
Page 1
Fi
r
i
I
SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS
Flag Lots: 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, 2-1/2 stories or
35 ft. in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones if standards of Code
Section 18.98.030(B) are met.
Building Height Exceptions (Code Section 18.98.020): Buildings located in
a nonresidential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided:
1. A minimum FAR (building floor area to site area
ratio) of 1.5 to 1 will exist;
2. All actual building setbacks will be at least 1/2
the building's height; and
3. The structure will not abut a residential zone
district.
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION
Community Development Code Chapter 18.92 specifies that the net
residential units allowed on a particular site may be calculated by
dividing the net area of the developable area by the minimum number of
square feet required per dwelling unit in the applicable zoning district.
Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land
area(s) from the gross site area:
1. All sensitive lands areas
- land within the 100 year floodplain
- slopes exceeding 25%
- drainageways
2. Land dedicated for park purposes
3. Public right-of-way dedication
4. All land provided for private streets (includes accessways
through parking areas)
The City of Tigard allows a residential density transfer of up to 25% of
the units that could otherwise have been developed on sensitive lands
areas listed in (1) above to the developable portion of the site in
accordance with Code Section 18.92.030.
It is the responsibility of the applicant for a residential development
approval to provide calculations for permitted residential density and
density transfer.
SOLAR ACCESS REQU REHENTS
Effective May 1, 1991 all subdivisions and minor partitions are subject to
a solar access requirement which states that 80% of all lots developed
must be solar-oriented. The characteristics of a solar-oriented lot are
high levels of wintertime sun striking the south walls and roofs of the
house, house orientation maximizing south window area, and a south-sloping
roof area. To achieve this, one may utilize the following:
1. Basic requirement: Design a lot with at least 90 feet of
north-south lot dimension and an orientation within 30 degrees
of south;
2. Protected Solar Building Line: The solar building line must
j a) be oriented within 30 degrees of south, b) have a minimum
of 70 feet between it and the middle of the lot to the north,
c) have a minimum of 45 feet between it and the northernmost
buildable boundary of the lot on which the building line is
located.
r '
Page 2
F
z:
i
3. Performance Options: The first option requires the house to be
oriented within 30 degrees of an east-west axis and have at
least 80% of the ground floor south wall protected from shade.
The second option requires at least 32% of the glass and 500
square feet of the roof area to face south and be protected
from shade.
Total or partial exemption of a site from the solar access requirement can
be for the following reason:
1. East, west or north slopes steeper than 20%.
2. off-site shade sources (structures, vegetation, topography).
3. On-site shade sources (vegetation).
Adjustments allowing reduction of the 80% solar lot design requirement can
be for the following reasons:
1. Reduced density or an increased cost of at least five percent
due to:
- east, west or north slope greater than 10%,
- significant natural feature,
- existing road or lotting pattern,
- public easement or right-of-way.
2. Reduction in important development amenities.
3. Pre-existing shade (vegetation). s•
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSITION
Regardless of the allowed housing density in a zoning district, any
property within 100 feet of a designated established area shall not be
developed at a density greater than 125 percent of the maximum
Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacent parcel.
PARKING AND ACCESS / j
Required automobile parking for this type of use: .SDpCc?5 ~~YG~~Z~/~K4; /c'Cd~{~fGF
secondary use required parking:
25% of required spaces may be designated compact-only spaces.
Standard parking space dimensions: 9 ft. X 18 ft.
Compact parking space dimensions: 8.5 ft. X 15 ft.
All parking areas and driveways must be paved.
Handicapped parki All pazking arias providing in excess of five
required automo a parking spaces shy provide ~p=opriately locat c and
designated h dicapped parking s aces. The minimum number of h icapped
parking sp es to be providednd parking space size are mand ed by the
Oregon wised Statutes ee handout}. handicapped p rking space _
symbo shall be painted the parking space surface and a appropriate
sig shall be provided. I
Bicycle racks are required for civic uses, non-residential uses, _
commercial uses, and industrial uses providing 15 or more automobile
parking spaces. Bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of one _
bicycle rack space per 15 auto parking spaces. Bicycle racks shall be
located in areas protected from automobile traffic. The Planning Division -
can provide specifications for approved bicycle rack tomes.
Drive-in use queuing areas: A .
Page 3
i
Minimum number of accesses: _
Minimum access width:
Maximum access width:
Pedestrian access must be provided between building entrances and parking
areas, outdoor common areas, and public sidewalks and streets.
For detailed information on design requirements for, parking areas and
accesses, see Community Development Code Chapters 18.106 and 18.108.
CLEAR VISION AREA
The City requires that clear vision be maintained between three and eight
feet above grade at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road
intersections in specified clear vision areas. The size of the required
clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional
classification ( ri ne .
LANDSCAPING
Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or
private street or a driveway more than 100 feet in length. Street trees
must be placed either within the -public right-of-way or on private
property within six feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must
have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet above grade. Street -
trees should be.spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on mature tree size.
Further information on regulations affecting street trees and a list or
recommended street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division.
A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces must be planted in and -
around parking areas in order to provide a canopy effect. Landscaped
N screening of parking areas from views from public rights-of-way must be
provided.
i -
BUFFERING AND SCREENING
In order to increase privacy and to reduce or eliminate adverse noise or
visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different
land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site
perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of
width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and
''vv evergreen trees and shrubs. Site obscuring screens or fences are also
required in some cases, and often are advisable even if not required. -
Required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences,
utilities, and sidewalks.
Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be
found in Code Chapter 18.100 and the Planning Division bulletin on
f landscaping and buffering.
r
Page 4
r
E
i
t
i
Required buffer widths applicable to your proposal area:
ft. along north boundary ft. along east boundary
£t. along south boundary ft. along west boundary
In addition, sight obscuring screening is rev_uired along
i
SIGNS
Permits must be obtained before erecting any sign in the City of Tigard.
A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request.
Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if
the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development application.
f11JE SUS?Di✓,510-J Tj~~n1
77 F/C:~i/Unl S/6,tJ P'c2 S(4QD1✓1510A) E,JrP-h NC
DER/:1l!"1%i7 /~1P.x1MG!/YI S1Z"c OF 3 SrJ F'T f~E,Q ~.4C'c -
SENSITIVE LANDS
ADDITIONAL PLANNING CONCERNS OR COMMENT'S
.~~eL/~~I~~GP_ •l Pe•l-,-,L' SNOtOS T72/,'-C% . MF exgy 1-,' SK PAP,K
.23o,+) Q1) .424E-Elf-4 IF 59011e-D BECOME PQ/c-/rrz7D AARXtAAW).
4y0 i IT tJl,~L i✓E6-y /--c 9E A Ann rE C16mli iox) 7-R,4 c 7
- 828`IcA/J 6 HOU10 DEncnNs /ZAFE QiN rf;~2E- 5#oul-b Abr 8E-
A RoA-D 6Pz551nJG THE ekezXz rD 77f6 ~~Sr COVAJ ECT n1 G ?D T
GA(-r2Dc ~xTE-AJ 5 /Q J
--~VD~D P is Lor 58TW, 25 OR ROVIDE FAV~t~ AccEs5
PROCEDURE
Administrative staff review.
Public hearing before the land use hearings officer.
Public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission
making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. _
Another public hearing is held by the City Council.
All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member at
the Community Development Department counter at City Hall. Applications
submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division
acceptance will be returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on
Thursdav will be batched for processing with the following week's
applications for processing. No applications will be accepted after 3:00
P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other days.
Maps submitted with an application shall be folded in advance to 8.5 by 11
inches. One 8.5 by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be submitted
for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision.
Page 5
t
The Planning Division and Engineering Division will do a preliminary
review of the application and will determine whether an application is
complete within 10 days of submittal. Staff will notify an applicant if
additional information or copies of the submitted materials are needed.
The administrative decision/public hearing typically will occur
approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as complete
by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult issues or
requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to
review. Written decisions are issued within 10 days of the hearing. A 10
day appeal period follows all decisions. An appeal on this matter would
be heard by the i Ti_/'~?u a~C I L
A basic flow diagram illustrating the review process is attached to this
sheet.
The pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are
intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary community
Development Code requirements applicable to development of a particular
site and to allow the staff and prospective applicant to discuss the
opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. The
conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of
good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan.
Failure of the staff to provide any information required by the Code shall
not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements.
Another pre-application conference is required if an application is to be
submitted more than six months after the pre-application conference, Y
unless the second conference is deemed unnecessary by the Planning
Division.
PREPARED BY=
1 SION
1r.~ ~W4171
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (i) identify
applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions; (i.i.) to
provide Citv staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns; and
(iii) to review the application review process with the applicant
including identifying who will be the final decision maker for the
application. The extent of public improvements and dedications to be
required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and approved
by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to
the decision maser by City staff until all commenting agencies, city staff
and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the "
application. The following comments are a projection of public
improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of
development approval for your project.
Right-of-wav dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be
dedicated to the public to increase abutting public rights-of-way to the
ultimate functional street classification rights-of-way width specified by
the Community Development Code.
?age 6
is
i
t
l 1
• ~i
Approval of a development application for this site will require
dedication of right-of-way for
S() 1,9-q k~ 36) feet from centerline.
2. LGCCLA 5 I' Pte feet from centerline.
Street improvements:
1.'Q1 street improvements will be necessary along
2. street improvements will be necessary along
3. Needed street improvements will include feet of pavement S!
from centerline, curb and gutters, storm sewers, a five-foot wide
sidewalk, necessary street signs, streetlights, and a two year
I
streetlighting fee.
In some cases where street improvements or other necessary public
impr ements are not currently practical, the st• eet improvements may be
deferre In these cases, as a condition of dev opment approval, the
property o r(s) must execute a non-remonstrance ag ent which waives;.
the property o 's right to remonstrate against the fo ion of a local
improvement district ormed to improve
1.
2.
Pedestrianways/bikeways:
Sanitary Sewers: The closest sanitary sewer to this property is an
inch line located at The proposed
development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It is the developer's
responsibilitv't9 extend the sewer along the proposed development site's
lac / itlC+ i C.: /i T : : /1 arcc'~Y
f0 :n t 4_1
Storm sewer improvements : /a %r i. t Nu
Water Supply: The RT> Water District (Phone: )
provides public water service in the area of this site. The District
should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your
proposed development.
sire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene
Birchill, 645-8533) provides fire protection services within the City of
Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the j
adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other
questions related to fire protection.
Other Agency Permits:
Page 7
INWA
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
In August, 1990, the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted the
county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Ordinance and referred the measure to
the Washington County voters. In September, 1990, the Washington County
electorate overwhelmingly approved expanding the TIF program throughout
all jurisdictions within the county. This action placed into effect an
increased street development fee on all new development in Washington
County. The City of Tigard has adopted the county's program.
The City Traffic Impact Fee program will collect fees from new development '
based on the development's projected impact on the transportation system.
Developing properties will be required to pay based on the number of trips
they are projected to generate. The TIF is calculated based on type of _
use, size of project, and a general use based free category. The TIP shall
be calculated at time of building permit issuance. In limited
circumstances, payment of the TIP may be allowed to be deferred until
issuance of occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy is T
permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00.
STORMWATER QUALITY FEES
The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to
enforce, Resolution No. 90-43, Surface Water Management Regulations,
requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in
lieu of their construction. The resolution requires that a fee and/or
construction of a water quality facility be built. The fee is based on N"
the amount of impervious surface; for every 2640 square feet or portion
thereof, the fee shall be $375.00. The City of Tigard determines if a fee
or facility shall be built.
STREET OPENING PERMIT
No work within a public right-of-way shall commence until the applicant
has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department.
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS
On all projects that require a grading plan the applicant shall submit
with the grading plan a typical floor plan for each lot which shall have
the elevations of four corners of that plan along with elevations at the
corner of each lot. /
PREPARED BY:
-
U
ENGINEERING DIVISION
PHONE: 639-4171
llbr/JO:PREAPP.MST
Page 8
,f
E
Staff J0
Date
CITY OF TIGARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
The items on the checklist below are required for the successful completion of
your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is
required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be brought
and submitted with all other materials at the time you submit your
application. See your application for further explanation of these items or
call Planning at 639-4171.
ITEMS TO BE
BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED:
A) Application form (1 copy) [ ]
B) Owner's signature/written authorization [ ]
C) Title transfer instrument [ ]
D) Assessor's map [ ]
E) Plot or site plan [ ]
F) Applicant's statement [ ]
(G) List of property owners & addresses within 250 feet [ ]
(H) Filing fee ) [ ]
SPECIFIC MATERIALS
A) Site Information showing (No. of copies [ ]
1) Vicinity map [ ]
2) Site size & dimensions [ ]
3) Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%)
[ ]
4) Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds [ ]
5) Locations of natural hazard areas including:
a) Floodplain areas [ ]
b) Slopes in excess of 25% [ ]
c) Unstable ground [ ]
d) Areas with high seasonal water table [ ]
e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential [ ]
f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils [ ]
6) Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive
Map inventory including: -
a) Wildlife habitats [ ]
b) Wetlands [ ]
7) Other site features: _
a) Rock outcroppings ( ]
b) Trees with 6" f caliper measured 4 feet
from ground level [ ]
8) Location of existing structures and their uses [ ] -
9) Location and type of on and off-site noise sources [ ]
10) Location of existing utilities and easements [ 1
11) Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways [ ]
B) Site Development Plan showing (No. of copies [ ]
1) The proposed site and surrounding properties [ ]
2) Contour- line intervals [ ]
3) The location, dimensions and names of all:
a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways
and easements on the site and on adjoining [ ]
properties
APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 1
i
f
3 ,
3) Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas y
and common open spaces [ ]
4) Location, type, size and species of existing and
proposed plant materials. [ ]
The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses:
1) Soil conditions. [ ]
2) Erosion control measures that will be used. [ ]
F) Sign Drawings
Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter
18.114 of the Code as part of Site Development Review or
prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct the sign. [ ]
G) Traffic generation estimate [ ] -
H) Preliminary partition or lot line adjustment map showing
(No. of Copies r-,k ?
1) The owner of the subject parcel
2) The owner's authorized agent
3) The map scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet=1), inch north
arrow and date [
4) Description of parcel location and boundaries [v]
5) Location, width and names of streets, easements and -
other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel
6) Location of all permanent buildings on and within
25 feet of all property lines
7) Location and width of all water courses [ ] _
8) Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at
4 feet above ground level [ ]
9). All slopes greater than 25%
10) Location of existing utilities and utility easements
11) For major land partition which creates a public street:
a) The proposed right-of-way location and width [ ]
b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street _
plus any reserve strip • [ ]
12) Any applicable deed restrictions [ ]
13) Evidence that land partition will not preclude
efficient future land division where applicable [ ]
I) Subdivision Preliminary Plat Mao and data showing(No. of
Copies$
1) Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch
and limited to one phase per sheet [
{ 2) The proposed name of the subdivision
3) Vicinity map showing property's relationship to
arterial and collector streets [vS
4) Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner
p developer, engineer, surveyer, designer, as applicable[
5) Date of application
6) Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided
7) Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded _
owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided land
8) Contour lines related to a City-established bench-
mark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater
than 10% [v~
a _
t.
APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 3
t
f
9) The purpose, location, type and size of all of the
following (within and adjacent to the proposed
subdivision): [ ]
a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements [
b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines [ y]~
c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants [
d) Major power telephone transmission lines
(50,000 volts or greater) [ ]
e) Watercourses
f) Deed reservations for parks, open space, pathways
and other land encumbrances [rx
10) Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and
storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated. 1-3,
11) Plan of the proposed water distribution system,
showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and /
fire hydrants. IQ
12) Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished
grade of all streets including street extensions for a
reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed
subdivision. Ct~
13) Scaled cross sections of proposed street right-of-way; [
14) The location of all areas subject to inundation or
storm water overflow [a''
15) Location, width and direction of flow of all water-
courses and drainage ways [ t]~
16) The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot
dimensions and lot numbers. Where loses are to be
used for purposes other.than residential, it shall be - /
indicated upon such lots 1
17) The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or
greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and
the location of proposed tree plantings, if any
18) The existing uses of the property, including the
location of all structures and the present uses of
the structures, and a statement of which structures
are to remain after platting Ct-
19) Supplemental information including:
a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) [ ]
b) Proof of property ownership [ ]
c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision
improvements C 1
20) Existing natural features including rock out-
croppings, wetlands and marsh areas. [ ] -
21) If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably
be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be
incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the
application. C ]
J) Other Information n
I~~-; r1VG~ ~Ltltit f i}RSi~t1G Sc14E [ I'll LE 1 ^,c: I CA 044iHniCOS
(2362P/0028P)
a
APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 4
f
i
NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS
1. V ti 2iP0 NO. 3 (2 copies) CPO NO. T~
2. CITY. DEPARTMENTS
v Building Inspector/Brad R. L" Parks & Recreation Board
City Recorder Police ~JJ
Engineering/Gary A. Other ~u, i3G 1 G W~~Zt~S
Permits Coordinator/Viola G.
3. SPECI DISTRICTS
Fire District School Dist. No. 48 (Beavr)
(pick-up box bldg.) Joy Pahl
PO Box 200
__LZTigard Water District eaverton, OR 97075
8777 SW Burnham St. i School District 23J (Tig)
Tigard, OR 97223 13137 SW Pacific Hwy,
Tigard, OR 97223
Metzger Water District
6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd.
Tigard, OR 97223
4. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS
Wash. Co. Land Use & Transp. Boundary Commission
150 N. First Ave. 320 SW Stark Room 530
Hillsboro, OR 97124 -Portland, OR 97204
Brent Curtis
Kevin Martin METRO
Joann Rice 2000 SW 1st Ave.
Scott King Portland, OR 97201-5398
i Fred Eberle
Mike Borreson DLCD (CPA's only)
1175 Court St. NE
Jim Hendryx Salem, OR 97310-0590
City of Beaverton
PO Box 4755 Other
Beaverton, OR 97076
/
State Highway Division ! Portland. General. Electric
Lee-Gunderson Brian Moore
PO Box 565 14655 SW Old Sctejlls Ferry
Beaverton, OR 97075 Beaverton, OR 97307
5.. SPECZAL•AGENCZES'..•, " Pietro Area communications
Harlan Cook
General Telephone Twin Oaks Technology Center
Y Mike Lutz 1815 NW 169th Place S-6020
12460 SW Main St. Beaverton, OR 97006-4886
eaverton, OR 97007
US West _
NW Natural Gas Pete Nelson
t Don Thomas 421 SW Oak St.
220 NW Second Ave. Portland, OR 97204
/ Portland, OR 97209
TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc., Hike Hallock
3500 SW Bond
Portland, OR 97201
~r ,illl.l!li I IIII~I III! ~Ilil l~il~l '
= 3. !III i I~IIII Illil'illllli IIIII!illll'
II'II 1111111 III ~Ii!IIII'!I VIII !I
lii~ll 'Iill!Ill . I II II Ili!~~_II_I~
:~li ~IIII!Illli~lllllllllhillIIIUIIIIII~I
=III 11111!;1111 i I. f EXHIBIT 5
SOLAR ACCS EVALUATION
IIASICIt1:0111It1NIEN'I-1.01'S SOLAR III.IX:LINE LOTS I I XI:RII''1'LOTS
l:xisting
N/S Oirrbctc.iun Otiuuati(nt Existing Strccl
Illock M I"ot N In I:cet In Ikgrces Distance Orientation 20% Ixenrption Ikrrsily/Cost Amcnitics -Shed I'atlem Notes
4-1 1
L__ } J
cf
4 4:1
-4:7 TOTA1. B of Lats TATS Muting Buslc Kcquirement 2
N Solar I.uu - ► LO•fS Muting SoLr nading 1_uto -
'.u Solar Lute r; LOTS Itequiring I'erforrnanoo StatvJarde -
- - LOTS Using 20% Excnrp►ion 4.
- LOTS EXCIII+plcd for Cartsc = 2 i
NOTIES; ---.-.-L_L~~L_.iiL:1. ~n~r 1~• ~ .L ~ 1_ c~xct.± . > ~S • r:~f !-'r-u .yS~'.P ~b-o .~^F~ , t•-r r-+-~r a 1 V•, ~ 1 1 r:'
s_L_._t.L__L'S':L(~.1_LL':~1..~i.l
rr
/ ~ • ~ ~ c' ~c a / t - ,t C" ~,.,J,` C~ C- t t c~ 1.:+ Z cf' f t C ~ e C ~ i"~ < < t.~
.'2f~LL" L C E_/ rr t C
~~iLR~. cb~S
/
C-L
k
i
LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM
f The City of Tigard supports- the citizen's right to
t. participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use
Code therefore sets out specific requirements for
filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITYOF TIVA
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.
I/ .
1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED:. cu 3 - oL- o &6 e- y
7-A r--
2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: X (C) ~3 /~,LVtt¢ur ;lr~ d ~2~z'~'
i vV v~ r by a!> 41-t S, UC~/lt
3. SPECIFIC jGROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW:
I /lie.. .l~n~ ~ ~••L. GLL.C_ ~L L G`4~ -
U i LiN C ~ C
r
4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: CA I !!~g!
5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN:
F 6. SIGNATURE(S) :
x x x x xat x x x x x x x x x ~E x x~t x x x x x x xaE x x x x x~t x x x x x x x-x-x-x-x-x-K-x-x-X-X-x-x-K-K*.X-x-x-x-x-X*X x ~t x atat ~t tE~c x x x xat
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By:C., W
hw:~«'4 Date: Time: •~U 6. f%-,
Approved As To Form By: Time : I: C) 0 ,
Denied As To Form By: Date: Time:
Receipt No. Amount:
X *x-xx-"-x•x-) AX-M x-x *X X-x X-".*X.xiHHFK-x-#-X-K-x- *X-K*X-X-X x-x *-X-X* X-X-X X **X x-x-X-K.-f-X*X-x-*X-X-(xX Xx X x--Y X.**
Fee- C t~)C.~u•+-,c.c vin
i
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
I~
TO WAS NUT a The City of
sT~ TIGARD
SUB 91-0009
\ S i to Area
P 1 0 t PhOse
\ boundary
\ \ \ LLJ
\
GAARDE
ST
pigltal late t map repro ua-
LIlan aaap( lad by the Cl tT
of lIge N a I i Iili a; Ceagra-
ille lalarattlas slat fin
CIS) aoflear@. later-
motion portroTed late
noT be ioten4:d le pe
ued rite elitianol
N 0 R T H t inteiaal aed//t
U C H I L L Y erpretali.e data
of aacotnleee by
t6o City of Tigard
T (YP4fBat1)
p 400 {t1126111)
w~ The City of
Ll TUJ -t] S. TIGARD
T
F SUB 91-OO~J
P S
Si to Area
P
WrE
J
ALP IISTA
Y~ 1141tel data It map 'npr..ea-
tYe Clly
laLION compiled by
CT of 111ard e11111ie1 Cee/ra-
plle Inlornetiee System
CISI eett•ere. later-
R1 motion portrayed YerI
may he iateodae to 1.
uud •ilt aldilisael
x 0 R T H teeYeieoi eadJe or
interpretelir dole
u datermladd by
Q the MY df Tllard.
!MPS "I'll
1 101 X11,1'61.11
..r._.o .-.emu:.. _
The C i ty of
S TIGARD
T
F sUB 91-009
P a
Si to Area
Q
Q
E~E q
r ST
DR
A
~ STA
1
r 9lgltol lets t nap repreree-
lellen eerplled 9y ilte dily
r\d
C el 71g4rl otlllrl4g Negra-
pile U(ef.etlOp System
LIS) fe(Ire n . lefer-
motion portreye4 U ro
m.y be ietendtd to Ce
e4ed ri16 alditio%el
Oc- N O R T H t"tieicel eedlo=
iol4rpret4lin dale
S ni 144.=.1%44 !i
F- Q the city of figatd.
{YPSUfl4t9)
p i96 {11(!5(!1)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ?IAP NOTES
#2.
Study area to determine - a future connection
between the Walnut/132nd intersection and the
Gaarde/121st intersection. A major collector
extension of Gaarde Street has been
recommended by -the Northeast Btill Mountain
Transportation Study Report. An indirect
connection of minor collectors has been
recommended by NPO #3.
C
i
i
-3!r.o 16
OW
d
ii t
X
.'mss" ~ `'e
C IS,
.
F
4p
~'.•~r.
- ~use s
i
• ~ + - - Tie C i t y of
T I GARD f
SVH 91-009
Site Area
100 440 0 i
All
___y;m T
4k
®1111.1 1•U & ml, f•••••-
IlII:! •x111.1 10 1 1t1. 1111
•1 ll/•f/ •i/11• •I /••/f•-
1114 1•l•m11•• let"
fill
' N11•• i•fif•/.~ 1•I•
' - N) 1e 1.1••1.1 1. 0•
, •••s •111 Nslu 121
~ 1 ®i t 0 /ia:ii:loei:if 1.1•
/1• sill •f 411•f1.
Raw
_ _ / ea ~+u1u°1!
TO WA NUT o he City of
ST N, T I GA R D
SUB 91-0009
IS i to Ad so
~9 SL1,/4 1 '1 'lat ph®1,e
~ ~ ` ~I: , t r baundary
1 ;
LeJ
~C/ eta l
-or,'
1~Cy+ 7 ~ ti
%
,
GAARDE,
• 4 S T.
' OtOtlel Bete ~ euI e•oeaate- ,
IetOre-
T e 001. tetet«tle0 i1.ew
atltau. t21tt-
its
tN~lee Ietore 1,1 Itta
I, ' ~ - u! /e ttta0~e1 It 1,a
n U lead 0111, .11111...1
1 1 ` I! L L Y 1.•24#.01 001101
- alareraleltaa food
C
`il d to Iaienltao %0
I floats.
its Ilit
1
=LILI-~~he City of
+~TO, WA NUT o
ST N? TIGARD
SUB 91°0009
tt Sits At 00
00
q
a°, S ,,ee 1
H 't, 1
~ `t` boundary
LaJ
Iva 'Wraw 400
r MME ~ ~ -.L 1
lot F-I .9 IIII,, \d
11 GAAROE'
S T
efeilel /ate a No e411e94e-
~ ; to/tea easeltef a tees tltl
_ ♦ - _ o~tietiNoonal+ attolOR r
aolla«ta. Iator
T' + its
+ ea~iea eeel*e et teoa
I oNl ee 4taa6o/ to a
ea.a «tl° .Ilttteaeel
1 laantaal a1/oo
VI :ata.t.ataet.e aeta
. i U 1i L L I 1 polls
1 eo Ielaontee/ 11
CT emu- 30109;1a tie fill St it off.:
1 ate luteateli
ti-_
l s
/vo.,v
!/~acol~l
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: November 26, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: November 25_, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Right of Way PREVIOUS ACTION:
negotiations for the Gaarde Street
reali nment through- Elmer's restaurant PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City accept the Agreement with the Elmer's Restaurant owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the attached Agreement, authorizing the City Administrator to
sign.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
We have been successful in negotiating with the owners of Elmer's Restaurant
regarding the dedication of right of way for the Gaarde Street Major Street
Bond project. We propose to exchange the 'Gaarde' property, purchased by the
City as a special case property as defined in section 3.44.005D of the TMC,
for their property required for right of way. Their loss of parking and
landscaping is to be compensated with the construction of a landscaped
parking area on the City's 'Gaarde' property. The inconvenience of the
construction is to be compensated with repairs to their existing parking
area.
This agreement is consistent with section 3.44.025 of the TMC and the
purchase of the 'Gaarde' property. A portion of the 'Gaarde' property is
being used for right of way and the remaining is to be exchanged for the
right of way required from Elmer's.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Agreement.
2. Request changes to the Agreement.
3. Reject the Agreement.
FISCAL NOTES
The funds are available from the Major Streets Bond.
,t
ga/GA:ssgar-el.GA
AGREEMENT
This Agreement made this day of 1991 by and between Danna
Brothers Properties, an Oregon partnership., hereinafter referred to as OWNER, and The
City of Tigard, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as CITY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, CITY desires to do the following:
To construct Gaarde Street through a portion of OWNER'S property.
To compensate OWNER for the taking of property and any damages which will result due to
the proposed construction of the street.
To construct the street with a minimum of disturbance to OWNER'S business
WHEREAS, OWNER desires to do the following:
To operate their business at the present site during construction of the street.
To cooperate with the CITY in the construction of the street improvements.
To minimize loss of income during the construction of the street project.
To be compensated for the loss of value to the property which could arise as a result of the
project.
Now therefore.
IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:
r
CITY will deed to OWNER, 18,866 square feet of land which is located contiguous to the
OWNER'S property on the West and which is presently owned by the CITY. This property is
described as Exhibit "A" as follows and shown for informational purposes on the attached
Exhibit Map:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 3 and Northeast quarter of
Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of
F
i=
h.
a
S
1Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, more particularly described as
w follows:
Beginning at the most Southerly southeast corner of Lot 13, GAARDE PARK, thence
South 34 ° 16' 19" West, 4.18 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along
the same line and course, 170.22 feet to point 30 feet when measured at right angle to
the center line of S.W. Gaarde Street (County Road No.358); thence Northwesterly along
and 30 feet parallel to the center line of said road, 131.40 feet to a point of curvature;
thence along an arc 35.39 feet having radius of 40.00 feet through an included angle of
50°41'56", chord bearing and distance of N31 °25'53"W , 34.25 feet, to a point of
tangency; thence North 6°04'55" West, 2.69 feet to a point of curvature; thence along
an arc 39.27 feet having radius of 25.00 feet through an included angle of 90°, chord
bearing and distance of N38°55'05"E, 35.36 feet to a point of tangency: thence North
83°55'05" East, 101.24 feet to a point:of curvature; thence along the arc 101.30 feet
having radius 420 feet through an included angle of 13°49' 10", chord bearing and
distance of S89° 10'20"E, 101.06 feet to the point of beginning, containing 18,866 square
feet more or less.
Prior to deeding Exhibit "A", CITY will fill, compact, and pave the parcel and will construct
a new driveway approach from the New Gaarde Street to the expanded ownership. CITY will
relocate the flag pole, install lighting, construct landscaping planters, stripe the parking area, and
install electrical wiring conduits and irrigation conduits as shown on the attached plan titled
Parking, Lot Plan which is dated November 15, 1991 and which is part of the Gaarde Street
Realignment Plans of the CITY. Said parking plan is incorporated by reference and made part
of this document as Exhibit "B".
City will schedule construction in a manner which will permit continuous operation of the
OWNER'S business as described on the construction schedule which is attached hereto as exhibit
"C" and made part of and incorporated into this document by reference. Ingress and egress
from OWNER'S property will not be restricted except for actual construction of the New Gaarde
Street/99W intersection. Two accesses will be open at all times during construction with the
exception of a period of time not to exceed three weeks, which is required to construct New
Gaarde Street/99W intersection as described in Exhibit "C", at which time there will be one
access.
CITY will pay to OWNER, the cost of landscaping the parcel described in Exhibit "A" and
other areas disturbed by the construction. The landscaping will be constructed to a standard
mutually acceptable to both OWNER and CITY. Landscaping to consist of small shrubs, ground
cover, maximum 2" caliper trees, irrigation and lighting, as shown on a plan to be prepared by
CITY and reviewed by OWNER.
CITY will repair existing failed pavement areas and place a 1 1/2 " thick asphalt overlay over
the existing parldng lot located to the east and south of the existing restaurant and re-stripe the
area.
C Page 2
F'
s
Construction on OWNER'S property will be limited to weekdays and no Saturday or Sunday
work will be performed without advance notification to OWNER, in writing.
Owner will deed a 14,206 square foot parcel of land described as Exhibit "D" as follows
and shown for informational purposes on the attached Exhibit Map:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 3 and Northeast quarter of
Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of
Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the westerly line of the Pacific Highway with the south
line of said Section 3 as platted on, County Survey number 18247, a duly recorded
survey with Washington County, thence North 89°56'00" West a distance of 70.0 feet
to a point; thence North 51°07'29" West a distance 133.85 feet to the Gaarde Park
Subdivision, a duly recorded plat with Washington County; thence along said line South
34°52'29" West, 107.65 feet to an angle point; thence leaving Gaarde Park on a bearing
of South 34°14'50" West, 4.18 feet to a point; thence along a non-tangent curve 21.05
feet with radius of 420 feet, through an included angle of 252'18" (chord bearing South
80°49'47" East, 21.05 feet) to a point of tangency; thence South 79°03'19" East, 23.03
feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve 9.83 feet with radius of 100 feet,
through an included angle of 5°41'26" (chord bearing South 76°12'30" East, 9.93 feet)
to a point of tangency; thence South 73 °21'52" East, 85.42 feet to a point of curvature;
thence along the curve 29.97 feet with radius of 100 feet, through an included angle of
17° 10'08" (chord bearing South 81 °58'56" East, 29.85 feet) to a point of non-tangency;
thence South 52°50'44" East, 38.84 feet to a point on the west right-of-way line of
Pacific Highway; thence along said right-of-way by the arc of a spiral, chord bearing of
North 37° 12'32" East, 81.91 feet to the point of beginning, consisting of 14,206 square
feet more or less.
Owner will grant a 10 foot wide temporary construction easement described as Exhibit "E" as
follows and shown for informational purposes on the attached Exhibit Map:
A 10 foot strip of land situated in the Northeast quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South,
Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and
State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the westerly line of the Pacific Highway with the south
line of said Section 3 as platted on, County Survey number 18247, a duly recorded
survey with Washington County, thence North 89°56'00" West a distance of 70.0 feet
to a point; thence North 51 °07'29" West a distance 133.85 feet to the Gaarde Park
Subdivision, a duly recorded plat with Washington County; thence along said line South
34°52'29" West, 107.65 feet to an angle point; thence-leaving Gaarde Park a bearing of
South 34° 14'50" West, 4.18 feet to a point to the true point of beginning. The ten (10)
f
Page 3
foot strip of land contains that area laying southerly of the described line as being along
a non-tangent curve 21.05 feet with radius of 420 feet, through an included angle of
2°52' 18" (chord bearing South 80°49'47" East, 21.05 feet) to a point of tangency; thence
South 79°03' 19" East, 23.03 feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve 9.83 feet
with radius of 100 feet, through an included angle of 5°41'26" (chord bearing South
76°12'30" East, 9.93 feet) to a point of tangency; thence South 3°21'52" East, 85.42
feet to a point of curvature; thence along the curve 29.97 feet with radius of 100 feet,
through an included angle of 17°10'08" (chord bearing South 81°58'56" East, 29.85
feet) to a point of non-tangency; thence South 52°50'44" East, 38.84 feet to a point on
the west right-of-way line of Pacific Highway.
The exchange of property and payment of monies due are to be done through an escrow to be
opened at Chicago Title Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
executed in duplicate by their respectively authorized officers or representatives on the date first
above written.
DANNA BROTHERS PROPERTIES CITY OF TIGARD
By
By
a",
oseph T. Danna Name and Title
By y3~` By
Gerald S. Danna Name and Title
Dated: dS 9 Dated:
State of Oregon )
)ss
County of Washington )
Page 4 i
I
On this day of 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said County and State, personally appeared the within named
and who are known to be the
and the of the above
named City of Tigard , and acknowledged that they executed the same freely and voluntarily
for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year last above written.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF OREGON )
)ss
County of Multnomah )
On this day of 1991, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the within named Joseph
T. Danna and Gerald S. Danna who on the basis of satisfactory evidence are known to be the
persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same freely and voluntarily for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year last above written.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
After recording return to:
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
C Page 5
1 U
1 4 SEC.
N.E
1 4 SEC. 3 R•~W.,
W.M•
S.E.
`C.2S•~
P p,RK P~~,~E
G ~RDEN
i
~cA ocsa+~aca {H ocu~aY o
sTREE•~
M cDGN ADD
T
oe5~{aEa {N ~w~ieit E
G pfiEA fl65GRl9ED {N pW{Bi'{ A ~
SCALD. 1•~~00
Er
s~.
t:
I
EXHIBIT "C"
GAA.RDE STREET REALIGNMENT
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
1. Notice to Proceed . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1, 1992
2. Remove Three Duplex Structures . . . . . . February - April
3. Construct New Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . March - May
4. Construct Traffic Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . May - June
5. Construct New Gaarde Street Sta 3+00 to 8+00 June - July
6. Construct New Gaarde/99W Intersection . . . . . . . . . July
7. Reconstruct Old Gaarde Street . . . . . . . . . . . . August
8. Complete Construction & Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . September
NOTE: The above schedule is presented' as a guide' to the
contractor's activities. The contractor is required to
maintain two accesses to the Elmer's Restaurant at all
times with the exception of during item # 6 above.
dj/CA:gaarde-p.sch
i
i