City Council Packet - 10/27/1992rhq^'~
AGENDA
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
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.
Times noted are esdmated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by
7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda Items can be heard In any
order after 7:30 p.m.
• STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM)
Joint Workshop with Planning Commission
Region 2040
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM)
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
7:35 p.m.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:45 P.M. do ,.o,~;~A and may he enacted in one
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered a.. v.+ ,
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion
for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve Extinguishment of Storm Drainage Easement by Authorizing the City
Administrator to Sign a Quitclaim Deed Vacating an Easement Within a Platted Portion of
Riverview Estates #2 Subdivision - Resolution No. 92-4,q a-
C.
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 1
7:50 p.m.
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0005 ZONE CHANGE 92-0003
TARKAIANEN/OTAK (NPO #5) A request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
to redesignate a 4.04 acre site from Heavy Industrial and Professional Commercial to Light
Industrial. In a! !dition, a Zone Change from the I-H and C-P zoning districts (Heavy Industrial
and Professional Commercial) to the I-L (Light Industrial) zone is requested. LOCATION: 14010
SW 72nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 1 DD, tax lot 900) and two adjacent parcels (2S1 1 DD, tax lot 700
and 2S1 1 DC, tax lot 4100)
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report - Community Development
d. Public Testimony
• Opponents
Proponents
• Rebuttal
e. Council Questions or Comments
f. Staff Recommendation
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 92,c~Cj
8:15 p.m.
5 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-0006 GARRETT (NPO #3) A request to annex one
parcel consisting of 2.44 acres into the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington
County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to the City of Tigard zone R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5
units/acre). Location: 12040 S.W. Bull Mountain Road
Public Hearing to be Continued to November 10, 1992
8:20 p.m.
6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8:30 p.m. ,
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE
• Review of Landscape Development Standards - Dartmouth Street Extension
• Update on ADA Issues _ r xvve ho 110142-
Update on Solid Waste Issues - rn0V#- 4a ulnlg4
9:15 p.m.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
,r. "I ref R. (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
provisions of oH5 iy2.oou t1) Ujis k-,,
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
9:30 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 2
A
Council Agenda Item 4,1
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1992
• Meeting was called to order at 6:30 by Council President
Schwartz.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy
Fessler, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz.
Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick
Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner;
Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton,
Community Relations Coordinator; Mike Robinson, Legal Counsel
(arrived at 7:12 p.m.) ; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder.
STUDY SESSION
- Joint Workshop with Planning Commission
Region 2040
a. Planning Commission members present: Harold Boone,
Milton Fyre, Brian Moore, and Jack Schwab.
b. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the Metro
2040 (second round of Phase I). Council was asked to
review and comment on some concepts that have been
presented regarding how the region can grow. The
concepts will be further evaluated in Phase II of the
study.
The material presented for Council review was also
contained in a flyer submitted in the Council packet for
this agenda item.
C. Questions and comments from Council and the Planning
Commission included the following:
- How does a country/rural feeling mix with other
"favored development forms"?
What is the expected density for these options?
(Answer: Unknown at this time.)
Tn1hll icn t i-hccrc T11ftrp pmYll(1VTIl@Tlt npnortttni ~v
L..t. ____-..1
expected (planned) down the I-5 corridor in Concept
A? (Under headline of "Development Constraints.")
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 1
The proposal appears to be simplistic (compared to
Y a "funny paper" another term used was
"provincial") Several generations have dealt with
these same issues for a long time. How does the
Statewide Comprehensive Planning and the provisions
of Senate Bill 100 fit within this planning effort?
Comprehensive Plan Map for the region should be
overlayed with the proposals in 2040 for a better
visual concept.
- Planning should begin with plotting of existing
transportation corridors then add the Urban Growth
Boundary to plan for regional growth centers.
Design should also show densities necessary.
- Noted that I-5 was not given as much importance
("major") as other corridors.
- Technological advances were discussed: How do we
know how we will be travelling in 50 years? In
addition, change has accelerated.
- Concepts portrayed lack of sensitivity to fine farm
land soils.
Metro Greenspaces plan, if approved by voters, will
take 10,000 acres out of housing production within
the UGB.
Concern with lack of coordination among 2040,
LUTRAQ, and Greenspaces programs.
Note: Mike Robinson arrived: 7:12 p.m.
- Concepts appear to show development taking place
over floodplain, forest land, and slopes.
- No utilization of rivers is proposed.
(Concerned citizen Louise Richardson interjected a comment noting
that Vancouver B.C. has done a superb job of encouraging walking
rather than promoting a dependency on automobiles.)
When comparing successes experienced in other
cities, a comment was offered noting the importance
of market dynamics (i.e., high gas prices in
Canada) and current planning processes must be
factored in.
- Concern was expressed over the amount of money
spent on a 50-year plan which appeared to be a
"moving target."
- Comment: 50 years ago light rail (known then as
"street cars") was phased out. Traffic in Tigard
still travelling over old "trails" which have
simply been naved_
- Transportation issues should be the first priority
in planning process.
- Noted the plans for a high-speed bullet train from
Canada to Eugene.
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 2
Farm land areas within UGB which also need
' protection; incentives should be established to not
develop farm land. Suggestion: Trade prime farm
land within UGB for less-than-prime farm land
outside the UGB.
- Americans still wa::t "elbow room" which raises some
questions about application of a "European model"
in planning.
With technological advances, people may find they
are not constrained to live in this area but could
live in eastern Oregon. Satellite cities such as
The Dalles, Scappoose, McMinville, Newberg also
contain valuable farm land which needs to be
protected.
Clark County Washington is important, but missing
as a piece of the plan presented.
The concept plan does not include a model for less
than 500,000 population growth.
- Portland area viewed by some businesses as
adversarial to business: i.e., inflated real
estate prices, EPA/pollution controls and mandates.
Council Meeting recessed: 7:40 p.m.
Council Meeting Reconvened: 8:45 p.m.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
• Paul Hunt gave words of thanks to the Council and staff
for assisting him during the pre-election period. He
said he appreciated all of the information and assistance
he has received, in an impartial manner, to bring him up-
to-date on the issues.
• Louise Richardson, 15295 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard,
OR submitted a portion of the Metro Greenspaces Master
Plan to Council for their review concerning the Metro
Greenspaces program. She said she learned that the City
of Tigard did not support the Program and said it was a
good thing for Tigard.
Councilor Johnson reviewed the cost of the Program to
Tigard taxpayers. She said it was not an ill-spirited
choice to not support the Greenspaces Program; rather, a
prioritization of cost:benefit. Councilor Fessler noted
she endorsed Greenspaces but also agreed with Councilor
Johnson's comments with regard to questions which need to
be answered.
Jack Pol.ans rgquPSred Council consider lowering the orice
of 25 cents per page for copying costs for public record.
Mr. Polans was advised that the copying charge was not
intended to discourage public input, but rather, to
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 3
address the need to be fiscally responsible. Council
packet information is available at the Library for public
review.
Mr. Polans advised that the procedures were detrimental
to public input. After brief discussion, Council
requested Mr. Polans to put is concerns and requests in
written form and submit them to the City Administrator in
advance of scheduling a meeting to discuss his issues.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by
Councilor Johnson to approve the following:
3.1 Approve Extinguishment of Storm Drainage Easement by
Authorizing the City Administrator to Sign a Quitclaim
Deed Vacating an Easement Within a Platted Portion of
Riverview Estates #2 Subdivision - Resolution No. 92-49a
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0005 ZONE CHANGE 92-0003
TARKAIANEN/OTAK (NPO #5) A request for a Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment to redesignate a 4.04 acre site from Heavy
Industrial and Professional Commercial to Light Industrial.
In addition, a Zone Change from the I-H and C-P zoning
districts (Heavy Industrial and Professional Commercial) to
the I-L (Light Industrial) zone is requested. LOCATION:
14010 SW 72nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 1DD, tax lot 900) and two
adjacent parcels (2S1 1DD, tax lot 700 and 2S1 1DC, tax lot
4100)
a. Public Hearing was opened.
b. Declarations or Challenges: Councilor Fessler advised
she reviewed this issue as a former member of the
Planning commission.
C. Staff Report - Community Development Senior Planner
Bewersdorff summarized the staff report.
d. Public Testimony
• Mr. Jack Polans offered testimony noting concerns
with uses in industrial zoning. He asked questions
of staff with regard to what distinguishes light
industrial as opposed to heavy industrial zoning.
Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised the differences
were not significant and dealt primarily with heavy
industrial allowing the manufacture of raw
materials.
Councilor Johnson noted that the requested zone
change would be more restrictive for that portion
of the property which would be rezoned from heavy
industrial to light industrial.
C, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 4
Mr. Polans indicated he was satisfied with the
responses to his questions.
e. Staff Recommendation: Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised
that staff recommended approval of the request.
f. Public hearing was closed.
g. ORDINANCE NO. 92-29; AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
REQUESTED BY REINO AND MARILYN TARKIAINEN AND KEY BANK
(CPA 92-0005/ZON 92-0003).
h. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-29.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
5. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-0006 GARRETT (NPO #3) A
request to annex one parcel consisting of 2.44 acres into the
City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County
R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to the City of Tigard zone R-
4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). Location: 12040 S.W.
Bull Mountain Road
Public Hearing to be Continued to November 10, 1992
6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a. Councilor Johnson recalled that several years ago
residents near Englewood Park requested work be done to
enhance the park which included landscaping to buffer the
park from Scholls Ferry Road. Now that the road
improvements to Scholls Ferry appear to be nearing
completion, she asked about whether or not plantings or
work was scheduled for the park to make it more appealing
to be used. The landscaping planted previously did not
survive.
Community Development Director Murphy reported that the
Oregon Department of Transportation has offered to do
some improvements to the park to fulfill their mitigation
obligation to wetlands arising from their work on Scholls
Ferry Road. There is a possibility that the playground
equipment will be moved as well as some landscaping work
for which the State would bear the cost.
Councilor Johnson requested that staff "get the word out"
on the plann--d i; ^rn,remenf~c for the park by means of an
article in the newspapers and the Cityscape.
0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 5
Ia.
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE.
Review of Landscape Development Standards - Dartmouth
Street Extension
Representatives from W&H Pacific reviewed the Dartmouth
Street Landscaping Plan (see material filed with the
Council packet material.) Staff intends to use the plan
the site review process as development occurs along
Dartmouth. The guidelines will help insure a consistent
and appealing streetscape. The plan referred only to
landscaping, not to street design.
Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor
Fessler, to acknowledge the fact that Council had been
familiarized with the Plan and accepted the conceptual
plan as presented.
Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
• Council briefly discussed the recent Hearings Officer
Decision on Case Number 92-0010/VAR 92-0018 for Robert
and Kathleen Hutchens. Consensus of Council was that the
decision was acceptable and no action would be taken by
Council for further review.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled
9. ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 p.m.
At st/ > atherine Wheatley, City Rec der
,amity of Tiga
Date: / D~Ct J--
c=1027.92
h:\LOGIN\CATHY\CCMINUTE.92
`J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 6
c
q;
o~
~I
02
4 V
'n
F'•,
IM
N
'
F°
~
S. ,U ctl o
1~. 3
C)
00
~1 pQ,ty q ~v m
'
E'"
cn
9141
-In E--:
oj.4
GL
m p
yA C3.
M
-j Z
OJ y
o v
IJ
m m
S
C t U
•e
Z .
rn
cc O.
6 ) Q
CL
Cr)
0- (OD
❑ ❑
?
I
P
O
d
ui
;
y_ 0 0 0
z
0
0
-&a
Z
>
M
J
z
X
asa 7
mq
m
i'
O
1LS
~ CD
a
~
®
M
v
M
E-~ ON O
M
N
W ^
O iC 'L7
~
o b--4l1
dW o~9
Q
LL-
0
L3.
Z
O
U
m
m
a
O
F_ O
> 0
n
LL x
Q LQ
Q
nu
0~
Z
~ V
~ '.a ~
Cy ~tV
C L
dl C
6 c
m r
W
m 0
«H
c
Emb m i
c
s m
T co
v « o s,
m O `ca
my «
o m
m U U (d m
Co
^ CL m.
'v c
0em c
'.:cm-
co c ac
ms's m0 O
y O c09
0 N
C 0) m r
•aA a o`a
(D '0
C m
v ?
t m
m
w U
Z U
o ~
a q
N
v
m
m
c
e
O Ci
w
m m co
m a IM
O
V o
c o
.r c0 m
O m «
CL o S
o
m r
m L
U
m
CL
cc m U
-
`f
~w
77c~ w
i-yam
s Y
+1
Iz.
Nom.. }
i!4 i+ "VS..C
T d
W
6,
~ e
)U U'C7
00
M
N
ON
ON
v-41
144
'd \
r
m
E
m
m
G
O
'O
c
v
m
U
N
7
c
O
m
O
0
IL
a~ Z,
CIS
0
Z
c
o
Q 4L.
LL.
C
C
00
M
n
~ v
06 Z
v
z
Cl)
m
W
A~.
inn
Cl)
z
z
V
t
to
Lf)
Z
O
CL 0
U
w
cc
O
Z
0
cc
w
CO
o0
O
co
a
0)
C
.N
E.
m
a
Q
V
Z
t0
m
J
m
U
O
Z
m
m
L
Fm-
■
m
O U y O W
R!
Z cp cn ra m
4914 N c ova
"Ol
g.s
vs c` P ~ E ~ ;A o a
C> G"t v
! p
amt") ao vlNy C1 ro m+ A-,
:eon ~ ~ bob ~ ava~ ~ a3-~ g,,
tn"
6n~ n. ,•,~.c
A Iw
M.
cn cn
Q
m
U
.g
13
O O O
M
N
N
CY)
toln
H N O
o a~
U a H
O O
0
N
ON
r-I
'O
c
e
1
~
Q
e
.
j5 0"
c
p
Co
0
a
r 06-S
e (D
t~
m
> C))
v
y
O
0)
3
Q
m
IOD
4-4
`
r
r
CD
U
~ U
O
U
Z
L
= 7
o. a~
cCS
~
v`
0
.o
m
'C7
a
Q
c• c_
3
2
2
%N
U
w.
C14
z
1
CO
r_
co cis
x
a)
r C L
T
)
C
m
\
v
co
I
-
-
c
r_
>
LL
o i0•
®
m
O
m :
U Y U
`
m m
CL
0
Z
Q
d (D
U m
CD U
L lC
m a
U'
c
CD
.a
Q
f-
CO •
va~ooj
v
L Co
o
bf
D
Z
Z
,
C E'm m
U c L
V m
t c
O
C
m
LL
Q
=
0 a
Ocmme
m a ,
•
~
3
a ca
(D
\ ~I
yo
co
LU
. .
.
>1 co 0 CL
0 LUL
~ -0, 5
c
m
m
ca
~
w F-
'c 0 co
0)
L
U
°
E
z
~ ~
CO
C m r ~ •
'S ~
•
Om0
co
U
LL
F'
m= C w
,
-
0
7
U.
mU
.Lo cc I w
m m
00
to
~
Q
C
C
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
OAIA" O-'% q) - Q 1
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I,
Co Yl Yl tC' M `t k4l o begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) q-D
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated ~~7 2
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof,
on the .2-7 day of 19 q Z_
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. West One Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
r~ n 'Z 19 cl~
Subscribed and sworn to before me this, day of
x
OFFICIAL SEAL
DIANE V.JELDERKS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
MY COW
COMMISSION NO. 003977
AISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 7, 1995 AA 0
h otary Public Oregon
My Commission Expires:
1og1n\io\affp0st
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92-CRg_
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY REINO AND MARILYN TARKIAINEN AND KEY BANK (CPA 92-0005/ZON 92-
0003).
WHEREAS, the applicants have requested a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from
Commercial Professional to Light Industrial and zoning redesignation from C-P to I-L
for approximately 3.38 acres (WCTM 2S1 1DD tax lot 700 and WCTM 2S1 1DC tax lot 4100)
and a comprehensive Plan map amendment from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial and
zoning redesignation from I-H to I-L for approximately 0.66 acres (WCTM 2S1 1DD tax lot
900); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on October 5,
1992 and unanimously concurred with the Planning Division's recommendation for approval
of the request; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the request on October 27,
1992, to review the applicants' statement, the staff report, staff and commission
recommendations, and to receive public testimony;
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION l: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the
facts, findings, and conclusions noted in the attached staff report,
identified as Exhibit A, and also the applicants' report, identified
as Exhibit B;
SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff
recommendations, and approves the request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map (as shown on attached Exhibit C) with the subject
parcels designated with lthe Light Industrial Plan designation, as
well as approving the requested changes to the zoning map (attached
Exhibit D) with the subject parcels designated with the I-L zoning
district.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By (J/11c/1innp+tS vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this -22±!i- day of
1992.
herine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED:
This day of 1992.
Approved as to
form:
C.
City Attorney
C Jo/OrdCpa92
/s/
X id XI" WJJ ~x x--ro-r~ti
Yohn Schwartz, council President
ivla
Date
ORDINANCE No. 92-
Page 1
h Y fir. ~TN~,t.~Y, ~ ,h• ®X'Y i;;~ •.."eO~~:ir4JLi1 ~ GI ~~FMa;;,{
(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.
STAFF
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
ct~t~ ui! /032V xv Ce.,j1-V,-
ri: G cG
og n o v 51 ors.s
Depending on the number of person 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.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
DATE: October 27, 1992
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0005 ZONE CHANGE 92-0003
TARKAIANEN/OTAK (NPO #5) A request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to
redesignate a 4.04 acre site from Heavy Industrial and Professional Commercial to Light Industrial. In
addition, a Zone Change from the I-H and C-P zoning districts (Heavy Industrial and Professional
Commercial) to the I-L (Light Industrial) zone is requested. LOCATION: 14010 SW 72nd Avenue
(WCTM 2S1 1 DD, tax lot 900) and two adjacent parcels (2S1 1 DD, tax lot 700 and 2S1 113C, tax lot
4100)
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS
C
Proponent - (Speakina In Favor)
PLEASE PRINT
nnnnnnn4 - Mnn-nLeinn Anninc4l
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
me
Address
Address
Name
ame
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
dress
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
me
Name
dress
dress
Name
Name
Address
ress
S'4-ua se ssican
12:0142
C
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: October 20, 1992
SUBJECT: Region 2040 Joint Workshop with Planning Commission
As part of the second round of Phase I of "Region 2040,11 we are
being asked to review and comment on some concepts that have been
presented regarding how the region can grow. These concepts are
discussed in some detail in the attached tabloid.
This is a follow-up to our discussion last spring. Again, Ed
Murphy will facilitate the discussion.
We will be discussing whether the three concepts presented
adequately convey the reasonable range of possible alternatives for
the region's future. Are there modifications we should make to
these growth concepts? Are there other growth concepts that should
be considered along with these three? Are the concepts clear,
reasonable, and fairly presented? In the evaluation of these
concepts, what criteria do you think are the most important to be
considered to help us choose the preferred alternative?
Again, the task is not to choose an alternative, but to help choose
those concepts that will be further evaluated in Phase II of the
study.
prc1020.92
C
(c)12-1 LaZ
sludgy session)
f
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES '
C
IZ-V 1--K
- - /8
~yd-yam✓~
Metrvpa tan Greempaces Mager plate, Ady 1992
ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES ERAUEWORK
approved by the Metropolitan Greenspaces Policy Advisory Committee 6-24-92
(cross-references to pages in Master Plan added 7/6/92)
1 Program Goal: To create a cooperative regional system of natural areas, open space, trails and
2 greenways for wildlife and people in the four county bi-state Portland Oregon/Vancouver
3 Washington metropolitan area. (referenced in the Vision and overall Program goals)
4 Approach: Through a cooperative effort that complements local government and special district
5 open space, parks and recreation programs in the metropolitan area of Clackamas, Multnomah
6 and Washington counties, Oregon; Metro will identify, acquire and arrange for the management
7 of a system of greenspaces of metropolitan significance. A closely coordinated parallel effort
8 will be undertaken with the City of Vancouver, Clark County and the State of Washington so
9 that the program will cover the entire metropolitan area. (referenced in the Vision and Part
10 One, Sections 1 and 2, and Policy 1.14)
11 Prpgram Planning and Management:
12 After adoption of the Master Plan by the Metro Council and the general obligation bond measure
13 election, policy advisory responsibilities to the Metro Council will transition from the
14 Metropolitan Greenspaces Policy Advisory Committee to the Regional Policy Advisory
15 Committee established by Goal 1, Objective 2 of Metro's adopted Regional Urban Growth Goals
16 and Objectives. The Metropolitan Greenspaces Technical Advisory Committee will continue to
17 provide technical advice on the implementation and future revisions to the Master Plan, reporting
18 directly to RPAC. (referenced lu Fan One S--t-inn 1)
19 ROLES OF METRO AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
20 (Oregon portion of the region)
21 1) EDENTTFICATION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL GREENSPACFS SYSTEM
Q MdropoWn Grcempaees Muster Man, Jdy 1992
:3 .
I
(referenced in Pact One, Section 1 and 2)
2
a) Local governments and special districts providing park services, and local
3
governments with comprehensive planning responsibility, will identify
4
greenspaces systems in their jurisdictions.
5
b) Metro will identify a system of large acre natural areas and open spaces that
6
should be protected throughout and proximate to the Metro Boundary and a
7
system of trails and greenways to interconnect them.
8
c) The local government-identified and Metro-identified systems will be "overlaid"
9
to determine those greenspaces of common interest.
10
d) Local governments and special districts providing parks services, as well as local
11
governments with comprehensive planning responsibility, will meet with Metro
12
to decide whether the greenspaces of common interest are more appropriatel
y
13
administered by local governments or Metro. In the case where a Metro-
14
identified greenspace designation would conflict with a local government
15
comprehensive plan designation, the affected parties will negotiate a resolution
16
to the conflict. Acquisition and management responsibility for those sites is
17
discussed, respectively, in sections 3 and 4 of this document.
18 2)
PLANNING OF GREENSPACES
19
a) Metro in cooperation with local governments, special districts, state and federal
20
agencies, and nonprofit organizations will develop a metropolitan-wide
21
Greenspaces Masicr Plan while l w;1i i%A"&" Wnri nmmnFnrt p~rn~d.ainn of
V ~W4e%
22
system of natural areas, open space, trails and greenways (see section 1 of this
23
document). (referenced in the Vision and Part One, Sections 1 and 2, and
Heb»pe ¢ GreexV"es Master Plan, Daily 1992
4
I Policy 1.14)
2 b) Criteria will be delineated in the Master Plan to assist in the establishment of
C 3 priorities for inclusion of specific greenspaces into the system. However, some
4 flexibility will be retained in order to quickly respond to unexpected preservation
5 opportunities that may arise or unforeseen changes in circumstances that may
6 affect priorities. (referenced In Part Two, Section 1 and Policy 2.5)
7 c) The location of large acre protection sites, restoration sites, . trail and other
g interconnections shown on the Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan system map
9 are representative. More site specific definition of system components will be
10 undertaken in cooperation with local governments and other interests subsequent
11 to Master Plan adoption by the Metro Council. Balancing natural resource value
12 and development value will be an important planning activity when determining
13 the ultimate size. and location of specific greenspaces system components.
14 (referenced in Part One, Section 1)
15 d) Management plans for specific natural area sites will be prepared within a
16 specified time frame after securing them. These plans will serve as the basis for
17 local government, special district, non-profit organization, or Metro improvement
18 and operations of the sites. Metro will initiate management plans for greenspaces
• 19 secured and/or managed at the regional level. Local parks providers will initiate
20 management. plans for greenspaces secured and/or managed at the local level.
21 Metro and local governments in whose jurisdiction greonspaces are located will
......,,A.~6WAv tg orepase management plans and execute them through
22 WON&
23 intergovernmental agreement. Interim protection guidelines may be adopted by
C MdropOtdM Grecmpates Mostsr ~ald, J* 1992
• ~ 5
I
Metro and/or local governments during preparation of management plans for
2
protected greenspaces. (reference in Part Two, Section 1 and Policies 1.2,
3
2.19-2.21)
4
e) Metro will be responsible for planning a Greenspaces trail system. The trail
5
system planning will result in a blueprint for a regional trail system that can be
6
adopted by all participating agencies. This trail system will be developed in
7
cooperation with local and state governments in Oregon and Washington, the U.S.
8
Forest Service, the 40 Mile Loop Trust, the Greenway to the Pacific program,
9
the Columbia Gorge Commission, the Chinook Trail and other interests. In the
10
case where a trails designation would conflict with a local government
11
comprehensive plan designation, the affected parties will negotiate a resolution
12
to the conflict. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1 and Policies 2.11- 2.14)
13
f) Metro will be responsible for working with local governments to delineate areas
14
that are potential restoration sites. Metro will give a priority to areas which are
15
deficient in open space and natural areas. Metro will provide technical and
16
financial assistance to local governments as appropriate. (referenced in Part
17
Two, Section 1 and Policies 2.16-1.18)
18 3.
ACQUISMON OF GREENSPACES
19
a) Greenspaces to be administered at the local level will be the responsibility of local
20
governments to secure and manage. .(referenced in Part One, Section 2)
21.
b) Greenspaces to be administered by Metro will be the responsibility of Metro to
22
secure and manage. (referenced in Part One, Section 2)
23
c) Greenspaces of common interest administered by Metro will be the responsibility
MdWpaditaa Greenspaces Mater Plan, Jade 1992
6
I of Metro to secure. Metro will offer a first right of refusal to the local
2 government in which the sites are located to acquire the property. The first right
3 of refusal will only be offered to local governments currently providing part:
4 services in whose service area the greenspaces are located. It will not be offered
5 to local governments having comprehensive planning responsibility that do not
6 provide park services as of July 1, 1991. (referenced in Part One, Section 2)
7 (1) If the local government accepts acquisition responsibility from Metro, the
8 accepting government will be responsible for funding the acquisition of the
9 greenspace with their own resources. (referenced in Part One, Section
10 2)
11 (2) If the local government expresses interest in acquiring a site Metro may
12 enter into an intergovernmental agreement which includes provisions
13 related to regional or joint funding of the local acquisition. (referenced
14 in Part One, Section 2)
15 (2) If the local government chooses not to acquire the property, Metro will be
16 responsible for funding the acquisition of the greenspace with its own
17 resources. (referenced in Part One, Section 2)
18 d) Greenspaces of common interest administered at the local level will be the
• 19 responsibility of local governments to secure and manage. (referenced in Part
20 One, Section 2)
21 e) Lower priority will be given acquisition of properties adequately protected by
22 federal, state or local regulations. The Greenspaces acquisition program will not
23 --dtut- 1,.,, r tarA ..oa rnA nqhiWl rP~tImP manav
be construed as a siivsuw~a ,a.... emeat
C M dnapol&an Greeaspaees Minster Plan, July IM
7
1,
I regulations at any level of government, including local comprehensive plans.
Continued application of such regulations to real property by appropriate levels
2
3 of government are recognized as one of several strategies necessary to fully
4 implement the Greenspaces Master Plan. (referenced in Part One, Section 2)
5 f in evaluating priorities for acquisition, Metro will first determine whether existing
6 federal, state, regional and local land use, environmental or other applicable
7 regulations provide adequate protection of greenspaces. If not, Metro will then
determine if legally defensible new regulations could be adopted by appropriate
8
9 government agencies within timeframes necessary to protect significant
10 greenspaces. If not, Metro will pursue acquisition based on fair market value.
11 (referenced in Part One, Section 2)
12 g) Metro will propose funding on a regional basis, to establish both:
13 (1) a greenspaces. acquisition and capital improvement fund with which to
14 acquire, in fee or easement, or otherwise secure and improve greenspaces
15 proposed for inclusion in the regional greenspaces system by the
16 Greenspaces Master Plan, and
17 (2) a management and operation fund. (referenced in Part One, Section 2)
18 h) Seventy five percent (75 of the capital and acquisition funds raised through the .
19 initial voter-approved regional general obligation bond, after netting out bond
20 issuance costs, will be retained by Metro. Twenty five percent (25%) of the net
21 initial and capital and acquisition funds will be distributed by Metro to local
22 governments. Cities and special districts not providing park and recreation
23 services as of July 1, 1991 are W ell ibie'to receive ~o~ds. e ends "All he
M dropa Uan Greiu* ei iWastsr Am July 3992 - r ri',
I
distributed to counties, cities, and special parks districts in accordance with
2
attachment "A" of this roles and responsibilities document. Funds will be
3
expended as follows: (referenced in Part Two, Section 1)
4
(1) Metro will use the regional portion of funds for acquisition and
S
development of greenspaces and interconnections to be secured and
6
administered by Metro, for property transaction and associated
7
administrative costs, and for overall financial management of bond funds.
S
Funds may = be used for operations and maintenance activities.
9
(2) Funds distributed by Metro to local parks providers are to be used for any
10
locally determined open space, parks and recreational acquisition and
11
capital needs consistent with applicable tax laws and provisions of the
12
regional funding measure. Funds may = be used for operations and
! 13
l
maintenance activities nor be used outside the Metropolitan Service
`
14
District's boundary, unless Metro finds that such expenditures clearly
15
benefit District residents.
16
(3) The "pass-through" of regional funds to local parks providers rAll be
17
executed through intergovernmental agreements.
18
(4) Eligible local governments and special districts may form consortiums to
19
combine their allocations for eligible purposes.
20
h) Metro and local agencies will maintain greenspaces included in the metropolitan-
21
wide system in - perpetuity in accordance . with management plans. Where
22
possible, deed restrictions will be included at the time of transfer of property,
23
from private property owner to Metro or local government
Metro to local
,
C
`
Mdropolitan Greensp"ae Mager eta, ,Jady 1993
f.~
I government, local government to Metro, or Metro or local government to non-
2 profit organization, which require use of the land for open space purposes in
3 perpetuity. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1 and in Policies 2.19 - 2.21)
4 4) OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GREENSPACES
5 a) Using the resource management planning process (see section 2), acceptable
6 maintenance, types and levels of programmed use, and development standards
7 will be established for all components of the Greenspace system. The operator
8 (Metro or local government) shall be responsible for operation and management
9 in compliance with the standards developed through the management plan.
10 (referenced in Part Two, Section 1 and in Policies 2.19 - 2.21)
11 b) The management practices employed by Metro, local governments, special
12 districts or non-profit groups for the operation and maintenance of greenspaces
13 will be consistent with the adopted Greenspaces Master Plan and with specific site
14 management plans. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1 and in Policies 2.19 -
15 2.21)
16 c) Metro will budget for and manage, operate and maintain those portions of the
17 greenspaces program to be administered by Metro (see Section 1 of this
18 document). Metro may make provisions with local parks providers for
19 management of Metro-administered greenspaces, section 3.b) notwithstanding, if
20 local parks providers express interest to Metro. Nothing in this document shall
21 be construed to preclude local governments or,Metro from entering into ORS
22 Section 190 . agreements regarding park and recreation operations and
23 maintenance. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1)
10 Metro pan Greeesa ~las~ Plan,; d993
V. 'a ,S-r"fir
I d) Local agencies will budget and fund the operation and maintenance of those
2 portions of the greenspaces program to be administered by local governments (see
3 section 1). (referenced in Part Two, Section 1)
4 e) Focal governments, special districts and Metro may choose to contract with
5 private entities, certified 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations and/or local parks
6 providers for development, operation, and maintenance, provided improvements
.7 and activities . are consistent with adopted greenspaces management plans.
g (referenced in Part Two, Section 1)
9 -fj Metro will offer a first right of refusal to local governments in which greenspaces
10 of common interest are located to provide management responsibility by
11 intergovernmental agreement. The first right of refusal will only be offered to
12 local governments providing park services, as of July 1, 1991, in whose service
13 area the greenspaces are located. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1)
14 (1) If the local government accepts management responsibility from Metro,
15 the accepting government will be responsible for funding the operation and
16 maintenance of the greenspace with their own resources, except as
17 provided in subsection (2). (referenced in Part Two, Section 1)
When a regional funding source is available for operations and
1S (2)
19 maintenance, Metro will enter into intergovernmental agreements with
20 local parks providers to defray all or portions of the operations cost for
locally administered or managed large acre components of the greenspaces
21
22 system where: (referenced in Pact Two, Section 1)
.s..._'-,..,, ^nvye ,,rov+APr aarees to manage sites in accordance with
23 ta) I ME 1- P
'si`N®slar Pd~ias; ury 1992
N~Pcidtaei Grssa~e . ~ 11 r.
I the standards established through adopted management plans and
2 policies; and
3 (b) The local parks provider renders the service at a cost less than that
4 which Metro could provide under the adopted management plan
5 and regional operations and management policies.
6 (3) If the local government chooses not to accept management responsibility,
7 Metro will be responsible for funding the operation and maintenance of
8 these sites with its own resources. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1)
9 g) Metro will undertake studies to determine future regional financing options for
10 greenspaces, parks and recreational facilities. The studies will be coordinated
11 with local, state and federal agencies, and non-profit groups. The studies will
12 address Metro's immediate revenue needs to acquire and manage Metro-
13 administered greenspaces identified in the Greenspaces Master Plan as well as a
14 long-term financing options of local governments, special districts and Metro for
15 additional acquisition, capital improvement, operations, and maintenance of
16 greenspaces, parks and recreational facilities. (referenced in Part One, Section
17 1 and in Policy 1.6)
18 5) ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
19 a) Metro's role will be to actively pursue environmental education programs as both
20 facilitator and provider. Metro will ensure regional coordination among
21 environmental education providers. (referenced in Part Two, Section Two and
22 in Policies (2.30,- 2.42)
23 b) Metro will cooperate with local, state and federal park providers, and
Afepellta Grasn
VQ, spaces Al~ster ~'la~a, July IF92
12
I refuge/wildlife managers, as well as the Audubon Society of Portland's
2 Metropolitan Wildlife Refuge System project, Wetlands Conservancy and other
3 non-profit organizations to produce informational brochures, signage and other
4 interpretive materials for environmental education for the general public.
5 (referenced in Part Two, Section Two and in Policies (2.30 - 2.42)
6 c) Metro will develop a technical assistance program that may include, but is not
7 limited to, development of interpretive facilities and environmental education
• 8 programs that relate to sites ultimately incorporated into the greenspaces system
9 and to assist in the implementation of the Greenspaces Master Plan by local
10 governments, special districts, nonprofit organizations and other interests. Metro
11 will also promote and coordinate recreational and environmental education
12 programs initiated by other governments and private organizations to broaden
13 participation in such programs by the residents of the metropolitan area.
14 (referenced in Part Two, Section 2 and in Policies 2.30 - 2.46)
15 6) ROLES OF STATE & FEDERAL AGENCIES
16 a) Metro, local governments, special districts and non-profit organizations will work
17 with state agencies such as Oregon Parks and Recreation Department,. Oregon
18 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, and
19 Division of State Lands, to ensure maintenance, expansion of their parks, refuge
20 areas, grant programs and regulatory efforts in a coordinated and complementary
21 approach with the Metropolitan Greenspaces Program. These agencies should
22 address and fund the special urban needs of the region, including the
23 identification, planning, acquisition and management of natural areas. Future
Mdropd ten Green4 wes Paster Pkx, .SAP 1992
13
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11 7)
12
13
14
15
16
17
Titan region as a key target area.
state acquisitions should include the Metropo
ands, while owned and managed by the state, will be linked with and
These 1
oted as parts of the Metropolitan Greenspaces system. (referenced in Part
prom
tion Two and in Polacy 1.28)
One, Sec National Park Service,
b) Federal agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service,
wer Administration and Northwest Power Planning Council should
Bonneville Po
and identify new areas for
maintain existing refuge and recreational areas,
rated by the federal government,
acquisition. These lands, while owned and ope
ll be linked with and promoted as parts of the Metropolitan Greenspaces
wi
Section Two)
system. (referenced in part One,
ROLES OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND LAND TRUSTS
d sts and "Friends"
a)
18
b)
19
20
21
22
~a
14
Metro will work closely with non-profit organizations, lan w
s to explore partnerships which include acceptance of land donations,
group
ation and other easements and management of sites. These sites may be
c°nserv and operated by a non-profit or
owned by a local, state, federal agency or Metro
owned by anon -profit and managed by a local, state, federal
the site may
section One)
agency or Metro. (referenced in Part Two, other educational institutions
Metro will work with Portland State University and Portland Bureau
throughout the region including, Audubon Society of Portland.
Multnomah County and others, non-
of parks and Recreation, Saturday Academy,
anizations and agencies to develop a comprehensive environmental
profit org (referenced in Pam
education program which utilizes the gfeenspaces system*
Two, Section Two)
a 1Hadtr JIM JubM_a
Mdrapolftan Greensp". ;
1 8) ROLES OF SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS AND WATER QUALITY AGENCIES
2 a) Metro recognizes that agencies such as the federal Environmental Protection
3 Agency, Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, Portland's Bureau of
4 Environmental Services, Clackamas County Department of Utilities, state Water
5 Resources Department and Department of Environmental Quality, and other
6 interested agencies and other surface water managers have a tremendous stake in
r 7 protection, restoration and management of the region's natural areas, including
g wetlands, and river and stream ecosystems. Metro will work closely with these
9 agencies in development and implementation of cooperative Greenspaces-oriented
10 projects which promote multi-objective management of natural areas, regional
11 streams, rivers and wetlands. (referenced in Part One, Section Two, in Past
12 Two, Section Two, and in Policy 2.55)
13 R&RFINAL: revised July 5. 1992
C ' HdMpaBiM Green4wees Master Flax, July 1992 15
ATTACHMENT A
The local share of bond funds, as described in Section 3h of this Roles and Responsibilities
Framework, shall be apportioned among parks providers in each county on the basis of county-wide
totals established using FY 1991-92 assessed valuation within the Metropolitan Service District
boundary. Estimated county-wide totals are as follows:
Clackamas County - 19.56% Multnomah County - 50.20% Washington County - 30.24%
Formulas for allocating county-wide totals among parks providers in each county are as follows:
CLACKAMAS COUNTY PARKS PROVIDERS LOCAL SHARE ALLOCATION FORMULA
1. The "local share" of funds raised from any bond measure approved by the voters of the Metro
region for a Greenspaces capital and acquisition program apportioned to the parks and
recreation providers of Clackamas County shall be distributed to such providers as follows:
a) 50 percent shall be determined on the basis of the urban Clackamas County population
(defined as those Clackamas County residents living within the boundary of the Metropolitan
Service District) residing within the boundary of each such provider. Those residents living
within the city of Milwaukie and the unincorporated areas of Clackamas County who also
reside within the service area of North Clackamas Park and Recreation District (NCPRD) shall
be included in the population count of NCPRD; and b) 50 percent shall be determined on the
basis of the assessed valuation.
2. The population used in this formula for the cities shall be the "July 1, 1991 Certified
Population Estimate" developed by the Center for Population Research and Census, School of
Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University. The assessed valuation used in this
formula shall be from the FY 1991-92 assessment rolls.
3. The unincorporated population used for NCPRD shall be an estimate based on a GIS tracing of
the district boundaries and an adjustment to 1990 Census data based on the average percentage
change for urban Clackamas County cities as shown by the PSU data from 1990 to 1991.
4. The unincorporated Clackamas County share shall be calculated on the basis of all
unincorporated population (both inside and outside the Metro boundary, excluding
unincorporated population within ±he CP=Ik ) a,d assessed value of unincorporated
Clackamas County within the Metro boundary outside of NCPRD.
MeuvRditan Gneraspr = Mater Plan, fuly, IM2
5. Distribution to those cities included in more than one county will be based on the population
and assessed value that lies within Clackamas County.
Based on these statements the distribution within Clackamas County will be:
Gladstone
3.11%
Happy Valley
0.70%
Lake Oswego
13.82%
Milwaukie
6.92%
Oregon City
5.32%
Portland
0.32%
Rivergrove
0.10%
Tualatin
0.90%
West Linn
6.61%
Wilsonville
4.32%
NCPRD
20.68%
Clackamas
37.20%
County
C
I
C
MampaUa?a fiiumpaces MasW..M r! % My
~7YQ F ~ ynt 1 y t £ F f:
IvIULTNOMAH COUNTY PARKS PROVIDERS LOCAL SHARE ALLOCATION FORMULA
1. Divide total Multnomah County allocation into two equal shares - 50 percent the county;
50 percent for the cities.
2. From the "county" share, allocate 200,000 to each city with a population of less than 50,000
(i.e., Troutdale, Wood Village and Fairview).
3. Distribute "cities" share based on percentage of population* (1990 census information).
* Population for distribution purposes is defined as the sum of the populations from each
municipality which was a "park provider" as of July 1, 1991, i.e., 518,611.
Table 1
Amount to be allocated: $24,786,250*
County share: 12,393,125**
Cities share: 12,393,125
City
F
Base
Allocation
% Total
Pop. '
County
Population
Allocation
Total
Allocation
rtland
0
84.3%
$10,447,405
$10,447,405
Gresham
0
13.2%
1,635,893
1,635,783
Troutdale
$200,000
1.5%
185,897
385,897
Fairview
200,000
.5%
61,965
261,965
Wood Village
200,000
.5%
61,965
261,965
Totals
$600,000
100%
$12,393,125
$12,99314125
* Assumes $200,000,000 bond sale; no interest
After adjustment for base allocation, County share = $11,793,125
Metropdftn Grti¢reaAwei Master Flare, July 19~ ~
. - • - 111 is
4. From the "county" share, establish a $5,000,000 fund for the pursuit of cooperative natural
areas projects to be administered by the county as follows:
a. Each city with a population of less than 50,000 to have $50,000 reserved for cooperative
natural area projects within their city limits.
b. Pro rata shares of the balance in this fund to be reserved for cooperative natural area
projects in each city as in "3" above.
C.
d.
e.
f.
t
All cooperative projects to be consistent with the Multnomah Countv Natural Areas
Protection and Management Plan.
"City" cash contribution to be required for cooperative projects. (Specific levels to be
determined at later date.)
pro rata share of interest, if any, to "county" portion of allocation share accrue to this fund.
Any city which has not identified cooperative natural area project(s) within three years from
forfeit their access to resources reserved in this section.
the time funds are available shall
See Table 2 for details.
Portland
Gresham
Troutdale
Fairview
Wood Village
Totals
Table 2
Base.
teservation :
0
0
$ 50,000
X0,000
50;000
$150,000.
qg
Population
94.3%
13.2%
1.5%
.5%
-5%
;100%
Population
" Reservation
$4,088,550
640,200
72,750
249250
24.250
54,850,000:.:
Total .
gteservation
$4,088,550
640,200
122,750
749250
74.250
SS,000,OOfl
Metropoftn lance luster Plan, MY 19X..; ,
iv
r
WASHINGTON COUNTY PARKS PROVIDERS LOCAL SHARE ALLOCATION FORMULA
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
The "local share" of funds raised from any bond measure approved by the voters of the Metro
region for a Greenspaces capital and acquisition program apportioned to the parks and
recreation providers of Washington County shall be distributed to such providers based on the
percentage of the urban Washington County population (defined as those Washington County
residents living within the boundary of the Metropolitan Service District) residing within the
boundary of each such provider and where those residents living within the unincorporated areas
of Washington County who also reside within the service area of Tualatin Hills Park and
Recreation District (THPRD) shall be included in the population count of THPRD.
The population used in this formula for the cities shall be the most recent "July 1 Certified
Population Estimate" developed by the Center for Population Research and Census, School of
Urban and Public Affairs,-Portland State University.
The population used for THPRD shall be based on a GIS tracing of the district boundaries
excluding the population of the City of Beaverton and an adjustment to the 1990 Census data
based on the average percentage change for urban Washington County cities as shown by the
PSU data from 1990 to the appropriate date as described in 2 above (most likely 1992 or 1993).
The population estimate for the urban unincorporated area of the County shall be the population
used by Metro to determine the County's assessment for "Local Government Dues less the
population of the urban cities (excluding King City) and the estimated THPRD population.
For purposes of this program, estimated allocations for "parks avid recreation providers" based
on PSU certified 1991 population data include:
Beaverton
Forest Grove
Portland
Tigard
Washington
County
g:\pd\yrnW\zd-b.2
19.29%
Cornelius
2.14%
Durham
0.26%
4.66%
Hillsboro
13.3%
Lake Oswego
0.00($357)
0.41%
Rivergrove
0.01%
Sherwood
1.11%
10.38%
Tualatin
5.46%
~'t te~r7~
nr
J1•VJ N
11.12%
MetropoUlan Greenspam MaasW ,Plan, July 1992 ~x .
V
C
t
PARKS PROVIDERS AS OF JULY 1. 1991
(eligible for local - regional
general obligation bond split)
Special Districts
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District
Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District
Counties
Clackamas County
Multnomah County
Washington County
Sim
Beaverton
Cornelius
Durham
Fairview
Forest Grove
Gladstone
Gresham
Happy Valley
Hillsboro
Lake Oswego
Oregon City
Portland
Rivergrove
Sherwood
Tigard
'rfn»tdale
Tualatin
West Linn
Wilsonville
Wood Village
Mdropditax Greenwees Mager PZa& JUIY IM
16
1,
V
Meet at 8 a.m. at -Tigard Water District, 8777 SW Burnham Road, for registration and orienta-
tion. Volunteers will carpool to clean up sites at 8:30 a.m.
Why do our streams need cleaning?
Tires, household trash and construction debris are a serious threat to wildlife and may contrib-
ute to localized winter flooding problems.
Grass clippings and raked leaves dumped in or near the creek can pollute the water. As this
organic debris decays, nutrients such as phosphorus are leached into the stream, polluting the
water.
What to 6rinq
Wear sturdy shoes and dress for the weather. Volunteers may bring a rake or shovel. Children
must be accompanied by an adult. Gloves and trash bags will be provided.
More information
Contact Dan Heagerty at 235-5022, ext 4652.
Here Is What You Can ®o To Keep Fanno Creek Healthy
• Home compost or recycle your grass clipping and raked leaves
• Stencil your neighborhood storm drains
• Use less toxic alternatives to pesticides and herbicides
• Don't mow to the creekside, leave a buffer of natural vegetation
• Revegetate streamsides
• For more information on protecting Fanno Creek and its tributaries,
contact the Fans of Fanno Creek
Sponsored BY
Fans of Fanno Creek
P.O. Box 25835
Portland, OR 97225
TI-Ta-Me-Wood Girl Scouts
Agot,
iffIl
, Pr
GIRL SCOUTS
Unified Sewerage Agency
1,90
U
off;
When
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3-1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: Oct. 27, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED; Sep. 30, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Extinguish RE IOUS ACTION: None
existin storm draina a easement ABED BY: Chris Davies Qx4y
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the storm drainage easement described in Exhibit "A" be
extinguished?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Q
Approval of the resolution authorizing that the easement be
extinguished.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Currently, there is an existing storm drainage easement (see attached
map) that was granted to the City in 1988. Its main purpose was to
convey storm water from "Swanson's Glen" subdivision to the Tualatin
River. In January 1991, the Planning commission approved Subdivision
90-0014, which is adjacent to Swanson's Glen. The applicant of SUB 90-
14 is currently constructing the public improvements, as required, and
is installing an approved storm drainage system. The installation of
the system will nullify the need for the existing easement.
The attached resolution will allow the easement to be legally
extinguished.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Authorize the City Administrator to
extinguishment sign the easement
.
2. Deny authorization of the easement extinguishment.
FISCAL NOTES
No additional expenses are expected.
riverv-c.1
16288 Q
'88) 28
1911 - 163;0
C as ha 87 41
C
1 27 12
In,
146' 16324 15
m w... vo... ll l '88) 26 13
7 18 19 20 21 2' is Q 16346 42 14 60 59 58 P '88)
62 61N n 22
62 25 2'
co sco 0 co
°v .y,:. wo-.:: o - N 54' 16358 d
24 43
O '88
a N a " ,o , g ° .88)0 2, S.W. STUART CT
II II 1-1/4'. (P)1188 2' P 23 P
11 II 11 " 169,2 4a to
1 lu+~7 IN Ig 172 62. = 0 22 O v' 27
N \
N
`11^ P
16406 45
y 11 I I N (~s 89) -S-KETCH
rm s o a°o 127' 75 N _OUT
2 F m
;Wks . - 16429 6 io
f88) 20
P --7 - 2
67 66 65 64 co `0T / 43. 16448 46 51 53
68 69 7„0~ 71 73 2 V689) 76 47 !'~S Otbo 52
In m o a+ " C 77
S -w
F 72 52' 21111: 6474 -~U S E 21
r 189)65 2' I 88y`S `0+0 89) - N
" S . W.
21 2 SP .W. sl'KENT ST. i i~ ®kENT 2'
II 2' 8 0 11 6' a CT. 2 CL CL 04
c4 CJ co v to o 7
cnl
_46 58
I I 14' o rn ^'n m o c°DO o a°1o co
^ Re.~ co N 'o .r, , .rz_ 49 N
84 83 82 8t 80 79 78
wftz- 85
86 90 91 92 93 94
99 0 95 N J
87 88 "In~ m 8 Moo 5 rn.. ° pn - 50 59 J
1
ao u' v an " 61 57
v a v+ n ° N N 62
c
S.W.
zP Ln of a ~oX LOCI r~FR o0
1-21 `Y
83 88 VaC4~eo~l
a
82 To
y N~ 72 71
FUSE-~ .e
I N 84 87 70 69
2' 65 86
,QL
81 Ln 3
BONANZA
~?#'/p~ ash se
74 ~10~o N 67
I
66
79 78 77 75
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: October 27, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: October 8, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
Amendment CF 22-05/Zone Change 92 hearing on October 5, 1992
(Tarkianen/OTAM6 PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer, Assoc. Planner
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: _Ed Murphy, CDD
Should the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Heavy
Industrial and Commercial Professional to Light Industrial and a zoning map
redesignation from the I-H and C-P districts to the I-L zoning district for
approximately 4.04 acres? The request would increase the amount of
developable industrial land in the city at the expense of an equivalent
reduction in developable commercial property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached ordinance approving the Plan Amendment and Zone Change
request and adopt the staff report as findings in support of the decision.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Reino & Marilyn Tarkiainen (owners of Finlandia Sauna and one of the involved
parcels) and Key Bank (owners of the other two involved parcels) have
requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Heavy
Industrial and Commercial Professional to Light Industrial as well as zoning
C redesignation from the I-H and C-P districts to the I-L zoning district for
approximately 4.04 acres located on the east side of the curve on SW 72nd
Avenue, south of Sandburg Street. The Tarkianen's parcel is developed with
the industrial operations of Finlandia Sauna and Sandvik Steel. The Key Bank
parcels are vacant. Finlandia Sauna would like to expand onto one of the
parcels owned by Key Bank, but cannot under the existing C-P zoning district.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a public hearing on October
5, 1992. No one commented in writing or orally at the public hearing, other
than the applicant's representative. The Commission unanimously voted to
join NPO #p5 and the Planning Division staff in recommending approval of the
request. The NPO had recommended that no additional curb cuts to SW 72nd to
the subject properties. The Commission and staff have noted that details on
access like that are development issues rather than land use issues and
should not be attached to a Plan amendment/zone change approval. Draft
minutes of the Planning Commission hearing, the staff report, the applicant's
statement, and a proposed ordinance for approving the request are attached.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the attached ordinance approving the requested Plan Amendment
and Zone Change and adopting the staff report as findings in support of
the decision.
2. Deny the Plan Amendment and Zone Change request.
FISCAL NOTES
No direct impacts.
l
jo/ccsunlo-
91
c
z
Z
0.
P~ N
D
W
V)
0
a_
O
IAN ly
0-
~ B 1
~~P{ I
Z
I
r
! C7
I z
R~RO~ 0
N
eP `G Cr%
z
x
= W
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 5, 1992
11. CALL TO ORDER: President Fyre called the meeting to order at
7:30 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center -
TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard.
2. OIL CALL:
President Fyre; Commissioners Boone, Castile,
Hawley, Moore, Saporta, and Schwab. Staff:
Associate Planner Jerry Offer, and Secretary Ellen
Fox
ABSENT: Commissioner Saxton.
3. MINUTES
Commissioner ore moved and Commissioner Castile seconded o
approve the mi tes of September 21st meeting as co: ed.
Motion passed b majority vote of Commissioners .
1 sent
President Pyre ab ained.
4. COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communicaions received f this meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A 92-0006 ZONE CHANGE ZON
92-0004 AITKEN (NPO #2) A e est for a Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment to redes'gnat a 0.30 acre site from
Professional Commercia to Gene 1 Commercial and a Zone
Change from the C-P z e (Professio al Commercial) to the C-G
zone (General Co cial). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Statewide Planni Goals 2, 9, 12, an3; Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.1 .2 8.1.1, 8.2.2, and 1 2.1; and Community
Development de Chapters 18.22, 18.32, ~nd 18.64.
LOCATION: 1895 AND 11935 SW Greenburg R d (WCTM S21 2AA,
tax lots 200 and 1300)
o Asso 'ate Planner Jerry Offer explained that letter was
re ived this date from Jack Steiger, plicant's
presentative, requesting a continuance on this item until
the NQvpmher 2nd D7=nn4nev (C-1-sinner Nteeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 5, 1992 PAGE 1
* Commissioner Hawley moved and Commissioner Boone--seconile-i-to
continue the hearing to Nov , 92 meeting. Motion
carried by unanimou of Commissioners present.
Me g packets were returned to staff for update information.
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0005 ZONE CHANGE ZON
92-0003 TARKAIANEN/OTAK (NPO #5) A request for a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to redesignate a 4.04 acre
site from Heavy Industrial and Professional Commercial to
Light Industrial. In addition, a Zone Change from the I-H and
C-P zoning districts (Heavy Industrial and Professional
Commercial) to the I-L (Light Industrial) zone is requested.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
9, and 12;•Comprehensive Plan (Policies 1.1.2, 5.1.1, 7.1.2,
7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, and 12.3.1; and Community
Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, and 18.70. LOCATION:
14010 SW 72nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 1DD, tax lot 900) and two
adjacent parcels (2S1 1DD, tax lot 700 and 2S1 1DC, tax lot
4100)
o Associate Planner offer reviewed the application explaining
the request to change Com Plan Amendment to Light Industrial
and Zone Change to I-L (Light Industrial). he discussed the
information contained in the packets, noting that some of the
packets were sent out without the NPO #5 comments. He advised
C that staff was recommending approval of the application.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o David Bantz of Otak discussed the zoning in the area and
talked about the positive aspects of having a Light Industrial
zone as a buffer between Heavy Industrial and Professional
Commercial. He advised that the staff report presented the
information well and he did not add anything further.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
There was no one signed up to speak on this item.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Associate Planner answered questions from Commissioners
regarding future development which would trigger new
sidewalks.
* Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to
recommend to Council approval of CPA 92-0005 and ZON 92-0003.
Motion passed by unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 5, 1992 PAGE 2
MEMORANDUM I-0/Q-7 Ift
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly
FROM: Ed Murpil
DATE: October 1992
SUBJECT: Dartmouth Street Landscaping Plan
Attached is the Dartmouth Street landscaping plan prepared by our consultant
W&H Pacific. We intend to use this plan in our site review process as development
occurs along Dartmouth. These guidelines will help insure a consistent and
appealing streetscape. This plan refers only to landscaping, not to street design.
It should be noted that the Tigard Development Code already requires the
installation of street trees, This plan merely specifies the type, size and spacing of
those required street trees. It is also important to note that the intent is that the
street trees will be installed by the developer as property develops, and
maintained by the adjoining property owners, not by the City. The Dartmouth
Local Improvement District is not affected.
cal/dart.mem
October 15, 1992
C
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR
DARTMOUTH STREET EXTENSION
CITY OF TIGARD
TIGARD, OREGON
October 1, 1992
OBJECTIVES
The following landscape standards are recommended for the streetscape of the properties within the
Dartmouth Street L.I.D. and in conjunction with the development standards for Tigard Triangle. enhance the
standards are meant to provide typical landscape design criteria and guide development
sueetscape right-of-way property along Dartmouth Street and to help insure that it is distinctive, clearly
understandable and unified.
In order to ensure unity of the streetscape along Dartmouth, a landscape master plan has been developed.
Each development will be required to landscape their street corridor frontage as specified and detailed on
the master plan.
The streetscape corridor along Dartmouth is the primary image setting zone. This corridor begins at the
back of the curb of Dartmouth and extends outward for a distance of 21 feet along both sides of the entire
length the roadway. the The
treeetsc pe corridor, elocated behind the sidewalk and on private tprope y, isa
remaining 8 feet o
required landscape setback.
The entire 21 feet (including a 6 foot walk) shall be landscaped and installed by the developer during their
project construction. Typical landscape layout details and plant lists are shown on the master plan
drawing. The following are guidelines for elements that fall within the streetscape corridor area and are
to be addressed by the developer.
W&H Pacific
. Revised 1011192
1.1 SCREENING
1.1.1 The screening intent of the Dartmouth landscape master plan is to block the low level, close-in
views from the road, of parking lots, yet allow for higher, longer distant views to the
commercial buildings and their identification signs.
1.12 All screening within the 8' landscape setback behind the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 3'
above the surface parking elevation of adjacent existing and future developments. This
screening shall be accomplished by installing shrubs specified on the landscape master plan.
The screening shrubs specified on the plant list can be expected to reach 3' in height within
3 years. Minimum size at planting is specified on the landscape master plan.
1.1.3 Where buildings abut the road without a parking lot between the building and the street, the
typical landscape buffer behind the right-of-way will not be required. The intent is that the
area between the building and the right-of-way will be fully landscaped, but will not need the
screening shrubs as typically required in front of parking lots. The 7 foot planting strip with
trees and groundcover, between the road and the sidewalk, will still be required.
1.2 GRADING
1.2.1 Transition slopes between the streetscape corridor and development shall not exceed 3:1. If
transition exceeds 3:1, the installation of walls may be required.
" 1.3 PLANT MATERIALS
1.3.1 Street trees, screening shrubs, ornamental shrubs, and ground cover plants (species and spacing)
will be required as shown on the landscape master plan. The layout and spacing of trees and
plants is shown on the master plan. All streetscape landscaping shall be provided and installed
by the developer during project construction.
1.3.3 Street trees should be placed so they will not conflict with underground utilities within the
right-of-way. The utility corridor should be located in the 7 foot planting strip between the
road and the sidewalk, within the first 4 feet nearest the curb. The trees should be placed
within the remaining 3 feet nearest the sidewalk.
1.3.3 Shrubs in the streetscape corridor shall be installed to aid in the screening of future parking lot
development and utility fixtures adjacent to the right-of-way.
1.3.4 The landscape master plan drawing specifies the approved list of plant material that can be used
along Dartmouth Street. Landscape plans for the streetscape of each project must utilize
combinations of plants selected from the approved plant list shown on the master plan drawing.
Other plant material in the streetscape corridor will not be accepted. Plant layout shall be
designed as "mass plantings," utilizing many plants of the same species together in "blocks"
or "masses" of plants.
w&H Paclfw
Revised 1011192
C
1.4 IRRIGATION
1.4.1 An automatic underground irrigation system will be required along the entire length of the
streetscape corridor.
1.4.2 As an alternative to conventional spray irrigation, a "drip" irrigation or low volume "micro-
spray" system shall be designed to promote water conservation.
1.4.3 The developer will be required to submit an irrigation construction design to be approved by
the City of Tigard.
1.5 SIGNAGE
1.5.1 Only directional and traffic control signage will be allowed in the streetscape corridor area.
1.5.2 Street trees should be placed so they will not conflict with clear vision to the traffic signs.
Within the 7 foot planting strip between the road and the sidewalk, the signs should be placed
nearest the curb and the trees should be placed away from the signs, nearest the sidewalk.
1.5.3 As trees mature, their lower branches should periodically be pruned up or "headed-up" to avoid
conflicts with clear vision to traffic signs.
1.6 SIDEWALKS
1.6.1 Sidewalks shall provide a safe, vehicular separated, all weather, efficient and aesthetically
pleasing means of pedestrian circulation connecting lots continuously along both sides of
Dartmouth Street.
1.6.2 Sidewalks along Dartmouth Street shall be provided by the developer with locations as
indicated on the master plan and shall meet the following standards: 6 feet in width, 4 inches
in depth (concrete).
1.7 VISUAL CLEARANCE
1.7.1 proper sightline distances shall be provided at all access drives and intersections in the
streetscape corridor area along Dartmouth Street. All plantings within the clear vision triangle
should be planted and maintained, not to exceed 3 feet in height. Street trees should be set
,.va,,,.a.yn c~ f;, m c-urh Bn_.c at intersections and drives to allow for clear vision.
aaauuaaaauaa'-)C' w
WdH Pacific
Revised 1011192
1.8 MAINTENANCE
1.8.1 It is the responsibility of the developer to maintain the streetscape corridor adjacent to their
development throughout their occupancy of the site.
1.82 All trees and plant material in the streetscape corridor area shall be maintained in a healthy
disease free condition. As trees mature, their lower branches should periodically be premed up
or "headed-up" to avoid conflicts with vehicle travel and clear vision to traffic signs.
1.8.3 Water and fertilizer shall be applied as necessary to maintain normal color and rate of growth
1.8.4 Planting areas throughout the streetscape corridor shall be maintained in a weed and litter free
condition.
1.8.5 All landscape features shall be maintained in an attractive manner at all times.
W&H Pacific
Revised 1011192
IOI21I q 2
Agendcs 4 `I
c( 61
CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon 7
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER
1. Concerning Case Number(s): SUB 92-0010/VAR 92-0018
2. Name of Owner: Robert & Kathleen Hutchins
Name of Applicant: Same
3. Address 14520 SW Pleasant Valley Rd. City Beaverton State OR Zip 97005
4. Address of Property: 14160 SW 97th Avenue
Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 11BA, tax lot 1100
5. Request: A request for approval of the following development
applications: 1) Subdivision approval to divide a parcel
of approximately 0.91 acres into four lots of approximately
7,890 and 9,985 square feet in size; 2) Variance approval
to allow the use of an existing gravel driveway whereas
Community Development Code Chapter 18.106.050 (4)(J)(5)
requires access drives for residential development be
improved with asphalt or a concrete surface. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters
18.50, 18.88, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134,
18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. LOCATION: 14160 SW 97th
Avenue (WCTM 2S1 11BA, tax lot 1100)
Zone: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) The R-4.5 zone allows
single family residential units, public support facilities,
residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes,
family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and
accessory structures among other uses.
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 November 2, 1992
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 dec-ollon in
accordance with 15.32.290(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. November 2. 1992
10. Ouestions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
Planning Department, 639-4171.
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
r FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by Robt. & Kathleen Hutchins ) FINAL ORDER
for approval of a preliminary plat for a 4-lot subdivision ) SUB 92-0010
in the R-4.5 zone for land at SW 97th Avenue and SW ) VAR 92-0018
Mountain View Lane in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Mountain View Estates)
1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide a 0.91-acre parcel into 4
lots ranging from 7500 to 9985 square feet. Proposed lots do or can comply with
minimum dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone. All lots will be used for single
family detached dwellings and will be served by public water and sewer systems. Only
two of the proposed lots comply with the solar access standards for new development; an
adjustment is requested to waive compliance for the other two lots.
Access for three of the lots will be by means of an extension of Mountain View Lane from
a stub at the east edge of the site across the site and a private driveway extending north
from that street. The applicant will dedicate and improve the right of way for the extension
of Mountain View Lane, which will taper as it extends east to west across the site. Access
for the fourth lot will be by means of an easement accross adjoining property to the west.
Because the driveway for the fourth lot does not comply with standards for a private street,
(i.e., it is gravel, exceeds 150 feet and does not contain a turn-around), the applicant
requests approval of variances from §18.108.070.
Hearings Officer Larry Epstein held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the applications
on September 30, 1992 and held open the record for 10 days thereafter to receive additional
evidence. At the hearing, City staff recommended conditional approval of the subdivision.
The applicant accepted the recommended conditions of approval. Five area residents
testified. Two of the witnesses raised concerns about cost sharing for the private driveway
and the relationship of this subdivision to two other subdivision applications that were
denied in 1991 (SUB 90-0013NAR 90-0037 and SUB 90-0007NAR 90-0011). One
witness asked about applicable approval standards and availability of the staff report. The
two remaining witnesses testified with concerns about Mountain View Lane and the
relationship of the subdivision to access for future developments onto 97th Avenue.
LOCATION: 14160 SW 97th Avenue, WCTM 2S1 11BA, Tax Lot 1100
APPLICANTS & PROPERTY OWNERS: Robert and Kathleen Hutchins
SITE AREA: About 0.91 acres (39,730 square feet)
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Ch. 18.50.050, 18.88.040,
18.92.020, 18.108.070, 18.134.050, 18.150.020, 18.160.060, 18.160.120, 18.164.030,
18.164.060, 18.164.070, and 18.164.100 and Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1,
7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve
EXAMINER'S DECISION: Conditionally approved
C
Page I - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
also will dedicate a right of way for and improve SW Mountain View Lane across the
south edge of the site. The right of way width will taper from 50 feet at the east edge of
the site to about 26 feet at the west edge of the site.
3. The applicant also will provide for storm water drainage and pay a fee in lieu of
providing on-site water quality features. See finding II.F.
E. Existing and proposed vegetation :
There are several conifer trees and assorted deciduous trees and other landscaping
materials on the site. The proposed development's private street, utilities, and
residences will require the removal of a significant number of trees. The hearings
officer assumes that the site will be landscaped with vegetation typical of other
developed lots in the vicinity.
F. Topography and drainage :
1. The site slopes gently from the south to the north. No grading plan or preliminary
drainage plan has been submitted.
2. There is a public storm sewer in Mountain View Lane east of the site. The nearest
catch basin is about 100 feet east of the site. The applicant could route storm water to
Mountain View Lane where it would flow by gravity to the existing catch basin. In the
alternative the applicant could provide a catch basin and pipelines on-site to carry the
water to the Mountain View Lane system.
G. Plan designation and zoning :
The site and vicinity are designated Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive
Plan Map and are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre).
H. Public services and utilities :
The site is served by public sewer and water systems. Sewer service is available from
an existing 8-inch diameter line on the west edge of the site. Water service is available
from a 6-inch diameter line in Mountain View Lane. The line can be extended along
Mountain View Lane to serve each lot, using easements where necessary.
L Streets and access :
1. The site has 50 feet of frontage with Mountain View Lane (a local street) at the
southeast corner of the site. The applicant will dedicate right of way for Mountain
View Lane across the south edge of the site. The right of way will taper from 50 feet at
the east edge to about 26 feet at the west edge of the site. The applicant will improve
the right of way with pavement, curb and sidewalk on the north. East of the site.
Mountain View Lane is improved with ? reughly 36-foot paved section between curbs.
2. City staff prepared an illustrative plan showing how Mountain View Lane can be
dedicated and improved as land south and west of the site (TL 107 and 1200) is
developed. If the illustrative plan is developed, then Mountain View Lane will intersect
97th Avenue (a collector arterial) about 305 feet south of Rhonda Street (measured
centerline to centerline). Based on topography on the illustrative plan, this intersection
will be about 600 feet north of and 30 feet below the crest of the hill on 97th Avenue.
Page 3 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
3. The applicant will establish a 25-foot wide easement from Mountain View Lane to a
point about 70 feet north and will improve that easement with a paved private driveway
that can serve the middle and northeast lot.
4. The northwest lot will not abut a street on the site. Instead, access to that lot will be
provided by means of an existing private driveway in a 15-foot easement that extends
from 97th Avenue to the east edge of the site. The driveway consists of a roughly 10-
foot wide gravel surface in poor condition. It intersects 97th Avenue about 27 feet
south of Rhonda Street (measured centerline to centerline). That driveway serves four
other dwellings. This driveway is expected to be temporary, because adjoining land to
the west is expected to develop in the foreseeable future. When the adjoining land to
the west develops, then a public street will be developed where the private street now
exists. When that street develops, then access to the northwest lot can be provided
from that street by extending a private drive extending east of that street. City staff
provided an illustrative plan showing how that street would be necessary to serve land
to the west when that land develops. The Hearings Officer believes the illustrative plan
would have to be modified to gain approval by curving to the north opposite Rhonda
Street at 97th Avenue, based on the City Council decisions in SUB 90-0013NAR 90-
0037 and SUB 90-0007NAR 90-0011, unless the City grants a variance to section
18.164.030.G. However, the overall intent of the plan appears to be appropriate.
J. Surrounding land uses :
1. Land to the north and west is developed with single family homes on oversized lots.
Based on the illustrative plan provided by City staff, land to the north and west can be
divided into more than 10 lots for single family homes if a public cul de sac street is
developed to serve those lots.
a. Land to the north and west was proposed for development in 1990. See the
planning commission and city council decisions regarding SUB 90-0013NAR 90-
0037 and SUB 90-0007NAR 90-0011, incorporated herein by reference. The
planning commission recommended approval of those applications. However, after
two public hearings, the city council denied the applications.
b. After reviewing the planning commission recommendation and the minutes of
the City Council hearings regarding those cases, the Hearings Officer concludes
that, although issues about flag lots and lot frontage were raised, the main reason
for the City Council action was failure of the proposed plans to comply with
intersection spacing standards. That is, a proposed cul de sac street extending east
of 97th Avenue was situated only 65 feet south of Rhonda Street on the west side
of 97th Avenue, This viclawd section 18.164.030.0 which requires new streets to
be situated directly across from or at least 300 feet from existing streets. The City
Council declined to approve a variance to that section; therefore, both subdivisions
were denied.
c. The record in those cases reflects that owners of properties north and west of the
site are assessed for sewer line improvements based on the assumption that the
number of lots proposed in those subdivisions would be approved. By modifying
the preliminary plats for those subdivisions so that proposed Rh ,ada Court east of
97th Avenue is directly across from existing Rhonda Street west of 97th Avenue, it
is reasonable to conclude that land to the north and west can be subdivided into
almost the same number of lots proposed in 1990.
Page 4 - Hearings Dicer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
2. Land to the east is divided into urban-sized lots that are developed with single family
detached dwellings.
3. Land immediately to the south is undeveloped. However, based on the illustrative
plan provided by City staff and the final plats for SUB 91-0015 and SUB 90-0010, that
land can be divided into several lots for single family homes, provided SW Mountain
View Lane is developed south and west of the site.
lII. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
A. Community Development Code.
1. Chapter 18.50 contains standards for the R-4.5 zone. A single family detached
residential unit is a permitted use in the zone. Lots in the zone must comply with the
following dimensional requirements:
Minimum lot size
Average minimum lot width
Front setback
Interior side setback
Street side setback
Rear setback
Maximum building height
7500 square feet
50 feet
20 feet
5 feet
15 feet/20 feet for a garage
15 feet
30 feet
2. Chapter 18.88 contains solar access standards. A lot complies with this chapter if it
has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more, and has a front lot line that is oriented
within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis; or if a protected solar building line is
designated on the plat or on documents recorded with the plat; or if solar performance-
oriented standards are imposed on future structures. A subdivision complies with this
section if 80% or more of the newly created lots comply with this standard. An
adjustment to the solar access standard can be granted if compliance with the basic solar
standard would reduce the density of the project, increase costs by at least 5 percent, or
destroy or otherwise impair a significant development amenity.
3. Chapter 18.92 contains standards for density. The number of dwelling units
permitted is based on the net development. area, excluding land dedicated for public
roads or granted for private streets, among other things. To determine the maximum
number of lots, divide the net development area by minimum lot size in the zone.
4. Chapter 18.108 allows private streets to serve up to 6 dwelling units subject to
pavement width and improvement standards that vary depending on the number of units
served. A private street serving 2 dwellings is required to be paved and have a
minimum 20-foot paved section in a 25-foot easement; curbs and walkways are not
required. A turn-around is required for a private street that is more than 150 feet long.
CDC 18.92.020(A) and 18.26 provide that the area used for private streets does not
count toward the area of any lot.
5. Chapter 18.134 provides that variances to the Code development standards may be
approved if:
a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are
unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated;
Page S - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
b. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision;
c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and
d. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict
compliance with the regulations of this title.
6. Chapter 18.150 requires a permit and contains standards for removal of trees having
a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter four feet above the ground on undeveloped land.
A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria:
a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere with utility
service or traffic safety;
b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to
otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner;
c. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems;
d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a desirable
balance between shade and open space;
e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the
tree removal; and '
f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value
of trees to be cut.
7. Chapter 18.160 contains standards for land divisions. To be approved, a
preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria:
a. It must comply with the City's comprehensive plan and the applicable zoning
ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations;
b. T fie proposed plat name may not be duplicative and must otherwise comply wi-u`i
the provisions of ORS Chapter 92;
c. The streets and roads shall be laid out so as to conform to the plats of
subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property
as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it
is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern.
8. Chapter 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities.
a. Section 18.164.030(A) requires public streets within and adjoining a
development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street.
b. Section 18.164.030(E) provides a local street is to have a minimum 50-foot
right of way and minimum 34-foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks.
Page 6 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
c. Section 18.164.0300 provides that the applicant must dedicate to the City a
reserve strip across the end of a dedicated street that extends to the edge of a site
and build a barricade across the street stub.
d. Section 18.164.030(G) provides that rights of way shall be dedicated so that
street centerlines align or are separated by at least 300 feet.
e. Section 18.164.030(1) provides that whenever existing rights of way adjacent to
or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional right of way shall be
provided as a condition of approval of a subdivision or development. Note that it
does not make the same requirements for substandard easements for private streets.
L Section 18.164.030(n allows partial street improvements, (i.e., less than 24 feet
of paving), when it is practical to require development of the other half of a street
when adjoining property develops.
g. Section 18.164.050 authorizes the City to require an applicant to dedicate
easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, and other public utilities where they
cross private property.
h. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2-1/2 times the lot
width and requires at least 25 feet of frontage on a street
i. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all streets with certain
exceptions not relevant to this case.
j. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service.
- k. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate .provisions for storm water runoff and
dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities.
1. Section 18.164.120 requires utilities to be installed underground.
B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies.
1. Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure citizens will be provided an opportunity
for be involved in all phases of the planning process.
that all developments within the Tigard Urban Planning Area
2. Policy 4.2.._,.vide-O~...__
t,~.,.....,
shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality starda;drs.
3. Policy 7.1.2 provides the City will require as a condition of development approval
that public water, sewer, and storm drainage will be provided and designed to City
standards and utilities placed underground.
4. Policy 7.3.1 provides the City will coordinate water services with water districts.
5. Policy 7.4.4 requires all new development to be connected to an approved sanitary
sewer system.
future growth efcient street and
development roadway
6. Policy 8. 1.1 that mee r current needs and will anti for a safe and
system
Page 7 - Hearings officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
7. Policy 8.1.3 provides the City will require as a precondition of approval that:
a. Development abuts a dedicated street or has other adequate access;
b. Street right of way shall be dedicated where the street is substandard in width;
c. The developer shall commit to construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to
City standards within the development;
d. The developer shall participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs, and
sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts;
e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided
when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard.
IV. HEARING, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Hearing.
Hearings Officer Larry Epstein received testimony at the public hearing about this
application on September 30, 1992 and during the subsequent 10 days. A record of
that testimony is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped
Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the Tigard
City Hall.
B. Summary of testimony.
1. Ron Pomeroy tested for the City and summarized the staff report and
recommendation. He modified the written staff report to note that the property does not
contain a septic tank. He also responded to questions about the illustrative plans for
development of the area north, west and south of the site and supplemented his
testimony with additional evidence regarding such development after the hearing.
2. Robert and Kathleen Hutchins testified on their own behalf in favor of the proposal
and accepted the conditions of approval recommended by City staff.
3. Jack Polans, Ron Lautt, Aase Otto, Dick Kluempke, and Virgil Volk testified with
concerns or against the subdivision.
a. Mr. Lautt and ;r:s. Otto --wn and were the applicants for the proposed
subdivisions north and west of the site that are discussed under finding 1i.J.2.
They expressed reasonable consternation that the proposed subdivision should be
approved while their applications were denied. Each requested some assurance that
their projects would now be approved, too. Mr. Lautt also requested a condition of
approval that requires the owner of the proposed northwest lot to participate in
maintenance of the private gravel drive that will serve that lot. Ms. Otto also
requested a condition of approval that requires the owner of the northwest lot to
improve the private driveway from the east end of future Rhonda Court to that lot
when the future street is built.
b. Mr. Polans asked questions about the applicable approval standards and
availability of the staff report. The Hearings Officer responded by identifying
applicable standards and noting that the staff report was available for inspection at
Page 8 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
the planning department and City library at least 7 days before the hearing and could
be photocopied for a fee.
c. Mr. Kluempke tested with concerns about where Mountain View Lane will
intersect with 97th Avenue in the future if adjoining land to the west and south
develops. He noted that there is a vertical curve (i.e., a hill) on 97th Avenue south
of the prospective intersection that would constrain sight distance and be hazardous.
d. Mr. Volk noted that there is no temporary turn-around proposed on Mountain
View Lane. The Hearings Officer noted that the private drive effectively provides a
turn-around and that extension of Mountain View Lane to 97th Avenue in the future
eliminates the need for a turn-around.
C. NPO and Agency Comments.
1. The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the findings regarding NPO and
agency comments in section IV of the City of Tigard staff report dated September 24,
1992 with the following amendment.
2. The Engineering Department originally recommended that the applicant dedicate and
improve a full-width right of way for Mountain View Lane across the site. See the last
sentence of finding IV. LA of the City of Tigard staff report dated September 24, 1992.
However, based on the illustrative plan for future development west and south of the
site, they changed their recommendation to support approval of the tapered plan for
Mountain View Lane, based on the memo from Ron Pomeroy dated October 6, 1992.
V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A. Compliance with Community Development Code.
1. The proposed lots comply with the use standards of the R-4.5 zone, because they
will be used for single family detached dwelling units, based on finding II.D.
2. The proposed lots comply with the minimum lot size and average width standards of
the R-4.5 zone, because they contain more than 7500 square feet apiece and are at least
50 feet wide on average. The south edge of the northeast lot will have to be at least 10
feet further north, so that the proposed middle lot has at least 25 feet of frontage on a
private street to comply with section 18.164..060(B). However, even after doing so,
those lots will comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4.5 zone. Also, the
existing house that will remain on the middle lot will continue to comply with setback
requirements. See finding II.C and D.
3. The northwest and northeast proposed lots (or 50% of the subdivision) comply with
the basic solar access standard for new development, eased on finding H.D. Lc and d.
The south and middle lots do not comply with any of the solar access standards. 'nere
is no way for them to do so without eliminating one lot or the existing house, because
the existing structure on the middle lot is situated such that two lots with a long north-
south axis cannot be created without destroying the house. Therefore, compliance with
the solar access standard would reduce the density of the project (by eliminating the
south lot so that the middle lot has a 90-foot lot north-south depth) or increase
development costs by at least 5 percent (by eliminating the house). The Hearings
Officer assumes that the value of the house is at least 20 percent of the value of a lot
without a house. This assumption can be verified by the County Assessor or
C_
Page 9 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-0010NAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
independent appraisal. Clearly, the house is a significant development amenity with
considerable value to the purchaser of the middle lot. Therefore, eliminating the house
so that two solar lots are created fronting on Mountain View Lane raises the effective
cost of each lot by at least 5 percent and would destroy a significant development
amenity. To avoid that result, an adjustment is warranted under sections
18.88.040.E.1.a and b to reduce the extent to which the subdivision must comply with
the solar access standard to 50%.
4. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92,
because the developable area of the site (32,849 square feet) divided by 7500 square
feet per lot equals 4.38 lots, and the applicant proposes to create 4 lots.
5. The proposed private street extending north of Mountain View Lane complies with
Chapter 18.108, because it will serve two lots (the northeast lot and middle lot) and is
25 feet wide. A condition is warranted requiring the applicant to improve or guarantee
the improvement of the private street with a minimum 20-foot-paved section, to
establish a minimum 25-foot wide easement for the street, to identify the street as
private, to prohibit parking in the private street so that it can continuously
oaccommodate two-way traffic, and to establish a joint maintenance agreement for the
street to which owners of the middle and northeast lot are subject.
6. The private street to be used for access to the northwest lot is problematic.
a. It is an existing private street and is reasonably likely to be a temporary measure,
based on the discussion in findings II.I and II.J.1; perhaps that warrants different
treatment. However, it is not clear from Chapter 18.108 that an existing private
street is intended to be treated differently when a new subdivision is proposed that
relies on that street. Because the existing private street already serves four
dwellings and has less than a 24-foot paved section in less than a 30-foot easement,
it does not comply with existing standards for a private street serving four
dwellings. It does not even comply with standards for a private street serving two
lots. Perhaps because the subdivision will not increase the number of lots served
by the private street, it can be argued that using the private street for the northwest
lot does no more than continue the existing status quo (in terms of the number of
lots served). That argument is the linchpin of the fourth lot for this subdivision.
b. Given the importance of maximizing the development of the urban area and the
ambiguity about how to treat existing substandard private streets in the City Code,
(e.g., section 18.164.030(1) does not require that additional easement width or
improvements be made to a substandard private driveway when adjacent to or
within a proposed development), the Hearings Officer accepts the argument
described above. That is, because the proposed private street will serve no more
than the number lots it already serves, has not been hazardous based on past use,
and is reasonably likely to be temporary, the northwest lot should use that existing
private street although that street does not comply with the standards for a private
street sei wing Lour lots, or more.
c. The applicant requests variances to waive paving requirements and to waive the
requirement for a turn-around for the private street serving the northwest lot. The
Hearings Officer finds that a variance is warranted to defer the paving requirement,
but not to waive the turn-around requirement.
Page 10 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
d. A variance to defer the paving requirement for the private drive and turn-around
is warranted, because:
(1) There are special circumstances that apply to the property that are unusual
as compared to other lands similarly situated; that is, the majority of the private
drive will be temporary in nature. When the adjoining land to the north and
west is divided and a public street is developed on the west 250 feet or so of the
existing easement, then the private driveway will be only about 100 to 150 feet
long. It is inefficient and a waste of private and public economic and energy
resources to require the applicant to pave the driveway only to tear it up within a
year or two for the public street that will be developed to serve the potential lots
north and west of the site.
(2) However, in the interim, the owner of the northwest lot should be subject
to a condition that requires participation in the maintenance of the private street,
because the owner of that lot will use that street. Moreover, the owner of the
northwest lot should be subject to a condition that requires that owner to pave
the private street from the site to the edge of the public road that will be built
between the site and 97th Avenue. The owner also should be required to pave
the turn-around at that time, unless the private driveway is less than 150 feet
long. Deed covenants and a condition of approval are warranted to fulfill these
requirements.
(3) The variance to defer paving is necessary for the proper design of the
subdivision without causing a waste of economic and energy resources for a
driveway that will be torn up in the near future. However, the variance is only
necessary until the public street west of the site is developed. Once that street is
developed, then paving of the private drive is warranted.
(4) Granting the variance to defer paving will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to other owners of property, because the
variance is temporary in nature, and it does not increase the number of lots
using the private street. However, it would be detrimental to the public safety
to waive the paving requirement altogether, because, unless the private street is
paved within a reasonable time, vehicular access would be more hazadous and
less stable and secure over time.
(5) Granting the variance to defer paving is necessary to enable the applicant to
create the northwest lot without a waste of economic and energy resources that
constitute an extraordinary hardship. However, granting the variance to waive
paving of the private street east of the future public street is not necessary to
enjoy a substantial property right, because there is no right to have a gravel
driveway in the City.
e. A variance to the turn-around requirement is not warranted, because:
(1) Nothing about the site precludes providing a turn-around on the site. There
are no structures, topographic or other natural conditions that makes provision
of such a turn-around problematic.
(2) The applicant has not shown that providing 'u`,e turn-around is necessary Vr
the proper design or function of the subdivision or the northwest lot. No
building exists on the lot, and no building plan was proposed that would
Page 11 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
conflict with providing the turn-around. Building plans can be prepared that
accommodate the turn-around. In the alternative, the applicant could cooperate
with the owner of the property north of the site to provide for a turn-around off-
site that fulfills the same function as a turn-around on the site.
(3) By not providing a turn-around, the applicant endangers the public health
and safety, because emergency vehicles may be unable to turn around on the
private street.
(4) The variance is not necessary to the preservation and enjoyment of a
property right, because there is no right to build a private street longer than 150
feet without providing a turn-around. Even after the public street is built
between the site and 97th Avenue, the private drive will continue to be more
than 150 feet long, based on the illustrative plan provided by the staff. If the
private drive is less than 150 feet long after approval of the public street west of
the site, then the Planning Director should be authorized to waive paving of the
turn-around and to authorize use of the turn-around area for other purposes.
7. The applicant will remove a significant number of mature trees to provide for the
public and private streets, utilities and buildings. A condition of approval is warranted
prohibiting the applicant or future lot .owners from removing trees 6 inches or more in
diameter four feet above the ground from the site until the applicant or owner applies
for and receives a tree cutting permit pursuant to Chapter 18.150. The applicant should
be required to provide a tree survey to facilitate compliance with that chapter.
8. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.160, because:
a. It complies with the Comprehensive plan map designation of the site, the
applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R-4.5 zone, and other applicable
regulations.
b. The proposed name of the subdivision is not duplicative.
c. Mountain View Lane is adequate to serve three of the lots on the site and extends
across the site in a manner that enables it to be extended to 97th Avenue consistent
with City standards in the future as land to the west and south develops, based on
the illustrative plan provided by the staff. A condition is warranted to require the
applicant to dedicate reserve strips and to build a barricade at the street stub as
required by section 18.164.040.F.
d. The private drive is adequate to serve the northwest lot, subject to conditions,
based on the preceding findings. The Code does not authorize the Hearings Officer
to require this applicant to provide an access plan for the area to solve the cross-
circulation problems evident in the community. That responsibility falls on the City
in its case-by-case review of proposed development. Whether that policy is most
efficacious is not relevant to the review of this subdivision nor within the
jurisdiction of the Hearings Officer. However, the Hearings Officer encourages the
City to consider enacting regulations that provide for adopting a future street plan
for this and other neighborhoods to provide a process to guide provision of access
for future developments.
Page 12 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-0010NAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
9. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.164, because:
a. The applicant will dedicate for and improve the public road adjoining the site to
City standards. A tapering dedication and improvement for Mountain View Lane is
warranted, because the remainder of the street can be dedicated and improved when
adjoining land to the south develops. The centerline of the street will be aligned
with existing Mountain View Lane to the east. Conditions are warranted to ensure
the applicant makes dedications and improvements required by Code. Curbs and a
sidewalk on the private drive are not required.
b. Lots are not more than 2-1/2 deeper than wide and have at least 25 feet of
frontage on a street, provided the frontage of the middle lot is increased to at least
25 feet.
c. All lots will be served by public sanitary sewer and a storm drainage system.
Conditions are warranted requiring granting of easements for utilities where they
cross private property, and requiring the applicant to submit a plan showing the
location of existing utilities that will be retained.
d. Storm water from the site can be accommodated by the existing storm sewer in
Mountain View Lane if the applicant shows that water from the site will flow to that
catch basin and the system has adequate capacity to accommodate that water. If the
storm water from the site will not flow by gravity to the existing storm water inlet in
Mountain View Lane east of the site, or if that inlet is not adequate to accommodate
that stone water, then the applicant should be required to direct storm water to a
catch basin on the site as a condition of approval. The applicant should be required
to extend the storm sewer within the Mountain View Lane right of way where it
crosses the site whether or not a catch basin is needed on the site, so that the storm
sewer can accommodate storm water from land to the west when it develops, unless
the City Engineer concludes storm water from land to the west should not or will
not be directed to that line.
d. The applicant will install underground utilities.
B. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies.
1. The subdivision complies with Policy 2.1.1, because notice of the application or
hearing was provided to the neighborhood planning organization in the area and to
owners of property in the vicinity of the site.
2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to require the
applicant to prepare an erosion plan as part of the grading permit application and to pay
a fee in lieu of providing on-site storm water quality features, consistent with standards
for the Tualatin River Basin and Resolution and Order 91-47 or amendments thereto.
The site is too small to accommodate an on-site storm water quality facility.
3. The subdivision complies with Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4, because the
applicant will extend public sewer and water system to the site, will provide a storm
water drainage system on the site, and will provide underground utilities. Detailed
public facility improvement plans need to be prepared and approved.
Y. ,,,c,u1,A;.,A~=.,=. ~nrnnlips with Policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.3, because the street system on
and adjoining the site will be improved to City standards or modified as permitted.
Page 13 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIONAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
VI. SITE VISIT BY EXAMINER
The Hearings Officer visited the site and area that could be affected by the proposed
subdivision.
VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed subdivision will promote the general
welfare of the City, and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding
land uses, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable
local, state, and federal law.
In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff
Report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in
this matter, the Hearings Officer hereby approves SUB 92-0010 (Mountain View Estates)
and approves in part and denies in part VAR 92-0018, subject to the following conditions:
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED: ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND
COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FINANCIALLY SECURED PRIOR TO
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY, AND CONTACT
CHRIS DAVIES (639-4171) REGARDING CONDITIONS.
1. The applicant shall submit two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and
profile construction drawings to the Engineering Department for preliminary review and
approval. The applicant shall submit seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1)
itemized construction cost estimate. The plans and estimate shall be prepared by a
professional engineer licensed in Oregon. These plans are in addition to plans required
by the Building Division and should include only those sheets relating to public
improvements.
2. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public
improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed
and approved the public improvement plans, a street opening permit or construction
compliance agreement has been executed, a developer-engineer agreement has been
executed, and all permit fees have been paid.
3. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the
City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the plans but prior to starting
any work on the site. The applicant, applicant's engineer, and contractor shall attend
this meeting before receiving approved plans and permits.
4. The applicant shall submit storm drainage details as part of the public improvement
plans. Plans shall include calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage
basin. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The
location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be noted. If the
calculations and plans show that storm water from the site will not flow to the existing
catch basin in Mountain View Lane east of the site or that catch basin cannot
accommodate the storm water from the site, the applicant shall provide appropriate
features on the site to accommodate that storm water.
Page 14 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City right of way for SW Mountain View Lane
adjoining the site frontage substantially as shown on the preliminary plat and shall
dedicate street reserve strips as directed by the Engineering Department. The
description of the dedications shall be tied to the right of way centerline. The dedication
shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department.
6. The applicant shall improve Mountain View Lane to City standards within the right
of way dedicated from the site, including sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic
concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street lights, a street stub barricade
and underground utilities, except as otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
Improvements shall be designed and built to local street standards.
7. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a covenant that applies to the
owner of the proposed northwest lot and shall file the approved covenant with the deed
to that lot. The covenant shall require the owner of that lot to:
a. Participate in maintenance of the private driveway that serves that lot between the
site and 97th Avenue; and
b. Pave the private driveway with a minimum 10-foot section within 90 days after
completion of the future public street that occupies the existing easement for that
driveway between the edge of the improved portion of the public right of way and
the edge of the lot; and
c. Pave an emergency vehicle turn-around on or adjoining the private driveway
when the owner is required to pave the private driveway, unless the Planning
Division concludes that the length of the private driveway is less than 150 feet.
8. The applicant shall establish an emergency vehicle turn-around at the east end of the
private driveway on or adjoining the easement for that driveway. That turn-around
shall comply with requirements of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. It shall
be improved with at least a gravel surface. The turn-around may be removed if the
Planning Division finds the private driveway is less than 150 feet long after
construction of the public street between the site and 97th Avenue.
9. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements for the private street
extending north of Mountain View Lane:
a. Grant a minimum 25-foot wide easement for the private street;
b. Improve that easement with a minimum 20-foot paved section or guarantee its
improvement in a form approved by the City Attorney;
c. Submit plan and profile drawings and cross section details of the proposed
private street and associated storm drain system as part of the public improvement
plans;
d. Post the private street with signs prohibiting parking on both sides;
e. Post a sign noting the drive is private at the drive's intersection with Mountain
View Lane;
f. Place a note on tha final plat that the street is private; and
Page 15 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
g. Submit a covenant that applies to the northeast and middle lots to the Planning
Division for review and approval and file the approved covenant with the deeds to
those lots. The covenant shall require the owners of those lots to participate equally
in the maintenance of the private street.
10. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of an erosion control plan as part
of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control
Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook," November, 1989.
11. The applicant shall submit a survey identifying the type and size of all trees more
than 6 inches in diameter measured 4 feet above grade. The survey shall identify which
trees are to be preserved and which trees are to be removed for either construction of
public improvements and utilities and for construction of buildings on each 10L Thapplicant shall obtain a tree cutting permit before removing any trees from the property.
The applicant also shall include a note on the face of the final plat stating that owners of
lots in the subdivision shall obtain a tree cutting permit before removing any trees more
than 6 inches in diameter measured 4 feet above grade, and shall note that a tree survey
is available at the Planning Division to facilitate compliance with this requirement. The
Planning Division may require the applicant or future owners of lots to provide an
arborist to review the plans for grading and tree protection. The arborist or City may
prescribe protective measures for trees to be retained on the site. A copy of the tree
removal permit shall be available on-site during all tree removal and grading activities.
Contact Victor Adonri in the Planning Division.
12. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of construction of a water quality facility as
authorized by USA Resolution and Order No. 91-47 and its amendments. This fee is
paid in two installments. The first portion is paid before the City issues permits to
construct public and private streets. The second portion is paid before the City issues a
building permit on each lot. The applicant shall include a note on the final plat stating
that the owners of each lot shall pay the proportionate share of the second fee before a
building permit is issued for each lot.
13. The applicant shall submit a plan showing utilities for existing buildings. If the
utilities cross new property lines, then the applicant shall grant utility easements as
needed. Contact Brad Roast in the Building Division.
14. The applicant shall submit a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours
and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including the elevation at four corners
of the floor plan tied to the top of the curb elevations as shown on the public
improvement plans.
15. The applicant shall amend the preliminary plat to provide a minimum of 25 feet of
frontage on the private street for the middle lot. Contact Ron Pomeroy in the Planning
Division.
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 18 MONTH OF THE EFFECTIVE O
RECORDED DATE OF THIS DECISION.
AT this 20thi'd Octob r, 1992.
I/ A
Larry Epste' a gs Officer
Page 16 - Hearings officer decision
SUB 92-OOIOIVAR 92-0018 (Mountain View Estates)
0
p~
v r\
y0~~
TI
SE
E
w
a
w
Q
S. W.
S.W. I I IN
0
n
s
TWALITY
JUNIOR
HIGH
SCHOOL
0
TO