The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/09/1993 :. CITY OF TIGARD �'rfo ff r/t/ffi ` e ' qtr ! %, ? OREGON ^r ,:Gl' fl'%k1''�:rs.Y r'.'ear rf i` .,4i.,,,,,:,,,0o< I " ` ': AGENDA -�' ▪ w{ rovv, .. oz.s;. PUBLIC NOTICE Anyone wishing to speak on an ME ft-,,'Y , _ ,`'p- #... agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up -'4 `• �` ¢ ," sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be 'RTO. ' 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 estimated; 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) - Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS) Discussion on Membership and Continued Participation 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 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one :• ' motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: January 12, 19 and 26, 1993 - 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Resolution Establishing Council Groundrules Concerning Communications - Resolution No. 93-05 3.4 Award Contract for Professional Engineering and Surveying Services for Bull Mountain Road Improvements (Funded by Washington County MSTIP) 3.5 Approve Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of Right of Way for the 72nd Avenue/99W ` . Intersection Project - Resolution No. 93-(X, 3.6 Authorize the City Administrator to Enter into a Contract with OTAK, Inc., to assist staff with a Specific Area Plan for the Tigard Triangle COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 1 ;A., 4. ` PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0005 (ALL NPO'S):proposal to amend section 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development C) e to allow the storage of boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house traders,p ode II vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton ' •ty "'in a required recretfront i yard setback in a residential zone subject to the following: to be scored in a front 1) no parking in visual clearance area; 2) use for sleeping purposes limited to 14 days per calendar year; 3) such units shall be licensed and kept in mobile condition. • Open Public Hearing II = Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report • Public Testimony ': - Proponent (Favoring Amendment) •:; - Opponent (Opposing Amendment) • Council Questions/Comments - • Staff Recommendation • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 93-LX2 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0007 CITY OF TIGARD (NPO #3): A request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to the • Transportation Plan Map which relates to the future alignment of a collector street connecting SW Walnut Street and SW Gaarde Street. LOCATION: Northeast side of Bull Mountain (west of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, south of SW Walnut Street, and east of SW 132nd Avenue. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report • Public Testimony - Proponent (Favoring Amendment) - Opponent (Opposing Amendment) • - Rebuttal • Council Questions/Comments • Staff Recommendation • Close Public Hearing • • • Council Consideration: Council Motion Directing Staff to Prepare Appropriate Ordinance • and Findings 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. • • 8. ADJOURNMENT ccao .9a i COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 2 Council Agenda Item -1/J TIGARD CITY COUNCIL • MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 «: = • Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. . • 1. ROLL CALL .q Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy III Tessier, Wendi Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Michael Robinson, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS) City Administrator facilitated discussion on FOCUS membership commitment. The proposed FOCUS Work Plan has a basic package and three special projects. (See packet material for written information which was distributed to the City Council. ) After Council discussion, consensus was to support the basic package. Council will consider the three special projects funding i• on a case-by-case basis. Metropolitan Advisory Committee (MPAC) Councilor Fessler, MPAC representative, advised that MPAC will be discussing local government dues -- whether the dues should be • "advisory" or "mandatory. " - • After discussion, Council consensus was to pay dues after it was 1. known` known for what the dollars would be used and how the dues would be processed. f, ;:, ; Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) .;'• '. There was brief discussion on selectins of the Washington County representative to JPACT. Mayor Edwards will contact Mayor Drake in • Beaverton for an update of the most recent Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee (WCTCC) meeting with regard to JPACT representation. Downtown Improvement Allocation Downtown merchants and property owners will be meeting on February 18, 1993, 7 a.m. , at Cafe Allegro, to discuss the $50,000 earmarked this fiscal year in the City's budget for downtown improvements. Mayor Edwards noted that he had heard many positive comments about Councilor Fessler's involvement in getting this meeting put together. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 1 • t I . .. . .: . • . , Washington Square Expansion ' Community Development Director Ed Murphy reviewed with City Council •I . the plans for the Washington Square expansion. Nordstrom will be moving to where Frederick & Nelson was located; Maier and Frank —_ will be adding a story to their existing store; and the interior of __" the mall will be redecorated. Agenda Review Council briefly reviewed the Agenda for the business meeting. • There was a question with regard to Agenda Item 3.6 and the selection of OTAK to do the work on the Specific Area Plan for the Tigard Triangle. City Administrator noted previous problems with the Aspen Ridge Subdivision project and in which OTAK had been involved. The Administrator advised he met with OTAK • representatives to gain some assurances on the general quality of work which could be expected from OTAK. Staff recommended the City proceed with OTAK for the Triangle Specific Area Plan. Q, Councilor Fessler noted there had been concerns by Mr. Jerry Casch on plans for development in the Tigard Triangle area. Staff advised that public hearing process, both on the Planning • Commission and Council levels, would be held. BUSINESS MEETING • 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: No visitors. t. n 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by ' ':. Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: January 12, 19 and 26, 1993 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Resolution Establishing Council Groundrules Concerning Communications - Resolution No. 93- 05 3.4 Award Contract for Professional Engineering and Surveying `'` Services for Bull Mountain Road Improvements (Funded by Washington County MSTIP) 3.5 Approve Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of Right of Way for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project - 4"`; Resolution No. 93- 06 3.6 Authorize the City Administrator to Enter into a Contract with OTAK, Inc. , to assist staff with a Specific Area Plan for the Tigard Triangle Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Fessler and Schwartz voted "Yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 2 1111 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0005 (ALL ( NPO'S) : A proposal to amend section 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code to allow the storage of boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreational vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity to be stored in a required front-yard setback in a residential zone subject to the following: • 1) no parking in visual clearance area; 2) use for sleeping purposes limited to 14 days per calendar year; 3) such units shall be licensed and kept in mobile • condition. a. Public hearing was opened. • 4' b. Declarations or challenges: Mayor asked if any members of Council wished to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits. The Mayor and Council all advised they had received a call from Mr. Rick Perkins regarding this issue. All members of Council indicated they had familiarized themselves with the issue. There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to - ', ` the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter nor was there a challenge on the participation on any member of the Council. c. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the Staff Report. The issue before Council was primarily one of whether the City should amend the Code which restricts storage of �. recreational vehicles (rv's) in the required front yard. The required front yard is normally 20 feet. This is an issue of neighborhood aesthetics versus the convenience and desire of individual property owners. Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the history of the issue; backup •.y material is contained the packet information on file. Because of complaints on enforcement of the ry parking restrictions, the Council decided to review the issue once again. In November, 1992, the Council suggested that an ordinance be prepared for a public hearing that would revise the front-yard restrictions to allow parking in the front setback if it did not interfere with visual clearance; if rv's were not used for sleeping purposes over long periods of time; and that the rv's be licensed and in mobile condition. New ordinance language to this effect was prepared and submitted by staff as "Exhibit A. " CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 3 riminsill===zommetwanmillimmmm"""1"....1.."1.5gmmiPalm"1"1.1.41111"51"41"11=6wmiii77:- • III Staff recommended that, unless there were significant • ( concerns about aesthetics, the ordinance be repealed. d. Public Testimony: Mayor read the following prior to public testimony: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or • other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Proponents (favoring staff's recommendation) : • • Rick Perkins, 11740 S.W. 114th Place, Tigard, Oregon, noted his appreciation that this issue was being heard by Council. Mr. Perkins disagreed that the purpose of the current ordinance was for the safety and welfare of • Tigard citizens. He also advised of his concern with enforcement-by-complaint and the problems this causes within a neighborhood. Mr. Perkins said he believed that most residents in "r the City of Tigard agree with the staff's recommendation on this issue. (Note: Mr. Perkins submitted for Council review; this material is on file with the Council's packet information. ) Mr. Perkins referred to a survey he conducted of available storage space for rv's in the area. He noted that the private storage opportunities in the • area cannot meet the current demand for storage and, the situation would be even more difficult, if the current ordinance were to be uniformly enforced. He advised of his difference of opinion that ry parking, as proposed, would mean a decline in • property values. He concluded by advising of his agreement with the staff recommendation on this issue. k- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 4 .; • Beulah E. Martens, 11685 S.W. 114th Place, Tigard, ( Oregon testified she has lived in the Tigard area for at least 30 years. Most of the people on her street have had different types of rv's over the years. She noted the positive influences on , families and retirees who use rv's for camping, - .— beach trips, fishing trips, etc. • David Disney, 10910 S.W. 108th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, read a letter into the record (on file with the packet meeting material) . His remarks were in _ favor of the staff recommendation. He submitted information which supported that ry parking does not decrease the value of a home; he noted many homes offer ry parking as part of their listing for sale. Councilor Hawley questioned Mr. Disney whether he had only just recently heard the argument (in the last month) that ry parking would make property values go down. He commented the concerns in • Tigard with ry parking appear to be in the Summerfield and the 121st neighborhood areas. He said he thinks that ry parking is needed because • there is a lack of storage facilities. J. • Bob Larsell, 12040 S.W. North Dakota, Tigard, { Oregon, noted he was in full support of staff's recommendation. Due to the widening of S.W. 121st Street, he advised he lost his side yard and does not have the ability to store his camper in his back yard. He noted others are in the same situation. • Craig Hopkins, 7430 S.W. Varns, Tigard, Oregon, reported on a meeting he attend where Charles Turner, U.S. Attorney, and Ted Kulongowski, State of Oregon Attorney General, were the featured - speakers. In their talks, both men made similar observations in that it is their belief that the primary role of government should be to secure and maintain public safety. Laws, ordinances and codes should be developed to reflect this principle. Anytime they don't, their value to the support of the true livability of a community becomes -..Ta questionable. It is precisely this lack of anything to do with public safety which caused Mr. r,,x . Hopkins to regard the Tigard Development Code Section 18.96.060(a) , Storage in Front Yard, as -4 being a nuisance ordinance. The enforcement of this ordinance has historically been energized by malcontent citizens seeking some kind of covert - , ( CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 5 +t retribution against a neighbor. It puts the City's Code and law enforcement officers in the business of being "aesthetics police." A very real danger also exists in this ordinance in that the City - could find itself subversively drawn into the -; enforcement of various neighborhood CC&R's. Mr. Hopkins asked the City Council to either repeal Tigard Development Code 18.96.060(a) or change it with the proposed amendment. Councilor Schwartz asked Mr. Hopkins if he was v. speaking for himself or his NPO? Mr• Hopkins advised he was speaking for himself. • I.H. Dames, 7670 S.W. Taylors Ferry Road, Tigard, 'r Oregon, declined to testify. JoAnne P. Hall, 12175 S.W. Tippitt Place, Tigard, Oregon, advised she and her husband moved into Tigard in 1977. She supported Mr. Disney's comments in that the first thing her husband told the realtor was that he wanted a piece of land where he could park an rv. She said a lot of people feel this way. She noted concerns with the City dictating what people could do with their own property; this is an invasion on their rights and liberties. The major item which should be • considered is whether or not the ry is causing a ,Y hazard to traffic or is it harming someone else. • Lawrence Stover, 12155 S.W. Tippitt Place, Tigard, Oregon, reported he lived in the Tigard area for 16 years. He said he lives on a curved lot. It looks as if from the diagram in the staff report (Page 4) • the enforcement for visual clearance would be difficult. With regard to the aesthetics and visual appeal of property. He asked that if he chooses, as a private citizen, to place orange vehicles in his driveway, then who does that attack? This is a matter of individual preference. r He noted the economic hardship to pay a monthly fee to store an ry off-site. Opponents • Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon testified as chairman and on behalf of NPO 7. He advised that received 14 calls on this issue from CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 6 those who do not want this ordinance section repealed. In February 1992, this amendment was denied and he advised the NPO supported the denial. The NPO opposes a proposal which would allow any front-yard ry storage. The reason for the setbacks are to give visual departure and access to the properties. In his neighborhood, several subdivisions have been built to accommodate ry beyond the setback, in the rear and in enclosures. The NPO is "entirely opposed to repealing of the ordinance. " Mayor Edwards asked how many people attended the NPO meeting. Mr. Woolery responded that when this item was reviewed, there was a quorum at all meetings. About 30 neighborhood people attended the meeting in August '91. The last discussion on this issue occurred last week at the NPO meeting; all members were present and were against repealing the ordinance. In response to an offer from Mr. Woolery, Mayor Edwards said he would like to see the documentation and notes from this NPO meeting. Teri Wasco, 11591 S.W. 134th Place, Tigard, Oregon advised she represented the Brittany Square ,.. -s- , Development. She reported that during the last few days, she received numerous telephone calls from homeowners asking if she was planning on attending this meeting, as they did not want this ordinance repealed. She said that Brittany Square residents have been enjoying the benefits that this ordinance brings to "our City," including higher resale .f ,y values due to the fact that their neighborhoods "do not look like Ft. Stevens State Park." Their lots are zoned R-5 and they do not have the ability to , . r ;; , rv's on the 5-foot setbacks. Higher resale values bring higher appraised values and this enables to City of Tigard to collect more revenue. She cited problems in areas where parking of rv's t`;_ and vehicles are such that they do not fit entirely 1., in the driveway causing problems to a neighbor. In ' addition, she noted her objection to storage of rv's in front yards covered with a tarp. By repealing this ordinance, she advised the City would not only lose revenue, but would instigate a whole new set of problems. She said the City CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 7 f ' •i • streets would be cluttered with automobiles unable ( to park in their driveways because would they have ' their rv's parked in that space. In order for them to park, they will have to place their automobile over the sidewalk, which is illegal. This will force pedestrians to walk out into the street; she advised of her concerns for safety of children. More accidents will occur when an individual is trying to back out of their driveway and is unable _)---,-- to see because a next-door neighbor has parked their car in the street, too close to the driveway. The additional vehicles parked on the street will limit traffic flow and visibility for drivers. Ms. Wasco said she sympathized with long-time homeowners who do not understand why this should affect them since the Code did not contain ry parking restrictions when they purchased their home. However, she advised, things change, cities progress, and most cities across the nation are requiring homeowners to find alternate parking for their rvs. Ms. Wasco summarized by saying, "Why the City of Tigard continues to vacillate with this problem for the last two years makes no sense. Given the response that you received a year ago, February, 11, it was apparent that the majority of homeowners were not in favor of this repeal. Why are we "= bringing this up again? Tigard will be taking a ''' • step back in the progress in the neighborhood planning and livability if this repeal is approved. Please remember this is not real 'Tigard' any longer; this is Tigard, Oregon, a member of one of the most progressive counties and metropolitan ' areas in the nation. Let's keep it that way. " Councilor Fessler asked if the Brittany Square subdivision had CC&R's. Ms. Wasco advised that they had CC&R's, but did not have a homeowner's association. Enforcement of ry parking has been • done by the neighborhood through City Code. =� • Tara Trune, 11075 S.W. Cottonwood Lane, Tigard, Oregon, advised that her neighborhood has CC&R's addressing this issue, but they are not enforced because they do not have a neighborhood association. She said people do not need to park their rv's in their front yard. The lots in her area are small, 5-8,000 square feet; the front yards are minimal with no place to park rvs. When CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 8 1 _ - , _ _ t.„ 1 r . .. . . , . . her neighbor puts a camper on his truck, it "sticks clear out to the sidewalk, and you can't see." Another reason Ms. Trune objected to changing the ;•. ordinance was for aesthetics. She said she believes that allowing ry parking would bring down property values and it is an imposition for her to fin have to "look at" an ry all year round. If someone can afford to have an rv, then she thinks they `` `_ ` could afford to park it somewhere else to keep the peace and aesthetic value of the neighborhood. • She questioned to what length the right of doing what one wished with their property, and questioned whether this should mean that she could have "pigs" staked in her front yard. The majority of people, in her opinion, do not have rvs. • Three letters opposing changes to the current ordinance were received and submitted to the City :uz Council for their review. These letters are on file in the Council packet and are as follows: 1. Letter dated February 5, 1993, from Gerald W. r Swank, 13805 S.W. 118th Court, Tigard, OR 97223. 2. Letter dated February 5, 1993, from John F. Sedey, 11650 S.W. Hazelwood Loop, Tigard, OR . 97223-3309 3. Letter dated February 6, 1993, from Pat • ; ,; Brownell, 10950 S.W. 115th, Tigard, OR 97223. ft_ e• Council Questions/Comments • Councilor Hunt commented that he lives in Summerfield; they have a homeowners' association. He joined the association because of the restrictions in place. He said he felt that he could not tell someone that they, too, could not have those same restrictions. , He advised of a situation where someone r ...:: purchased a Greyhound bus and they were remodeling it into a travel home. He said, he ____ would not want this parked in a driveway next to him which could be possible if the proposed amendments were approved. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 9 • _, 4 . . _ . I . . , , , . ..... Another issue of concern to Councilor Hunt was (' the allowance of the use of an ry for sleeping 1 purposes on residential property for up to 14 ! '_ days per year. He questioned the ability to I enforce this part of the ordinance. Councilor Hunt advised he would vote against the proposed changes to the ordinance. • Councilor Fessier asked for clarification on the visual and safety clearance provisions in the proposal. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the i diagrams which depicted the clear vision area ' parameters which would continue to be enforced. Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the safety standards; ; ;:: ' tongues from an ry would not be allowed to hang over a sidewalk and ry storage would not be allowed on the public right-of-way. • Councilor Hawley questioned staff about T-' Portland's ry regulations. Senior Planner ,. Bewersdorff confirmed that Portland does regulate the parking of rvs; their ordinance is more restrictive than Tigard's current ordinance. Councilor Hawley advised she was a member of NPO 5 when this issue first came up. She was -, a member of the Planning Commission when this issue was considered at a public hearing; however, she said she was not at this hearing nor did she attend the subsequent City Council e-, hearing when this issue was considered last • time. She said she believed that the ordinance, as it stands today, sets neighbor against neighbor. It allows the concept of anonymity to frustrate the Constitutional right to face your accuser. It is not evenly enforced ar,)und the City. As a result of this ordinance, a whole neighborhood suffers because trees have had to be removed, rv's put into storage; all because one person was angry at another. She said the City should not be involved in these situations. CCITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 10 • Councilor Hawley explained that as City ( Councilors, they must realize when there are conflicts of values between different groups of people within the City, it is up to the Council to make the decision on the issue. Tigard is a growing City; it has different groups of people with different thoughts on this issue. As a City Councilor she noted she must try to balance the concepts of private property rights and what kind of rights can be imposed on other people to satisfy other people's opinions. From her point of view, Councilor Hawley advised she thought this was a private property issue. If one lives in a development that has CC&R's, then it is the ' . individual's responsibility to enforce those. She advised she is in favor of repealing the ordinance because it sets the City up for too much conflict. She clarified that she is not against the safety regulations that the • proposed amendments appear to uphold. The safety standards will not repealed. To those who were concerned about children and traffic visual clearance, she noted that the safety requirements were still in place. The City ( can respond to complaints for obstacles relating to visual/safety clearance. Councilor Hawley advised she was in favor of repealing the whole ordinance. She said she was willing to compromise by accepting the ordinance as it has been drafted. ;;;., • Councilor Schwartz asked if this issue had been submitted to the NPO's for discussion; he noted only one NPO representative testified at this hearing. Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that since the NPO's reviewed this issue previously, they were not asked for comments this time. . • In response to Councilor Schwartz, Mr. r. Bewersdorff advised that the City's NPOs' position on the issue was mixed. Councilor , Hawley confirmed that the NPO's had differing viewpoints; she said there was a definite pattern to the positions taken by an NPO depending on the kind of development being represented by the NPO. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 11 . . "M... ..•••• _ ------"r"--- --"."."----.----..""IMillil `:; ; Councilor Schwartz advised of his support for 1i. individual property owners' rights. He said he also understood people not wanting to live in area where there is a "Greyhound bus" parked in a neighbor's yard. • With regard to being able to use the ry for -_____ sleeping purposes for up to 14 calendar days per year; he noted his agreement with Councilor Hunt on problems of enforceability. He said, however, he would not want to see .. • < where there were no limitations on this use because of possible abuses. • • Councilor Fessler noted the previous Council review on this issue; at that time, it was ;..,. brought to the City's attention that there is an inconsistency of impact to neighborhoods :‘ `. , because of varying lot sizes. If this is a concern in neighborhoods, there may be provisions to reactivate the CC&R's within their own area. i. She noted visual clearance has been an issue :' that is addressed. She also noted her support >.-'k for the provisions that the ry be licensed and maintained in a moveable condition. Councilor Fessler noted her support for the ' staff's recommendation. • • Mayor Edwards noted the sensitivity of this issue and the differing points of view. He agreed with Councilor Hawley's comments on private property issues. This issue keeps coming back to the Council because of the type of ordinance that it is and the manner in which it is enforced. If the ordinance remains as currently worded, the City will continue to be used in the "business of arbitrating what two citizens in a neighborhood don't like about each other. . . " This does not mean that people will be allowed • to have pigs in their yards; he said there are other ordinances which cover such nuisances • which remain enforceable. He said he supports the staff recommendation to amend the ordinance with the conditions as outlined. The amendment appears to be more reflective of the current conditions within the City and the realities of growth. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 12 A • 1 noted his goal was to make a decision to protect ever ones Y point of view as much as possible. v . Mayor Edwards summarized his review of the issue. He advised that more people persuade him that the City should repeal the ordinance versus leaving it alone. He said he was not persuaded by the NPO comments and noted his concerns as to whether NPOs consistently give the City a "broad view of what is going on. " Mayor Edwards concluded his remarks saying .J:;:. that he was prepared to go along with the staff's recommendation. He noted, he too, was concerned about the 14-day sleeping provisions and the enforcement by complaint. • Councilor Schwartz said that if there was a way to protect people who have lived here for many years, he would be in favor of keeping the ordinance as it is. The new people coming • in would face a "buyer beware" situation and if they had an rv, then they would have to buy property which would accommodate its storage. Councilor Schwartz said he would reluctantly . support the staff recommendation. He disagreed with the concern that pigs could be :` ;: :: kept in one's yard. He noted, at some point, decisions must be made for the good of the community which limit some areas of property owner's rights. • f. Staff Comment and Recommendation: • Community Development Director reviewed the provisions of the staff proposal. • Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted the staff .. -' recommendation is to repeal the Code on this issue because there are existing provisions which deal with clear vision requirements for safety. Exhibit A clarifies the visual clearance requirements. • g. Public hearing was closed. h. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to repeal Section 18.96.060 A. and adopt the options outlined on "Exhibit A" in the proposed ordinance amendment. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9 1993 - PAGE 13 . : ' : . - i. ORDINANCE NO. 93-06 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE " . SECTION 18.96.060 A. REGARDING THE FRONT YARD `, ''` STORAGE OF RECREATION VEHICLES, CAMPERS, TRAILERS 4 ' AND BOATS TO PROVIDE FOR THE FRONT YARD STORAGE OF • SUCH UNITS WHILE RESTRICTING STORAGE IN VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS, USE FOR SLEEPING PURPOSES AND REQUIRING SUCH UNITS TO BE LICENSED AND IN MOBILE CONDITION. 111 j . Roll call vote on the Ordinance was as follows: Councilor Fessler - Aye Councilor Hawley - Aye Councilor Hunt - No Councilor Schwartz - Aye Mayor Edwards - Aye Y k. Mayor Edwards declared that Ordinance No. 93-06 passed by a majority vote of Council; 4-1. • Council meeting recessed: 8:36 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 8:49 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0007 CITY OF TIGARD (NPO #3) : A request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to the Transportation Plan Map which relates to the future alignment of a collector street connecting SW Walnut Street and SW Gaarde Street. LOCATION: Northeast side of Bull Mountain (west of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, south of SW Walnut Street, and east of SW 132nd Avenue. a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges: Mayor asked if any members of Council wished to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits. • Councilor Hunt advised that he visitedthe subject area with the City Engineer. * See note below. c. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report and referred to maps depicting the options known as the Report Option (developed and recommended by staff) , and ; two separate options from NPO Nos. 3 and 7. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 14 *Correction noted at 3/16/93 Council meeting: - Councilor Fessler advised she had visited C_ , •,,rc.l-Ic , the site. • City Engineer Wooley reviewed the different traffic ` ,. counts and impacts projected in other areas through displacement in each of the options. He also identified the status of the streets (i.e, minor collector, major collector, etc. ) and how the area's subdivisions would be affected. Mr. Tooley reviewed the process of the selection of the route of the extension which had occurred over the last several years. The proposal before Council is not a construction plan; but the road would be built as development occurs. He also outlined the funding sources which would come from a combination of requirements from developers as they build subdivision and from Transportation Improvement Funds (TIF) , and allocation of City-wide funds. City Engineer reviewed the staff's recommendation and outlined the justification for the selection of this route. City Engineer advised that if the Council selected one of the three options at the conclusion of the hearing, then they should direct staff to prepare the necessary findings and ordinance for adoption. t` In response to an inquiry from Councilor Fessler, City Engineer clarified that the Planning Commission, by a majority vote, supported the NPO 7 recommendation. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, City Engineer responded that two homes would be affected by the Report Option. The NPO 7 option would mean that several driveways would have to be rebuilt or garages would have to be removed from existing homes; in addition, homes on S.W. 132nd Avenue would be affected. No design work has been done to determine if any of these _ homes would be impacted enough so that they would need to be purchased. There was some discussion on possible impacts to homes with the implementation of the three proposed options. V '. d. Public testimony: • Mr. Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, explained the option suggested by NPO 7. He said he was not present at the joint NPO 3 and 7 meeting; but noted he received materials and has studied this item. (See Exhibit B of the Council packet material for this agenda item) . He also advised that the route the NPO selected was across the lowest possible topography and was routed across a proposed development site and would create CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 15 . : ' ' . . a four-way intersection. Mr. Woolery advised he presented the NPO 7 position to the Planning Commission which is further clarified in "Exhibit D" contained the Council packet material for this agenda item. There was a ill 100% concurrence of the NPO that this was the best option. III He advised that this option was estimated to be ; w less expensive than the Report Option which would require purchase of established homes. II Councilor Hawley discussed with Mr. Woolery his January 7 letter which is on file with the Council packet material. Specifically discussed was the NPO assertion that their option would mitigate neighborhood segmentation. Mr. Woolery explained this was in regard to the Walnut area. It was clarified during discussion that the Report Option would affect two properties. - Councilor Schwartz noted the impact to property '' owners along S.W. 132nd Avenue with the NPO option. Mr. Woolery responded there was not participation by property owners along 132nd Avenue during this • `'.= most recent round of discussion. .. Councilor Schwartz asked the City Engineer, that if the Gaarde Extension came out on Walnut, then S.W. 132nd could be developed to a local standard. City Engineer advised that, yes, this was the staff's proposal. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Woolery responded that the NPO option offered better sight-distance at the intersection than the other proposals. Mayor Edwards asked if anyone at the NPO meeting discussed the consistency of the NPO Option versus the Report Option with regard to the Washington County Transportation Plan. Mr. Woolery advised they talked about the UPAA; if the UPAA has been modified, there were was no discussion on this. If • : the original Murray Road Extension was to be an '. indirect system of streets to connect, the NPO 7 Option considered the requirements of collector streets in an indirect fashion. The Report Option from Walnut at approximately S.W. 130th, would be a more direct connection from Walnut to Pacific Highway. A ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 16 _ _ 4 III i • In response to Mayor Edwards, Mr. Woolery advised he read, after the NPO mieting, the November 10, 1992 letter from Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation favoring the staff recommendation to support the Report option. • One letter was received by Council as written testimony. Said letter is dated February 6, 1993, from Pat Brownell, 10950 S.W. 115th Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223. (Letter is on file with the Council packet material. ) Opponents • Rosemary Shrauger, 13030 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon advised that, if the Report Option were • approved by Council, she would lose her home (where she has resided for the last 31 years) and dog kennel. She said she felt it was morally wrong to take out established homes because of the impact i'.'": caused by new homes. Mrs. Shrauger noted that vacant land near her home had been available up until about a year ago which she felt could have been purchased for this road extension. This land has since been sold and 4-. . 1 construction is now occurring. She said she, as a long-time taxpayer in the area, should be protected. Money cannot replace the memories or ideal location, friends and neighbors she will lose in this process. Mrs. Shrauger also noted the concerns she has with waiting for an unspecified amount of years to go forward with the acquisition of her land in order to proceed with the actual construction of the road project. Mrs. Shrauger advised that, in an effort to face what may be inevitable, she would be willing to keep an open mind provided she is assured that she would be compensated sufficiently to fully cover relocation in a home on property of "our choice that meets our requirements." She said she did not • wish to move and would prefer that the City choose another option for the road which would not take anyone's home. - - In response to a question from Councilor Fessler with regard to timing of road construction which would affect Mrs. Shrauger, City Engineer responded that until the "center" area of the proposed route CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 17 �1 j• ., was developed, Mrs. Shrauger's piece would be the ( last to be affected. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, City Engineer identified areas which are currently in or out of the City along the proposed extension route. Even though parts of the route are not 111 within the City, all of the property is within the City's planning area. Under agreement with the County, the City has the lead role in planning which is why the City can make these decisions <. = rather than the County. Development would occur after annexation, because the properties would need ' `N to use the City sewers in order to develop. • Harold Shrauger, 13080 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, ,. f . Oregon declined to testify noting his agreement with the preceding testimony. • Jill Link, 13050 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 97223 , advised she was the other home which would be affected by the Report Option. (Her home is the flag lot entering from the Shrauger property. ) She said there was a time, three or four years ago, when the staff option made a lot of sense because the property to the north of Walnut was not developed. There was going to be a an extension from Murray Boulevard, crossing 135th Avenue and into her property; this would have been a direct route. Now, the Report Option call for a right angle turn with no free flow of traffic from the °y Murray Extension. Additional homes on S.W. 135th will be impacted. Walnut Street, she advised, will be the Murray Extension on through to Gaarde , , Street. Ms. Link said all of the new homes just developed on the north side of Walnut have their yards very close to Walnut Street. She did not support NPO 7 option because of the impact to neighbors on S.W. 132nd Avenue. She said she supported the NPO 3 option, because it would cut the non-local traffic. She acknowledged there may be problems with the UPAA. She noted that Washington County was - supporting the non-local traffic which she did not think the City of Tigard wants and which she knows her neighborhood does not want. The NPO 3 option would not make S.W. 132nd Avenue a major collector. (. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 18 - - - - • _ - �_ Ms. Link reviewed Attachment No. 4 (Traffic ( Comparisons) in the Staff Report. She noted her concerns with the Report Option and the traffic counts as opposed to the NPO 3 proposal. She noted her support for local traffic and not for the promotion of business and non-local traffic. She noted her concerns for the neighbors on S.W. 132nd Avenue with regard to traffic should the Report Option be selected. Ms. Link asked the City Engineer a question with regard to finances. She noted the NPO 3 option was reported to cost $150 - 200,000 more because of the improvements and the grading. Does this estimate take into consideration the money the City would not have to spend in the purchase of Mrs. Shrauger's and her property? City Engineer advised that this was correct, the estimate was a comparison between the alternatives and represents what the additional cost would be. Ms. Link said she was aware that this was a • difficult decision for Council but asked that a decision be made soon. She said it this was an "unbearable cloud over our heads not to know. . . . " She noted they have made $25,000 of improvements to their home and have connected to the sewer. She t noted it would be hard to find an acre or more of property in the Beaverton or Tigard School Districts. She asked that if the Report Option is selected that the City take a look at the budget year within the next one or two years to acquire her property while the interest rates are low and to enable them to get on with their lives. Councilor Hawley referred to the traffic comparison map (Attachment No. 4) and asked whether Ms. Link noticed that it would be a 750% increase in traffic volume on S.W. 132nd Avenue if the NPO option were selected. Ms. Link said she had noticed, but did not agree with this figure because the estimate was based on an incorrect assumption. It was assumed that the same flow will attempt to occur through the roads designated as minor collectors and at 25 . mph. She did not think that non-local traffic would be looking at this route as an option. Councilor Hawley asked the City Engineer about the timing of purchase of the affected property if the Report Option were selected. City Engineer responded that projected completion date of the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 19 �• �: extension was difficult to determine because the ( City did not know when development in this area will occur. The owners of some of the property areIII currently not interested in developing. Councilor Hunt asked that if Council were to approve the Report Option, would there be any means to purchase their property now, so they would know where they stand. The City Engineer advised that111 the City could choose to acquire the property for the future road and this has been done by the City in the past in similar circumstances. • Joe Callan, 10935 S.W. Garden Park Place, Tigard, J :. Oregon asked the City Engineer how wide is a major ' collector road? City Engineer responded that :.: typically a major collector is a 44-foot street , ` between the curbs; it has 60 feet of right-of-way. Durham Road is 44-feet wide, curb to curb, in addition to the sidewalks Mr. Callan said he was concerned with whether that ;' neighborhood needed that wide of a street. He noted the impact to the properties on 132nd Street and Gaarde Street should the road be widened. City Engineer noted that Gaarde Street is designated as { a major collector on the current map; this proposal would not change this designation. Mr. Callan said the designation should be for a minor collector road. Councilor Schwartz noted the difficulty in considering new streets or enlarging streets. He said, knowing that the City is attempting to plan for roads which will accommodate traffic 20 years into the future, what would be the result if proper design oi• improvements were not planned? Councilor Hawley responded that she lives in an area where a street design for the future had not been planned. When she moved onto 79th Avenue 10 years ago, there was very light traffic. Another 180 homes now access 79th Avenue. She noted problems with exiting onto Durham Road in mornings '= and evenings. In addition there are "humps and valleys" in the street which makes it unsafe, especially when people do not obey the traffic - speed. 79th Street is designated as a minor collector but is really only built to a local street standard now. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 20 o • • Mr. M. Finley, 11260 S.W. Gaarde Street, Tigard, � .., ( Oregon declined to testify. • - Nancy Young, 8985 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard, Oregon, asked the City Engineer as to what the impact to McDonald Street would be if Gaarde Street became a major collector street. City Engineer iii reiterated that the existing part of Gaarde Street IIIwas already a major collector. Referring to the traffic-comparison map, he said future traffic impact on McDonald Street would be similar under each of the three options. McDonald Street is designated as a major collector advised the City Engineer in response to Ms. Young. In the long-term it would presumably be widened, similarly as was Durham Road. If McDonald was widened, City Engineer advised there would be severe impacts on existing homes. • William S. Hegge, 9965 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified he was representing himself as a local resident and noted, by profession, he is a civil engineer. He said he has been following, with considerable attention, he Western Bypass traffic network development in • Tigard. He said he was in favor of the NPO 3 - option primarily because he thinks it best serves the interest of Tigard to create as indirect a network as possible. If a major street were built, _ then the City would be attempting to accommodate through traffic. The less direct the connections are, the less likely the route would accommodate through traffic. Thus, the area would be served "feeding out in both directions without having to s' . deal with the through-traffic which is not { originating in Tigard. " ; !, : If the street should become overloaded, the through traffic will infiltrate into the neighborhoods. If ' a connector is needed in the area, then "we should • be thinking in terms of arterials, rather than major collectors and bite the bullet. . .look at the alignment, look at what you're going to have to take out, look at what kind of zoning changes you're going to have to make to accommodate an arterial rather than build it as a major collector, especially in light of the fact that with the Western Bypass, if it does not go through, there's going to be some major changes made in the entire pattern. " f +�. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 21 • r . . • • Mr. Hegge referred to the maps and outlined some of his concerns with traffic flow and impacts to the • area and whether or not the Report Option would be adequate for the future. t • • Herman Porter, 11875 S.W. Gaarde Street, Tigard, Oregon, advised he represented NPO 3. NPO 3 and 7 had a joint meeting in December at which there was • . a large turnout (about 30 people) . Two alternatives were discussed (Repurt Option and the NPO 3 option) ; the NPO 7 option had not been 4.r presented at that time. At this meeting, the NPO 7 • members all supported the NPO 3 option. All NPO 3 members, with one abstention, supported the NPO 3 option. There were 20 votes among the neighbors; 3 supported the Report Option. • Mr. Porter advised there was a long history of persons wanting to connect Murray through to Gaarde at Pacific Highway. This proposal has been on Washington County's Plan, Metro's plan, and is .. .. : reflected in several of the options for the Western Bypass study. The City of Tigard has always opposed this connection; but because of pressure he noted the UPAA came into being. The UPAA said "we'll build a major collector not exactly to Murray, but pretty close; and that was the basis *. for agreement. " • Mr. Porter advised the UPAA was a contradictory • agreement because if a major collector is built, you would have a road which would appear to be a minor arterial and will function as an arterial. There will be a large number of people who will choose this route as the quickest, easiest connection from Tualatin, Sherwood and the whole area to Beaverton, Scholls, etc. This will become the Westside alternative to Highway 217 even though • "we don't intend it and even though it's only built with three lanes." This will be the preferred route until there is an arterial built farther west on Beef Bend Road over to Sherwood. At the last NPO 3 meeting, Mr. Porter noted a motion was passed requesting that "if you choose either the NPO 7 or the Report Option that you do not complete that road, that extension of Gaarde to Walnut, until the arterial plan for the west of • Bull Mountain has been completed, so that there is • • an alternative. . .to serve as an arterial besides Gaarde Street. " CCITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 22 Mr. Porter advised that the NPO 3 plan serves the community best. It represented an excellent traffic plan for the actual area to be developed. • The NPO 3 option would not encourage through , , , :._...._ traffic. Mr. Porter outlined the NPO's proposal which would cut costs. With regard to S.W. 132nd Street, Mr. Porter noted that the projection for full development was 4,000 III cars per day on this Street if the NPO 3 plan was adopted. He said that 4,000 cars per day can be -- handled readily by the road as it is now. Gaarde, which is essentially the same type of road, handles • 9,000 cars a day. "We have standards for collectors, and they are very sensible standards where we have new development. But, they are not at all sensible where we have already existing development. Very often, you will have development . in a hilly area, where you have a variance on size • on the width of a local street because it does not. . .fit the terrain very well. Think of development where there is already houses on both sides." He noted his concerns to the impact to the homes on both sides of the street. it is more sensible to keep the road narrow given ' the circumstances. Mr. Porter encouraged the Council to adopt NPO 3's plan not to widen S.W. • 132nd Street, but allow those houses as they are and to provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths which are needed now. The NPO would like to see displaced traffic go down Scholls Ferry to 217 and then to the Beef Bend Arterial which is to be developed. • Bruce Anderson, 11205 S.W. Gaarde Street, Tigard, Oregon advised that he felt that Gaarde Street was too busy currently. He said that if this road is aligned to the Murray Extension, then the traffic • would increase greatly on Gaarde Street and improvement to Gaarde will be required. The NPO 3 option would allow access to the area to be - ,4, developed quite adequately. Otherwise, he thought the street should be called an arterial and built as such. • He noted his concerns with the Murray Extension ' which is aligned with a curved entrance to S.W. 135th Avenue. He supported the NPO 3 option to keep the traffic local. If a more direct route is chosen, then Mr. Anderson requested that the road ( CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 23 . N ! _ •::::.. not be completed until the Western Bypass is built to assure through traffic from Beaverton to 217 did not occur. Councilor Fessler asked Mr. Anderson if he was aware of the UPAA established between Beaverton and _ Tigard with regard to the Murray Extension. He responded with his understanding of what the agreement contained. Councilor Fessler explained that the UPAA is part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Tigard also has an agreement with Beaverton and Washington County, which states I. there :;ill be no connection between Murray Boulevard to S.W. 135th until the Western Bypass or a southwest corridor (over Beef Bend Road) is provided. • e• Council comments: • Councilor Schwartz, noted the difficulty of the issue and the number of times related issues have been reviewed in the past few years by Council. '`. , Councilor Schwartz noted similar concerns by neighbors when Durham Road was improved. He commented that, despite the concerns, the final outcome was positive and the increased traffic ( impacts had not been felt as much as had been anticipated. He noted that the Gaarde Street extension has been identified on the transportation plan region for many years. He cited the need foroo plan for future traffic and to expect traffic from adjoining jurisdictions. Councilor Schwartz advised he supported the Report Option. • Councilor Hawley agreed with several of the points made by Councilor Schwartz. She noted her concerns with the impact to the existing homes under each of the three options. She responsibilityto advised of the plan ahead for traffic impacts. In reviewing the three options, she said she favored the Report Option because it appeared to disrupt fewer property owners. She noted the UPAA agreement and that a lot of people are "counting on us to be responsible and provide efficient and safe. . .traffic movement. . . . " She noted she liked the circuitous routes proposed by both the NPO 3 and 7 options. ,i • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 24 i, _ • Councilor Hawley acknowledged the plea for a decision to provide certainty on this issue for people who want to plan their future and to know how or if their property will be affected. • In response to a question from Councilor Fessler, City Engineer advised that the County noted that any of the three alternatives could be designed to MO III meet their standards and comply with the UPAA. III ill However, the County favored the Report Option. • Councilor Fessler reviewed the NPO options and how ill she thought they could possibly work. She, also noted, however, that she would not want to jeopardize the fulfillment of the agreements made d'.•. ` in the UPAA. She said that because the Report Option appeared to affect the least amount of - property owners, she was leaning toward supporting that option. If compromises could be made on the 132nd Street proposal, she advised she would possibly would consider the NPO 7 option. • Councilor Hunt noted his empathy for the people who , �:: live on Gaarde Street and advised his property abuts Durham Road. He noted that there was impact to his area when the road was widened; however, he advised, it was the right thing to do. He outlined ( his reasons for the need to plan for increasing traffic and summarized what he saw as the needs in the future for S.W. 132nd Avenue. He said he noticed sight-distance problems in the area. Councilor Hunt advised he believed there was enough information presented and the Council should make a decision on the issue tonight. • Mayor Edwards advised he supported the Report - Option. He noted his concern for the two property owners who will be displaced with this option. The Mayor advised that his support for the Report Option was based on the fact that it appeared to comply with the UPAA and long-range planning. He advised of his concerns that 132nd Street would be suitable as a collector street. Mayor Edwards advised that he was not prepared to promise immediate purchase of the two affected parcels; however, he said he would not rule out consideration of a property purchase. f. Staff Recommendation: City Engineer Wooley advised that the staff recommended adoption of the Report Option. ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 25 /I g. Public hearing was closed. h. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, .: .Th_,...- to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance in support of the Report Option alignment. VII i. The Mayor asked for questions. Councilor Hawley asked if . III the motioner cared to put anything in his motion to consider the options of property purchase. After discussion, it was determined that options for property purchase would be contained in the findings which would accompany the proposed ordinance. Mayor Edwards advised that, at the time the ordinance is presented to Council, there would be an opportunity to address side issues, `' ;~ such as property purchase. Also, there would be an opportunity for Council to refine/amend the findings. Councilor Hunt noted his support for giving some assurances to the property owners about when they could expect their property to be purchased. Councilor Fessler noted her agreement with Councilor Hunt's comment. j . Mayor Edwards called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards; Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Fessler and Schwartz voted in favor of the motion. ) k. Mayor Edwards advised that the record should reflect that a tentative decision had been reached, the ordinance and .� findings would be presented to Council for their consideration on March 23, 1993. y 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 10:38 p.m. t St:/:: 2 Catherine Wheatley, City R order : or, y of Tigard Date: .3//(40 / f3 ccm0209.93 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1993 - PAGE 26 n ( l g COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice Tr 7445 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 k t The following meeting highlights aro published for your information.Full LreflalJtotiee Advertising agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder 13125 SM.', Halt 7 0 Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223,or by calling 6394171: • • f£�2� • 0 Tearsheet Notice City of Tigard �� 3 CITY COUNur.nim;t ioo b)�� N - PO Box 23397 Co p �pl1�ARY 9 1993 • Tigard, Or 97223 ' r IIGARD • 0 Duplicate Affidav TIGARD CITY HALL–TOWN HALL T 1212.5 S.W.HALL BOULEVARD.TIGARD.ORB��3O Study Meeting(Town Hall Conference Room)(6:30 P.M.) • Forum on Cooperative Urban Services(FOCUS)Discussion on Membership and Continued Pari :. .. . - AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Business Meeting(Town Hall)(7:30 P.M.) STATE OF OREGON, ) Public Hearings:. • COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' I, Jndi HI Koehler • Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0005(All NPOs): Residential Zone Recreational Vehicle(RV)Storage. being first duly sworn,depose and say that I apt the Advertising Director,or his principal clerk,of the ligara Times '• Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 92-0007(NPO 3): a newspaper of general circulatioonn ea defined in ORS 193.010 Transportation Plan Map amendment relating to the future align- and 193.020;published at 1 in the meat of a collector street connecting S.W.•Walnut Street and aforesaid county and state;that the S.W.Gaarde Street. . City rill tnri1 Atiginess Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed,was published In the Local Contract Review Board Meeting . entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and Executive Session:'Die Tigard City Council may o into Executive Ses- sion under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d),(c),&(h)to discuss consecutive In the following issues: labor relations,real property transactions,current and pending litigation •' • issues. February 4, 1993 T1'7445–Publish February 4,1993. C(Pr li (�61/CC Subscribed and sworn o before me this 4th day of February 1993 7. Notary •ublic for Oregon My Commission xpires: —9—f ,;: AFFIDAVIT_ - s .. • • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal f P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-036° Notice r' BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Tr 7443 '" "" R FICe�g V1 QtFice Advertitting "°° PUBLIC F1EA1$d� City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice The followingby Tigard City Ccxrncil on g FB - 2 1993 2.1993,at 7:30 p be considered Civic ante,7bwa kialiRoom;13125 P.O. Box 23397 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit S.W.Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon.Further information may be ob- tained from the Community Development Director or City Recorder at the • • same location or by calling 639-4171.You are invited to submit written 'i —. testimony.in advance of thepublichearing;written and oral testimony will be considered at the heanng The public hewing will be conducted hi accordance with the applicable Chapter.18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City ' AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, )ss ZANING ORDINAN �ivfF�vn� . ,yp��: ) 1 z ,. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) A proposal to amend section 18 96.060(A)of the City of Tigard ALL Com_ 1 munity Development Code to allow the storage of boats,trailers,cam • I. Ti vli t h Knahl Pr camper bodies,house trailers,recreational vehicles,or commercial' ' Director,or being first duly sworn,depose and sayitlJ,ga3ru unesdve tieing vehicles in excess of Sia ton capacity to be stored in a required front yard a newspaper of general ccergtllfthe ta as defined in ORS 193.010 rete in a residential zone subject to the following: *. and 193.020;published at in the 1) no parking in visual clearance area; i aforesaid county and state;that the 2) use for trs be licensed litnitrd to 14 dos P„h1 i r HPari n lone Ord. 92-0005 3) such unitscep g } 1 calendar year, Ff shall and kept in mobile condition; • a printed copy of which is hereto annexed,was published in the SLMPREI-IEIS,M PLAN AMEIMZ/11 01.2 entire issue of said newspaper for one successive and CITY pFTIGARD consecutive in the following issues: A request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to the•hlanspes-• tation Plan Map which relates to the iuture alignment of a collector street Tarn,a Y 7R 1993 com•ccti:g S.W.Walnut Street and S.W.Gaarde Street. APPLICABLE r REVIEW CRITERIA:Statewide Planning Goals I,2,5,and 12;Com • prehensive Plan Policies 1.1.la,1.1.2,8.1.1,8.1.2,11.3.1,and 11.3.2; / Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 1830.LOCATION: `' /Q /,,� Northeast side of Bull Mountain(west of S.W.121st Avenue and S.W. ( ea. Gaarde Street,south of S.W.Walnut Street,and east of S.W.132nd Oig‘i(( Avenue. • Subscribed and swo4 to before me this, day of January 1993 443-Publish Jan / uary 28,1993. y a Notary Public for Oregon My Commissi• xpires: /-9"....-- :„...... • • AFFIDAVIT - . • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 -;VISITOR'S AGENDA.'_ g DA!t: ri=eoruar✓ a — (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:o the start of t5 ; meeting. Thank you. ^^ STAFF - NAME & AuurttSS TOPIC CONTACTED • e4 ' J r\login\jo\visitors.sht • h. w -. k,. it the amount limit AI Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may peli rson ir ,- °,., time each has'to speak. We ask you to iIi int your oral comments to 3-5 minutes. Council Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by supplement oral testimony. i AGENDAITEMNO. 4 DATE:' February 9, 1993`y I PUBLIC HEARING -ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0005 (ALL NPO'S): A proposal e to amend section 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development oc es or e to allow t al storage of boats,trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreations ve , vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity to be stored in a required front yard setback in a residential zone subject to the following: 1) no parking in visual clearance area; 2) use for sleeping purposes limited to 14 days per calendar year; 3) such units shall be licensed and kept in mobile condition. • i ( • i PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS ' . • sr • AGENDA ITEM NO.. 4 ,' �'� S / PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) 'CINa Name 1 .^ .".^'dress Address / / a`f m777773:1=— I game q""), 3 P )V!ArteIV S . .� f,12i9�e '.• Na Name )Aum J)1S/' -'( �- . . 5- Address Address /O4IU SCA, jO�s �h l . . •. Namer� Name IIPP Address L 1 -57.,-:;,, ��'Cl e _ Names^�� — Name c{ (� tS (.(1�LL V ,lam t ••dress ` I hcfcc, reas ��( -ze i 3 G �� UGLY W.S I 1 0 .75 S Lc) ao-H-on uJ o o dl I_y ,, ` , 'flame oarms . • MSS Address Name Name /-\ , t,/41),-, Cg- r --, ' �' -g_ To V ER ..". , Address Address i 6-5 s. Uv. -t- (Poi ti-- P 1---- Name Name Name 11. O4-M r5 Address Address /r ' G70SW. V Name Lz�2/ Name i:. .. �2, Address Address / 1 Z 1^I 5 w --I'M t T T ?L • Name I Name Address Address v - Name I Name Address Address - 1 • i r • V • PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) • Name I Name• 7cdaress - Address •... dame Wane _ Jr:•rasa m•ress Mame :ame. .. .. Address " Address Name I Name ' Address Address • ---= Address Address Mame ( Address Address ame —Mame , ..o Address Address • Name Name Address Address h:\iogin\Jo\testify • • • • / • 1 , ..F.. i .. ,.. .. ... ,. ... .... .. a .. ., y _ - 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 7. may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. s AGENDA'ITEM NO. 5' DATE: February 9, 1993 y{: PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0007 CITY OF TIGARD '" (NPO #3): A request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to the Transportation Plan Map • which relates to the future alignment of a collector street connecting SW Walnut Street and SW Gaarde Street. LOCATION: Northeast side of Bull Mountain (west of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, south of SW Walnut Street, and east of SW 132nd Avenue. • 1 • PLEASE SIGN iN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS • • • • ( r 1•1111=h, • , ...- ', •,, •. '; 1 0, . 2: AGENDA-ITEMNO. - S' PLEASE PRINT „•••••- Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) • _..:.:. - 4 Name Name to_r_ d:d.i 2ie2 _.) =_ 7 _ / , .1/ / • .. o itibta712-A_ ... :: .---- ''.------- Address '• d/14ress 61 j/ / f __.,..,... .:. . a •-• ' ••• all,..A.(./0-_,•---7.-Z.4/.... .4_44,,,.,,,,., .,„..._.. ....,....- - 1 ame -or.._ - -,:- 4/11 ., am, ,e ' ::••:, , ..- . /V aro a 17, ... _ . 0 teas Address 3sfhvauzv,-ei- - .t , / ila14-1T57)' ., a. kei, ,.• --,. - Name Name \ \ LI (\ , _ • •. • ., . Address _AdjirtY \tres6 S--D kx) 10 0.\v.\Ji- SI.:._ ..?/(' Pic\ 9), - , •. . • Name Name --7-oe ,c-4 z,LNI/ Address ,i. ' Address . . ra 9 r 5 4/6/94, //// PAI2 /2- PM L-F-. . . Name ame :7-,)) . ...7i.....,.......et.t7 /• Address ' Address 112609 - : . _ flame •pr$: .. .... c ,. ; 7 Address Address FCR7,..< 'IV. 711/E,cALP-ak6 St —/— .• .„. . , ;e,, Name : Na - • ' nr...A) ‘ II , . - .....v ,..,. ... 'T:•ress • 11•ress __________________ 1 _,„S) ,...- , . ., ...:, Name .1',:•••,: a-, ame (4 -e.r m.a,,,L t r--- -e ---i' fr)10 t)4 3 Address Address • .. ii g-7 5- 5 c-u, -r.,..a...ic1e-57' .. . ,. . . NameNam .-7 . . ' • '111.4A.,,ev._ kele—t-.s.,0 Address Address , _•1')• /(ZQS- 5,ce) - /94--1,-Qte 3 71- • . .. Name 1 Name ..',1-•• i,..•.: ' ;••:-: ' ) - Address Address , .., . _ .t---- . ,- _ • NameI Name - . - - • . Address Address ' -ak•t••- . ‘.. . ... • . . • • - . . - . .. . • , _' • . ... • • _ • ' - - „.---- - - _ - - -1 PLEASE PRINT C Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name Address Address Name Address Name ------ I I Address II 11111 II I en ..IMame Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address •E Name Name Address Address Name '®flame } Address Address Name Name Address Address h:\Iogin\lo\testliy r .. i r £+u d y Sem-pio n 2./g 143 • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council I FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: January 29, 1993 • SUBJECT: FOCUS • Attached please find correspondence relating to FOCUS. There are several decisions, with the first being whether we retain our membership. The other questions relate to • whether we wish to participate in any role of the three special projects. The dollar figure noted on the pages reflects our cost per item. ..5.. I will be polling other cities about their level of participation. • I am hesitant to offer a recommendation. I have been out of the FOCUS loop for some time. Further, the role of FOCUS as outlined in the attached is quite different from the original concept, which was a neutral forum for discussion. The altered role was prompted by the perceived success of the RGC in providing a support role for the Metro Charter Commission. PJR\jh • attachments • h:\togin\jo\pjr0129.1 • WASHINGTON 4!!!!% COUNTY,�_ 1, f �k t�, �,,,lo OREGON { 1f1?Pflir,i p - 1..r. : :.... • MEMORANDUM t JAN 2 5 c13 11 Date: January 20, 1993 To: FOCUS Members and Interested Parties From: Bonnie Hays, Chair Subject : FOCUS Membership Commitment 11111 • "®a At the Forum on Cooperative Urban Services meeting on January 7, the general membership adopted the proposed FOCUS Work Plan, with one minor change . The Work Plan has a basic package and three special projects . Members will contribute their share for the basic package and have an option to help fund any or all the three special projects . This means that it is time for each jurisdiction to appropriate the necessary funds to pay its membership dues . Please take a leadership role with your jurisdiction to help • carry this issue to your governing board as soon as possible . We would like to hear from all of you no later than the first week in February. Also at that meeting, the general membership decided that in order to elect FOCUS officers, the jurisdictions for each of the three counties should appoint their representatives to the Steering Committee. They should also nominate people for the position of Chair. The deadline for nominations is February 1 . The general membership will vote by mail ballot . • In addition, the general membership also decided that the • "_ current Steering Committee should examine expanding membership to special districts and make a recommendation to the full membership. A task force, comprised of Forrest Soth (chair) , Don Allen and Lynda Jenkins, is examining the by- laws and making recommendations for any other changes or amendments . Again, it is important that we have as many jurisdictions financially committed tc joining FOCUS as possible. Please help by promoting this organization and expediting the process of joining. Our newly adopted Work Plan requires that we work immediately on several pressing issues . Joining FOCUS will help unify the jurisdictions in the metropolitan region . If you have any questions, please give me a call at 648-8681 i ( or Mike McKeever of McKeever/Morris, Inc. at 228-7352 . Board of County Commissioners 155 North First Avenue. Suite 300 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone: 503/648-8681 --1 7sP lrr�/ FOCUS BASIC SERVICES PACKAGE • TO DEVELOP AND ORGANIZE TO ADVANCE A REGIONAL AGENDA Adopted January 7, 1993 SUMMARY: This proposal outlines a short-term planning process for FOCUS to develop a consensus on: • A regional agenda (i.e. the most critical issues and challenges in delivering local government services in the region today); and • A management plan,including a process for FOCUS to pursue that agenda. The initiation of this planning process marks the beginning of FOCUS's advancement to encompass Level Two and potentially Level Three activities as described in the by-laws. At the completion of this planning process FOCUS will be ready for full-scale implementation of any activities which are agreed upon to serve the regional agenda. `` `. STEP ONE: GENERAL MEMBERSHIP ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL The FOCUS general membership will meet to review, amend and act on this proposal. At this meeting the general membership should also act on: • How to fund these start-up planning activities; • t • How to staff the start-up process: and • Who to involve in the start-up process. • Options for all of these issues can be found in Exhibit 1 at the end of this document. The FOCUS Planning Working Group will include substantial representation from elected officials and city/county managers/administrators. TIMEFRAME: January 7, 1993 BUDGET ESTIMATE: $1000 STEP TWO: ANALYZE EXISTING INFORMATION Existing information from FOCUS, the Regional Governance Committee and the Goldschmidt Task Force (in particular, the interviews and data gathering conducted at the outset of that process to identify key issues and opportunity areas) will be analyzed to identify priority areas for the • regional agenda. Roles of all key parties in each topic area will be identified. This analysis will be • done by FOCUS staff with the active oversight and involvement of FOCUS members familiar with the three existing information bases. Some additional analytical work may be needed to assimilate and get maximum value out of the existing information base. The information will be presented in a.simple format which identifies broad themes and issues common to all three sets of information. TIMEFRAME: Completed by early-February, 1993 ys. BUDGET ESTIMATE: $3500 STEP THREE: DEVELOP GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE REGIONAL AGENDA { A survey of all local governments in the tri-county area will be conducted to identify regional needs and opportunities on a systematic and comprehensive basis. FRAM will meet to review the work product from Step Two, and the survey results,and develop a general statement regarding the regional agenda it wishes to pursue. The statement will include an overall sense of mission, principles and direction,key themes,and objectives which are specific and clear enough that they can be used to evaluate the merits of competing project proposals and policy perspectives. TIMEFRAME: January to late February, 1993 • BUDGET ESTIMATE: $6000 STEP FOUR: DEVELOP MANAGEMENT PLAN The FOCUS Planning Working Group develop a proposed management plan to enable the organization to deliver such services. The management plan will address: #. • Services to implement in first year; • Budget for July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994; • Funding (e.g., general dues, project specific dues, grant applications, etc.), • Organization decision-making processes; • Procedures for securing permanent staffing; and s Office space. E... • / TIMEFRAME: Completed by late March, 1993 BUDGET ESTIMATE: $4000 STEP FIVE: REVIEW AND ADOPT MANAGEMENT PLAN r. The FOCUS general membership will meet to review, amend as needed and adopt the recommended management plan. , • TIMEFRAME: Completed by late March, 1993 BUDGET ESTIMATE: $500 STEP SIX: RAISE FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN • The timeframe for completing these start-up planning activities should allow jurisdictions to budget for their FOCUS contributions prior to adopting their FY 94 budgets. Funding for any proposals which do not rely in whole or in part on member dues will also be actively pursued during this time period. TIMEFRAME: Completed by June, 1993 BUDGET ESTIMATE: $0 (It is not assumed that FOCUS staff would have a role in this activity). 2 7-_ • . . - -- -- ' #4:14n.()13 • FOCUS SPECIAL PROJECT #1 For Services Related to Metro Charter Transition j , . ill ri . • SUMMARY: This special project provides services related to Metro Charter transition and start-up ---- activities. It is anticipated that the special districts lwoeuld be invited to participate and help fund this • effort(similar to the Regional Governance - STEP ONE: COORDINATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INPUT ON PREPARATION OF ;j • STATE CONFORMING LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT THE CHARTER The Charter Committee intended that several changes be made to State statutes in order to conform them to the Charter. At this point it is not clear whether Metro or the Charter Committee will take responsibility for preparing the needed conforming legislation. Local governments have a direct interest in ensuring that the conforming legislation is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Charter Committee's work. This task would provide staff work to local governments to provide c.: input to the drafting and amending of the legislation, assuming that Metro will take the lead role in drafting the proposed legislation. No funds are budgeted to participate directly in the legislative „1 ..' process as it is assumed that AOC,LOC and existing local government lobbying staff would conduct these activities. • TIMEFRAME: January 1993 - June, 1993 BUDGET ESTIMATE: $5,000 STEP TWO: CHARTER IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES A number of tasks need to occur in order to successfully implement the changes required by the • new Charter. The most immediate include a process to reapportion Metro's 13 Councilor districts to 7 districts and establishing the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). MPAC issues include: • - What should be the relationship between MPAC and existing committees such as J- • PACT,RPAC, Solid Waste,etc?; - Getting local government appointments mate to MPAC; - Determining how to provide staff assistance to MPAC; and possibly - Providing Start-up staff assistance for coordination and communication between FOCUS and MPAC. The services recommended here include 52500 for three months to resolve the first three issues y listed above and 3 months and$2500 per month to provide start-up staff assistance to MPAC. ., TIMEFRAME: January 1 - June 30, 1993 BUDGET ESTIMATE: $10.000 3 • • FOCUS SPECIAL PROJECT #2 r Develop Specific Propc=,als for Services for FOCUS to Provide r°/ The work products from Steps Two and Three of the Basic FOCUS Services Package and the preliminary services priorities identified at the October 12, 1992 FRAM meeting will be used to imam provide direction for establishing topic-based working committees to develop proposals for services FOCUS could deliver. The FOCUS Planning Working Group will work with FOCUS staff to develop the list of committees. Between four and eight committees are estimated to be needed. (For example,the October 12 planning exercise yielded four top candidate topics for short -term action: water,revenue, transportation and annexation.) These committees will work with FOCUS staff to develop brief proposals for each service area, using a standardized format,which: • Identify existing problem/opportunity areas; • Identify the added value potential from direct FOCUS involvement; • Identify specific types of proposed FOCUS services (i.e. Level Two analysis and cooperative action,Level Three advocacy with external agencies); • Identify who should be involved in the services(i.e. cities, counties, special districts, etc.); and • The estimated costs and timeframe for conducting the services. The proposals will be submitted to the FOCUS Planning Working Group for review. The proposals will be completed in time for consideration as part of the FOCUS Management Plan. • • TIMEFRAME: Completed by mid-March, 1993 BUDGET ESTIMATE: $15,000 • 4 ,,f I I FOCUS SPECIAL PROJECT #3 � Legislative Activities Related[o the Tri-Counties Area 1., A- This special project will provide services to develop a consensus and advocate a common position on legislative issues which have a unique relevance and impact on the tri-county area. The - treatment of the recommendations from the Governor's Task Force on Local Government Services is the only major legislative issue identified at this time. These activities would be fully coordinated with the League of Oregon Cities and Association of Oregon Counties so as to avoid 1111 `-4 duplication and ensure a cooperative approach to dealing with the iss...es. The budget level - assumes that FOCUS's role is to help coordinate the work of the various local government staff who will be working on these issues to help ensure a coordinated approach. r TIMEFRAME: January, 1993 through June, 1993 BUDGF.T ESTIMATE: $2,500 • . - • 5 .moi .. .. �/ • .�• _ � _... y _ - . 4 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Tim Ramis • l FROM: Patrick J. Reilly DATE: February 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Litigation Briefing for Council ..- ,,: _ Just a note to let you know what I think some of the issues are with the Council. •' Obviously, we should bring Council up to date on the Martin and A-Boy litigation. It is my c impression that Council does not have much understanding of the Matrix negotiations, or the status of the Triad litigation. / In the course of individual conversations with Councilors, the following seemed to be discussion areas: 1. Why do we use a de novo appeal process? • 2. TMC 244.010 references that Councilors are paid a salary. Paul wonders .F why we disclaim that we pay Councilors a salary. Apparently that ordinance does not make reference to insurance the City provides. If you have any . . history on this, it would be appreciated if you could bring me up to date. • • 3. Can we make a distinction between quasi-judicial and legislative matters? { 4. You might wish to discuss ex parte contact. 5. You might review for Council the process to amend the Charter. There are - ,,, a couple of Councilors who would like to look at specific aspects of the • Charter. 6. You might outline what triggers the public meeting requirements. :t:. :', • `. The briefing is scheduled on February 16 at 5:30 p.m. I presume some of the matters i. referenced should be done in Public Session, not in Executive Session. I look forward to an entertaining evening. PJR/jh ,; h:\iogin\pat\pjr0209 iimommil Council Agenda Item 3.2 m... - 7— ill MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council /� FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator 0t�"' DATE: February 1, 1993 ,- SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, February - March '93 Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (*) . If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. ow '_ •4 , February '93 ." * 9 Tue Council Meeting ,, Study Session (6:30) Business Meeting (7:30) 15 Mon Presidents' Day - City Hall Offices Closed * 16 Tue Council Study Meeting (5:30 - Executive Session) (6:30 - Study Meeting) * 23 Tue Council Meeting Study Session (6:30) Business Meeting (7:30) March '93 * 9 Tue Council Meeting Study Session (6:30) 2• Business Meeting (7:30) * 16 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30) * 23 Tue Council Meeting `-.,' Study Session (6:30) ;`• Business Meeting (7:30) • April '93 * 13 Tue Council Meeting Study Session (6:30) Business Meeting (7:30) - • * 20 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30) * 27 Tue Council Meeting Study Session (6:30) - ( Business Meeting (7:30) h:\login\cathy\cccal • Y • COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.3 (" CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON f AGENDA OF: February COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 9 , 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: January 28. 1993 TSSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve Resolu-. 'REVIOUS ACTION: Council Dis- , 1� .�d:��iO on 1/22/93 _ tion Establishing Council Groufndru ,/ / REPARED BY: Cath e ConcerninaEDCommunications REQUESTED BY: Patrick Reilly DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK� f ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Updating Council groundrules which were adopted January 9, 1989• STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Approve the attached resolution. ;:' . INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached resolution reflects discussion by Council at their January 22, 1993 workshop. The resolution n updatesrappublcillic, Ccommunication ty administration groundrules City between Council members, general staff. A few wording changes were also made which were intended to clari y the statement. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve resolution as submitted. a - 2. Amend resolution. FISCAL NOTES N/A ;::, ( • •i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.'4 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LOCAL CONTRACT REVEIW BOARD AGENDA OF: February 9,1993 DATE SUBMITTED: January 28,1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award Contract for PREVIOUS ACTION: _ Engineering and Surveying Services �/ ;-ss-,. for the Bull Mountain Road iamprov=` _ PREPARED BY: Gary Alf n � tf DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK Ali( REQUESTED BY: '.. --AN BEFORE THE COUNCIL Awarding contract to provide professional engineering and surveying services for the Bull ?'- Mountain Road Improvements. --- -- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the contract with Westlake Consultants, Inc. and authorize the City Administrator to • sign the contracts. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Bull Mountain Road Improvement Project is a Washington County Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) project which the City has been given the • authority to administer. The project consists of constructing a pedestrian/bike path alongside the road from Pacific Highway to as far west as the $500,000 funding will allow. We have held a public meeting to arrive at what the project was to be and have received Washington County's approval on this. This contract is to provide the engineering and surveying services to prepare the construction plans and documents and to manage the construction. Four consultants were sent requests for proposals from which we selected ;+:< Westlake Consultants, Inc. located in Tigard. Consultant selection was based on the qualifications of the firm and the personnel who will be working on the project, their • approach to the project, their detailed scope of work and the total cost. The proposal is based on a Time and Materials basis not to e::ceed $55,836. Approval of the City's Local Contract Review Board is required for contracts over $15,000. • PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES • Approve the contract as submitted. Approve the contract with modifications. • Reject the contract. • • FISCAL NOTES The project is funded entirely by the Washington County MSTIP. • . ga\ss-bullm.eng • • •JS` 1 • • • • 4 j COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.5 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON111 ;= COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: 1/28/93 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorization PREVIOUS ACTION: for Right of Way Acquisition for 72nd Ave - 99W intersection •ro':c ! , PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson a54/ 44191-- DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADIIN Or :" REQUESTED BY: = IS E BEFORE THE COUNCIL Acquisition of Right of Wad, for the 72nd Avenue - 99W intersection project. n r _ _ • STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Adoption of the attached resolution INFORMATION SUMMARY Acquisition of the American Legion property is required to construct the extension of 72nd Avenue to Pacific Highway. The existing building must be removed due to the amount of earthwork required to lower 72nd Avenue to Pacific Highway. After the construction is complete we will request authorization to sell the surplus property. As has been done with a a other street projects, staff is requesting that the City Council formally authorize the acquisition of the right of way by adoption of the attached resolution. • • PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing acquisition of right of way. 4'dr';„ , 2. Withhold authorization. i• FISCAL NOTES The 72nd Avenue - 99W Intersection right of way costs are funded from traffic impact fees (TIF) under the 92-93 CIP budget. sL • ga\ss-7299w.row • • I.; • • • • r M: " • COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.C.o CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1993__ DATE SUBMITTED: January 27, 1993 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan Triangle Master Plan and DLCD grant ,lf/ PREPARED BY: John Acker 111 DEPT HEAD OK Sp,. CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: 111 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Sriould the City enter into a contract with OTAK, Inc. , to assist staff with a Specific Area Plan for the Tigard Triangle?• • STAFF RECOMMENDATION • • Staff recommends that the City Administrator be authorized to enter into a • contract between the City and OTAK, Inc. , for the development of a Specific Area Plan for the Tigard Triangle. • INFORMATION SUMMARY In June 1992, the City accepted a $25, 000 grant from the state Department of / Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to develop a Specific Area Plan for t the Tigard Triangle. A specific plan is a new planning process and product aimed at reaching more specificity in the planning stage of an area plan, thus allowing greater speed and certainty in the development process. The specific area plan will build on and refine the recently accepted master plan a for the Triangle. • The Triangle Specific Plan will integrate land use, urban design, transportation, parks, and utility planning into an overall development plan. • The plan will also include recommended actions to implement the plan. • A description of OTAK Inc. , project team members, and the scope of work is attached. A copy of OTAK's proposal is available for review. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ti~ none FISCAL NOTES The DLCD awarded the city a $25, 000 grant for a specific area plan. In addition, the city has identified $30, 000 for transportation and design studies in the Triangle. The proposed contract amount is $50, 000 with the • remaining $5, 000 reserved for contingency. ,.,r . • • I • r, OTAK AT A GLANCE ; 6..; , . 1....4 • SPECIFIC AREA PLAN FOR THE TIGARD TRIANGLE ? :-., 4 -' 111111 4 OTAK was founded in May 1981 by Nawzad Othman,Ralph Tahran, and Greg Kurahashi with a staff of six employees. Today, OTAK is headquartered in Lake Oswego, Oregon,with an office in = ; Kirkland,Washington,and employs nearly 100 dedicated prof�ion..ls. ME OTAK has provided design services on a wide variety of commercial, office,industrial, school, park and transit projects that include new construction and remodeing/rehabilitation work. In '•'. 111111311E a• MUM addition, we have been responsible for the master planning, design, construction and ''G + ' rehabilitation of nearly 10,000 units of new and existing multifamily housing over the last 11 years. We are proud to have won design awards for many of these projects. :'' Part of OTAK's professional design expertise lies in our ability to provide our clients with 7. comprehensive project management within one firm providing streamlined communication and • efficiency between our in-house disciplines and outside consultants. performed Our office has a fully developed and networked computer system. Draftingis typically on AutoCad. All specifications and administrative work is performed on WordPerfect. Our entire subconsultant team has worked with OTAK on various projects using these and other systems. ':r..-i CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ^ :• OTAK professionals understand the importance of having broad participation in the decision advisory committees and . . - making and review process. We work closely with neighborhood groups, ; ;�' agency staff to ensure a broad consensus of support for public projects. '• OTAK also has extensive experience working with appointed citizen advisory groups reviewing all , 3 phases of public improvement projects. We work alongside City staff to explain project goals and77. objectives,solicit input and present recommendations. • 74..,,„, .,: Our involvement in working with neighborhood groups ranges from soliciting initial needs and .. ;:,';'':••. --,-'.1.:1 concerns to presenting design development proposals and mitigation recommendations. OTAK constantly coordinates a variety of projects with public agency staff. Through the phases of design development, construction document preparation and construction administration, ."•• 4 OTAK professionals work to provide you with a cost effective, high quality design that successfully meets your requirements. ; E ^ { ;;-a • E,„ QUALIFICATIONS/KEY TEAM MEMBERS SPECIFIC AREA PLAN FOR THE TIGARD TRIANGLE It is important that a team of qualified professionals work closely with one another throughout the project to meet the challenging schedule requirements and deliver an excellent final product. The following is a brief summary of the project team members and their specific roles. This team r` has worked together extensively and will function as a design and planning collaborative from '. . project start to completion. Each person identified in this proposal is very"hands on in each of their areas of expertise. As we have discussed this proposal,we all look forward to'rolling up our sleeves"at the OTAK office(across the freeway from Tigard City Hall)with City of Tigard Staff for a series of very concentrated design sessions. OTAK has worked with DKS on a number of projects and is currently working on a development analysis plan on a large parcel of land at Hayden Island in Portland. E. D.Hovee& Company has worked with various members of the OTAK team for a number of years on a variety of • projects and specifically LaCenter Downtown Plan, Troutdale Downtown Plan, and Gresham.• KEY TEAM MEMBERS • OTAK Ralph G. Taiwan,AIA; Project Manager,Urban Design Mr.Tahran's responsibilities will include project management of all design elements, coordination of the team, development and implementation of public involvement efforts, meeting facilitation for the Steering Committee and public workshops and urban design input. Joe Dills,AICP; Project Manager,Land Use Analysis Mr.Dills is OTAK's cenior planner and will be responsible for land use analysis and coordination with the transportation plan. Six of his 13 years of professional planning experience were spent :. t in the public sector. He is a skilled meeting facilitator and leader of consensus building efforts. Don Hanson,ASIA; Parks Planning Mr. Hanson will be the lead parks plan designer for the project. He will develop park concept plans. Don is well known for his ability to sketch site planning concepts ideas in both small and large groups. He is OTAK's lead master plan designer and manager of OTAK's Urban Design and Landscape Architecture Team. Steve Dixon,ASIA; Master Plan Designer , Mr. Dixon will assist with development of the conceptual plans, draft and final plans. Don Hanson and Steve Dixon are a powerful team. They have collaborated on large scale master planning projects for five years. Steve has a special interest in neotraditional planning. He designed the Edgefield Property Master Plan, a 91 acre neotraditional-style plan that will be built in Troutdale in 1993. Steven K. Renton,MA; Urban Design Mr. Routon, a creative designer, will study density relationships and help develop overall Urban Design Guidelines. Mr. Routon has designed several of OTAK's award winning projects. : . w;; • • QUALIFIOATONS/11Ey TEAM MEMBERS SPECIFIC AREA PLAN FOR THE TIGARD TRIANGLE • Jc .... 1 1 Dave Couch,Draftsman;Plan Preparation Mr. Couch will be the primary person in charge of developing pr mentation dray:in and drafting final plans on ;.futoCaa Mr. Couch recently completed presentation drawing for the Westside I I Light Rail Zoo Station for Tri-Met. NEI Jerry Baarspul,P.E.;Utility Engineer Mr.Baarspul will pinpare the utility analysis for the Draft and Final Plans. He is a professional engineer who came to OTAK after 10 years at the City of Portland. -_ - DKS ASSOCIATES - �: ri Ransford S.McCourt,P.E.; Lead Transportation Planner IMr.McCourt will advise the team on transportation and land use strategies,lead the transportation review of the conceptual alternatives, and review the draftand final plans, 'T Dilorio•Transportation� Kym Engineer Ms. Dilorio will assist Mr.McCourt with the transportation reviews. ..- '•'-',-;;;.' �- E.D. HOVEE& COMPANY Eric Royce; Economist Mr. Hove will analyze land use proposals and outline financing mechanisms necessary for implementation of the plan. PLEASE SEE RESUMES WHICH FOLLOW. `:; t • •r l I • • • SPECIFIC AREA PLAN FOR THE TIGARD TRIANGLE • Min PROJECT DESCRIPTION MIN This project will create a specific plan for development of the 111 Tigard Triangle area. Objectives are to increase housing, achieve infill and redevelopment, and encourage transportation efficient s.® land uses and pedestrian orientation. The plan will include detailed land use or uses, development and/or design standards, performance standards, a transportation plan, a park plan, and an implementation section for the Triangle. This project will add detail to an existing land use map and apply general development standards that have been accepted by Tigard City Council . When finished, the plan will have sufficient detail to allow development of the area with certainty and speed. The plan should provide citizens, residents, developers and public officials with • a sense of the developed Triangle and minimize discretionary hearings . SCOPE OF WORK I . Interaction • City staff will arrange and direct the public involvement component that includes a citizen's advisory committee, the Planning Commission, and area property owners and developers. The advisory committee and the Planning Commission will be involved throughout the process through workshops and briefings . Others will be selected to review certain aspects • of the plan once or twice during the process as well as in the draft stage. The consultant will be expected to assist with material and briefings. Total meetings not to exceed seven. The consultant will integrate public and private concerns in the planning process so that the product addresses concerns. II . Land Use Plan The consultant will review proposed Triangle land uses, establish specific boundaries and refine the land use map that establishes allowed uses within the triangle. Tasks include determining densities in residential areas and recommending appropriate uses in other areas. Recommendations shall be • based on detailed site information including accepted land use plan, physical site, property boundaries, access, residential densities, appropriate mixed uses, and characteristics such as slope, orientation, and vegetative cover. The land use plan should be coordinated with the transportation plan. • III . Urban Design r,. q- • The consultant will create an area specific design plan and guidelines for the Triangle. Development standards shall include recommended setbacks, buffer areas, landscaping, density, building heights, lot coverage, parking standards and sign standards on an area by area basis. The plan will be developed by an iterative process that provides input and `, . ;. ., revision. The plan will be coordinated with transportation, land use and other aspects of the project. Performance standards will be developed for mixed-use areas •', ;• including such things as noise, buffers, shared parking, tree • protection and congestion management. III . Transportation Plan The consultant will conduct a traffic analysis of the Triangle based on the proposed allowed land uses. The plan will identify major roadway and lane requirements, a street grid, -. street widths, recommend street improvements and vacations, pathway locations, proposed transit corridors, bicycle needs and pedestrian facilities and amenities . The plan will also consider impacts beyond Triangle boundaries, particularly on road intersections exiting the Triangle. The consultant will ,.. e- review the assumptions for adjacent intersections and major roadways, e.g. I-5 off ramp at Hains Road, and recommend any needed actions. .r,:, , , ?. The transportation plan should be consistent with the transportation planning rule. The consultant will work closely with staff to assure that all aspects of the plan address the planning rule. The plan will also be coordinated with the land use, and urban design plans . IV. Parks, Open Space and Public Utilities • The consultant will develop a plan for acreage, location and improvements necessary for park(s) within the Triangle. The plan will include an approximate cost and recommended funding ' ' ., sources for park acquisition and development . The plan will identify open space and natural areas to be preserved. The city will provide the consultant with a map of the location and size of water lines, power lines, and sanitary and storm sewers . The consultant will review the effects of - • proposed allowed development on infrastructure and recommend . .. any necessary changes . V. Implementation The consultant will develop an action plan that describes specific actions for implementation. The plan may include �_ proposals for comprehensive plan amendments, development code :.---7 III - changes, financing mechanisms, property acquisitions and ::::-MI 111 ( procedural standards. The action plan will integrate public concerns and private investment . 1111 VI. Products MOEN The consultant shall deliver to the city at a minimum a detailed Ell specific area plan for the Tigard Triangle that includes : • Detailed, site specific, land use map that integrates1111 existing public facilities. The map should be suitable for adoption as a zoning map. •s • An urban design plan. '' • A map showing the type and location of a street network including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and easements within the Triangle. • Written street standards explaining requirements regarding size, location, and landscaping. • A plan for a park land and facilities and for open spaces . • An action plan that includes implementation measures. Plus all background material, working material and interim tt products. Mapping shall be high quality and legible for use in k; t: - determining specific site information. Final maps and graphic material shall be provided ill digital form compatible with Autocadd or Arc/Info. \_ ,l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM y III 1r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON iiiii COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 11111 AGENDA OF: February 9 , 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: January 8, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Com. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Front yard Recommendation - 1-4-93 III storage--RV's, � ts, etc. PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK 41 CITY ADMIN OK 11.1 REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend the restrictions on storage of recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies or commercial vehicles in _ _ excess of 3/4 ton in required front yard areas within residential zones? The issue is primarily one of neighborhood aesthetics from a community standpoint versus the convenience and desire of individual property owners to store this type of vehicle on within the front yard setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -, .•'" Staff continues to recommend that the regulation be repealed for the following reasons: in many areas storage of campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. can still be stored in the front yard because they are placed beyond the required setback; and there appears to be strong sentiment against +• A enforcement by many property owners. On January 4, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council , . { retain the existing regulations, citing neighborhood aesthetics and appearance as the main rationale. Attached to this packet are background memos dated December 28, November 10 and August 27, 1992. INFORMATION SUMMARY The development code restricts storage of recreational vehicles (etc. ) in the required front yard area with code enforcement done on a complaint basis. The existing code applies only to the required front yard (normally 20 feet) and, therefore, campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. can be legally stored in many front yards. Many newer subdivisions offer protective covenants that restrict such storage. Older subdivisions with large lots have, in many cases, larger setbacks which allow front yard storage. In 1991, NPO 5 initiated an amendment to repeal these restrictions, following a series of neighborhood complaints and discussions on the issues. In early 1992, the City Council voted to retain the existing regulations. As a result of new complaints, study and information, the Council directed staff on � . November 17, 1993 to prepare revisions to the front yard storage restrictions that would allow front yard storage if: (1) they do not interfere with visual • clearance; (2) they are not used for long term sleeping purposes; and (3) t they are licensed and remain in mobile condition. The attached ordinance .a ; incorporates the Council's direction The Planning Commission also reviewed the Police Department proposal to include recreational vehicles under the those vehicles restricted from - , l.t storage on streets. The Commission offered no additional comments. i PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ma! 1. Approve the attached ordinance to allow front yard storage subject to the ENEN limitations listed above. 2. Modify the attached ordinance. 3. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to repeal Section 18.96.060 A. 4. Retain the existing regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission. FISCAL NOTES None anticipated one way or the other; staff would shift priorities depending on the Council's resolution of this matter. SL • • ry} II AGENDA ITEM 5.3 MEMORANDUM CITY•OF TIGARD, OREGON -I 4 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dick Bewersdorff • DATE: December 28, 1992 SUBJECT: RV Storage in Front Yards At its November 17, 1992 work session, the City Council directed staff to prepare ordinance revisions to the front yard storage requirements for recreational and other similar vehicles. The Y revisions were to be reviewed at public hearings by the City f Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council proposed that recreational vehicles, trailers, boats, etc. be allowed to be stored in front yards if: " : o They do not interfere with visual clearance areas; ( o They are not used for long term or permanently for V. sleeping purposes; ./,, o They are licensed and remain in mobile condition; w In addition, it was suggested that there be a simultaneous review of a Police Department proposal to limit parking of such units or vehicles overnight on City streets. Chief Goodpaster has indicated the revised ordinance for parking adds recreation vehicles, etc. to the list of vehicles restricted from storage on streets. The : -`;;,` parking ordinance targets long term storage on streets. While the existing ordinance lists time frames for parking, the Chief indicates that actual enforcement process takes from five to seven days. This provides time for those who park trailers, campers, etc. on the street overnight for loading purposes enough time to comply. While you are not required to hold a hearing on the police • proposal, it is included for your perusal and recommendations. d ' • Included in this packet is a proposed ordinance with draft wording ;. -- aimed at accomplishing what the City Council suggested. Also ; ` ;' included for your information are memos dated August 27, 1992 and November 10, 1992 to provide additional background information. There are also two diagrams indicating visual clearance areas at street corners and at driveways. . . _ Staff's recommendation continues to be to repeal the existing code provisions entirely. j :, . . , .. -- . --- -- --r - - - 9 � H1 ' col'- 1 Al EXHIBIT "A" II 4118.96.060 storage in Front Yard A• Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house ; trailers; recreation vehicles in excess of 3/4 .ton capacity [shall not] may be stored in ar--g front setback in a residential zone subject to the 1 following: be Parked in a visual ~ ': .1_,. No such unit shall clearance area of a corner lot or in the visual clearance area of a driveway which , woul• obstruct vision om a ad' -ce t driveway or street. 2• No such un't s all be used fo d elli •. •ur•oses exce•t :at ote c-m• ruse t a _ -r ' or recreationai._.vehicle may be used for • • roses o, • :e ds -t'.ves slee. � - - o" vis to s of _,.• a:t .e. o.i:e• • o .. leased to the host person for a period not to excee• 1, da s ote ca. eid- . ea . provided i that such ' s: - • • .• • 1.! e• t• - • utility, other than temporary electricity hookups and provided that the host person C« shall receive no compensation for such occupancy or use•_ 3. Any such unit parked in the front 1 t srd hall lt have current state license registration and must be kept in mobile condition. f.a• 1/ v • 1 t • Figure 5 • i Clear Vision Area for Corner Lots • and Driveways 24 feet or More• in Width 1 (.. a 3 1 o 1I. n J m s • CORNER LOT I , e- H 30' 1t--30'--sI RIGHT-OF-WAY I i ; • tl �'R • • p 11\ ' ':-,-'1;-.. Figure 6 Clear Vision Area DriV Y5 Les Than 24 Feet in Width BLDG- SETBACK RESIDENCES) . ` (1 and 2 FAMILY - W Tl CL • u. 30' • apex If- . I - I PR • IVATE ACCESS I • 3,0. Fier I I .� 1 ', 30-----'1 a \ ' ; 1. 3 I - . 0 i 0 —cc • 173 LJ t. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON III l ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY UPDATING DEFINITIONS; REPEALING SECTION 10.28.020; SPECIFYING PROHIBITED PARKING; AND REGULATING THE PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC STREETS _- EM WHEREAS,.the Oregon Vehicle Code has been r'e*'-r red_.- and certain terms Mil re-defined; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds offensive advertising or sales of merchandise from vehicles parked on public streets; and " .. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that maintenance or storage of vehicles on public streets is offensive and can create a traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the parking of trailers, campers, c, motor motor homes and other similar vehicles on public streets or public property can create a traffic hazard and obstruction; and .'; .. WHEREAS, the Tigard Municipal Code must reflect all of the above changes; now, therefore, { ( THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: t SECTION 1: Section 10.28.010 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: "' 10.28.010 Definitions. -' ' f,: :' (a) "Parking" or "parked" for purposes of the city motor if.;'; vehicle code, means the stopping or standing of any vehicle upon any street or highway within the city, '" ' except for the purpose of and while actually engaged in u „ loading or unloading passengers or freight, or in obedience to traffic regulations or traffic signs or signals. (b) It is unlawful for any person to park or stop any ,: vehicle for a longer period of time than that designated :..;:,;' by official signs, parking meters, or other markings , placed by or under authority of the city. "Parking time `;... limit" includes the aggregate of time of all stopping or , .--i standing of the same vehicle on the same side of the -,; - street within a space of three hundred lineal feet measured along the curb-line and between intersections; and the parking, standing or stopping of any vehicle within such expanse shall not exceed the designated tine limit during any three-hour period. _ - (c) For purposes of this chapter, the definitions of the following terms as used herein shall conform to the • following ORS sections which by reference herein are made __ a part of this chapter: ORDINANCE No. 92- Page 1 r • • r, (1) "Camper" is defined as set forth in ORS Section ,, 801.180. (2) "Highway" or "street" is defined as set forth in ORS ( Section 801.05. (3) "Mobile home" is defined as set forth in ORS 801.340. 1 : . : ...: (4) "Motor bus" is defined as a Commercial Bus as set forth in ORS 801.200. (5) "Motor home" is defined as set forth in ORS Section 801.350. . k, III (6) "Motor truck" is defined as set forth in ORS Section _ 801.355. is defined as set forth in --',-,a, - (7) "Recreational Vehicle ORS 446.003. forth in R. $fiction -`--- (8) "Trailer" is defined as setORS 801.560. (9) "Travel Trailer" is defined as set forth in ORS 801.565. (10) "Truck Tractor" is defined as set forth in ORS Section 801.575. Section 10.28.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code, SECTION 2: specifying purposes for which parking is prohibited, is hereby repealed. SECTION 3: Chapter 10.28 is amended by adding Section 10.28.22 to ' read as follows: "Section 10.28.022 Purposes for which parking is prohibited. of any No person shall park a 'vehicle on the right-of-way of a y highway, or upon any public street or publicway the city limits for any of the following purposes: (1) Advertising, selling or offering merchandise for sale; y�q such vehicle except ', `. (2) Washing, greasing or reps ,. as may be necessitated by emergency; 4.i,.' (3) Storage, for any period of more than twenty-four� : hours, except that this subsection shall be subject to ti the limits elsewhere prescribed in the city motor vehicle code or as may be prescribed by the Oregon State Motor ' '-, Vehicle Code. It shall constitute prima facie evidence of storage of a vehicle if the same is not moved for a « period of twenty-four (24) hours. The continuity of the tune shall not be deemed broken by movement of the vehicle elsewhere on the block unless the movement ; 4 removes the vehicle from the block where it was located before it is returned. Any vehicle mentioned in this subsection parked on the right-of-way of any highway, or r ; upon any public street or public way within the city in abandoned vehicle of s and thetion provisionay s of treated Chapter as 7.60 shall apply. " • ORDINANCE No. 92 - - Page 2 1 I J ~ SECTION 4: Section 10.28.030 is amended to read as follows: Ill Section 10:28.030 Truck, trailer. bus, camper, motor home recreational vehicle and boat restrictions. No person shall at any time park or leave standing a house trailer, motor bus, motor truck, tractor trailer, truck tractor, motor home, boat, vehicle with camper, recreational vehicle, or trailer, as defined in section 10.28.010 (c), whether attended or unattended, on any improved public highway, public street or other public way within the city l;m;is; for a period greater than : thirty ( ) 30 minutes, between the hours of one minute past �... twelve a.m. and six a.m. II Tractor Trailer, Truck Trailer. No person shall at ;, anytime park a tractor trailer or truck trailer as described in Section 10.28.010(c) unattended on any r. improved public highway, Public street or other public way within the city limits. SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posted by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1992. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1992. ;., Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 92- Page 3 1 1 g • MEMORANDUMIII III CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick Reilly DATE: Nrvewmber 10, 1992 Ili SUBJECT: RV Parking f-`„ History ' In July, 1991, storage of recreational vehicles, trailers, campers and boats in front yards became an issue due to a number of complaints. After studying the issue and meeting with all NPO's, NPO 5 initiated a request to delete the prohibition of front yard storage from the development code. A summary of the results of the NPO meetings is provided in the attached July 17, 1991 memo from Liz Newton. ` In December, 1991 the Planning Commission recommended unanimously against repeal of code section 18.96.060 A. which prohibits the storage of such vehicles and units in the required front yard setback. In February, 1992, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed repeal and also voted unanimously against repealing the code section. Minutes De1992 Cityer , 1991 Council Pmee meeting ing Commission meeting and the February 11, are also attached. In late June, 1992, Councilor John Schwartz and Dick Bewersdorff . . met with Rick Perkins and a local representative of the Good Sam Club (a national RV owners club) as a result of a request to the ; Council. After that meeting, staff prepared a summary of what other cities across the country do to regulate RV's and other similar units. This was reviewed by the Council on October 20, 1992 who requested an additional workshop on the issues involved. Other Cities Most of the material provided for the October 20 meeting came from ' i excerpts of ordinances from around the country. Additional information was requested from local jurisdictions. This included: ' . . Hillsboro - Police controls RV parting on the streets, blocking sidewalks and clear vision areas; There are no other regulations controlling RV's. ;.-- Gresham - Only in the 5,000 and 7,000 square foot low density ( zones are recreational vehicles mentioned. They must be parked on a hard surface such as compacted gravel, concrete, • asphalt; or similar durable surface and aro onlj restricted from parking in the clear vision triangle of corner lots. `,. r,•. Wilsonville - Has no regulations regarding RV's Lake Oswego - Not allowed in public right of way, nothing addresses aesthetics; There are no regulations addressing RV's 1111 111 on private property. Washington County - Has no limits on storage of such units in 1111 residential zones unless the number exceeds five which is a code violation. Options There are a number of possible ways to proceed. These include: 1. Do not repeal ordinance section 18.96.060 A. This would mean that RV's, etc. would still be restricted from being parked in the required front yard setback. 2. Repeal the ordinance section that restricts parking in the required front yard setback. Clear vision standards (18.102.050) can still regulate the parking of RV's, etc. that would block the vision of vehicles backing out of l adjacent driveways. Parking on a public street, living or sleeping in an RV or the connection to water or sewer services would be regulated by other code provisions. 3. Modify the existing ordinance for clarity, health and safety but allow RV's, etc. to be parked in the front yard. Possible code language: Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreational vehicles or commercial vehicles in excess of R :: 3/4 ton capacity are allowed to be stored in a required front, side or rear yard setback in a residential zone but may not: a. be parked in a visual clearance area; b. be used for sleeping purposes for over 72 consecutive hours; c. be connected to water or sewer services; • 4. Modify the existing ordinance for clarity, health and safety as in # 3 above with the added limitations: ,„ Boats, trailers, campers d. Only one such vehicle or unit may be parked in the front yard. Said vehicle or unit must be parked at • `. least 10 feet back from the outside edge of the sidewalk, face of the curb if there is no sidewalk, • 4 or from the edge of the paved surface of the street if there is no curb or sidewalk. e. Front yard storage or parking shall be hard surface .: : -' or graveled. f. The vehicle or unit must have current state license plates or registration and must be kept in mobile . , condition. 5. Modify the existing ordinance to prohibit storage in the required front yard setback unless there are physical F the lot, landscaping or the lack of characteristics o�. reasonable access the side or rear yard which would — preclude such storage. Possible code language: Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, , recreational vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess • • of 3/4 ton capacity shall not be stored in a required • front yard in a residential zone unless due to physical characteristics of the lot, building or landscaping, space is not available in the side yard or there is not reasonable access to either the side or rear yard. A lot shall be deemed to have reasonable access to the side or rear yard if terrain permits and access can be had ;r without substantial damage to existing trees or . landscaping. A corner lot shall normally be deemed to have reasonable access to the rear yard. A fence is not deemed to prevent reasonable access. Recommendation There appears to be no community •consensus on the need for aesthetic control relative to RV's clearance Pu lice9ulat safety can and controlled by existing visual subdivisions that wish to control parking can do so through st;: protective covenants and restrictions. It is, therefore, , . recommended that option #2, to repeal the code section altogether, `<., be chosen. yer y I/ • 1 N y.r ( y=mnpumnum • BE ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1.110, 1 TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner. nit Relations Coordinator V� v FROM: Liz Newton, Community T• DATE: July 17, 1991 SUBJECT: NPO Comments on RV Storage Ordinance ~_ On Wednesday, July 10, 1991, I facilitated a discussion with NPO's 1/2, 4 & 8 to discuss the NPO 5 proposal regarding RV storage. - By a vote of 13 — 2, the members present favored some regulation of RV storage in front yards. Six people favored leaving the ordinance as is, 5 favored some modification to regulate front yard storage. Suggestions for regulation of front_yard storage included the followings o Prohibiting front yard storage except in cases of hardship. o Allow front yard storage as long as vision clearance requirements are met_ - o Allow front yard storage as long as the vehicle is behind a legal fence_ f o Allow front yard storage where there is a minimum i mum of 50' frontage. : d, Most of the people in attendance felt that the 7500' minimum proposed by Y NPO $S • is discriminatory_ There were concerns raised about pie shaped lots that may meet the 7500 minimum but may not have room in the front to store an RV or smaller lots with front yards that are adequate_ There were some concerns raised regarding the city's current 'enforcement by " complaint' policy. Some felt that if ordinances can not be actively enforced they should be repealed. The biggest concern expressed was that if RV storage is permitted in the front •" ;, yard vision clearance provisions must be met. • ( '-• • r- • .. . = ' / 0 C rt 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0000 5 section STORAGE (ALL NPO'S) A proposal to de 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code which prohibits front yard storage in a residential zone. m. 11 Section 18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard (A) states: Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreation vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton eapacity shall not be stored in a required front yard in a rs al 11 zone. LOCATION: 11 Citywide APPLICABLE APPROVALRITE6 A: "iCode Section -00aO a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no de:larations or challenges. ;;, c. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the Staff Report as submitted to the City Council in their meeting packet. d. Public testimony: . - Opponents (against amendments) Harry L. Schukart, 11910 S.W. Morning Hill Drive, , Tigard, Oregon advised he was testifying as President of the Morning Hill Homeowner's ® Association. He said 95% of the association members were opposed to the amendments because such action would likely lead to other unsightly front yard storage. Mr. Schukart advised that if people can afford ' recreational vehicles (rv's) , then they should be � ' able to afford to store them in a proper place. He said covenants and restrictions would be one way to regulate front yard storage; however, residents would have to file a civil suit and gothrough court system. This, he advised, would be too costly. - Teri Wasco, Tigard, Oregon, noted problems with • j- cars parking on sidewalks or streets because of •_f ;:: front yard storage of rv's. She noted aesthetics would be damaged and front yard storage was "visual harassment." She cited several existing problems i' '`> near her neighborhood- . Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, testified as Chair of NPO 7. He said the ' NPO would not want to see any change in the current , ¢ _ ordinance and recommended improvement of CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 6 s. V 7 lel if: tvitih..... ava�.caucaat current provisions. III Lalir rk • Dale Rossman, 13355 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon noted he would not want the current ordinance changed. He cited safety issues and adverse affects on Market values if rv's were III allowed to park in front yards. He added that, 111 while the ordinance was not perfect, it gave City staff some ability to regulate problems. • D.K. Paul, 14137 S.W. Fanno Creek Court, Tigard, Oregon, testified as President of the Colony Creek Estates Homeowners' Association. Mr. Paul said residents in his area were 80-90% opposed to repealing the ordinance as was being proposed. He _ - cited the desire to maintain attractive neighborhoods and adverse affects on property values if the ordinance was repealed. • Mike Brewin, 9955 S.W. Kable, Tigard, Oregon, requested that Council not repeal the ordinance. ,, He, too, cited adverse affects on property values. Mr. Brewin distributed pictures taken earlier in ; the day which illustrated his point about the current problem in Tigard. (Note: Mayor Edwards, • ( during later remarks, commented that many of the photos were of situations which would not be addressed by current language. ) Mr. Brewin urged Council to not change the ordinance because of a vocal minority who were breaking the law on this issue. - Proponents (for amendments) • NPO 5 Chair, Craig Hopkins, reviewed NPO 5's efforts. The NPO initiated an amendment to repeal the Code restrictions following a series of neighborhood complaints and discussions on the issues. Reactions from all NPOs on this issue were mixed. Since the code only applies to the required front yard (normally 20 feet) campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. , can be legally stored in many front yards. Older subdivisions, many times, have greater setbacks which would allow front yard storage. c. The public hearing was closed. - d. Council comments. Council remarks were generally in ( favor with the Planning Commission findings which CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 7 • .. a 44, :-. .ti recommended that the Council maintain the existing regulations, citing neighborhood aesthetics as the main rationale. In addition enforcement, safety, and infringement of another's property rights were of concern to the Council. ` - e. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to deny the NPO 5 appli.nation for the repeal of - Section 18.96.06 A. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of CouncilIII { present. 1. Councilor Johnson requested a conversation by Council at a future study session meeting regarding policy on Code Enforcement. 8. CONSIDERATION OF REVISION OF CITY STREET VACATION ORDINANCE a. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed this agenda item. ` The proposed ordinance would revise the City's street vacation notification requirements to coincide with 1991 changes in Oregon State Statutes. b. ORDINANCE NO- 92-05 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF • To THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET VACATIONS, SECTION 15.08.120. l C. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwab, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-05. rig: The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. ;h 9_ EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into 4. Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) , le) , & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property-transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 p.m. ( a,17/“.'/h u 2 Attest: 7- Catherine Wheatley, City R4corder •,.. 4 67.' -' ///.. //V-- . dMay'or, CiEy-of Tigard Date: 3- , 0- q _ ( h:\recorder\can\ccm0211.92 `, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 8 ...4 MIME • • (116 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0005 FRONT YARD STORAGE (ALL NP0'S) A ' proposal to delete section 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code which prohibits front yard storage in 'a residential zone. Section 18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard (A States: Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreation vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity shall not be stored in a required.front yard in a residential zone. LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.22.040 and 18.96.060. o Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff explained the applicant, NPO #5, was seeking to do away with the rule prohibiting storage of items in the '.._ front yard. He explained that this is an issue of community values revolving around aesthetics. He. discussed the C C & R's set up_i ro "' developments to deal with this issue. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION ". o Craig Hopkins, Chair of NPO #5, spoke representing the NPO. He said that this section of the Code was complaint driven, and therefore tended to be unevenly enforced. He described a specific incident where there was some animosity between two neighbors, and this resulted in a complaint being'fit-ed;°tr He suggested removing this section from the Code because it is too difficult to enforce. o Discussion followed pertaining to C C & R's. President Fyre expressed concern, as this was the only method of dealing with problems of this nature and many communities did not have C C & R's set up. o Commissioner Barber inquired of Mr. Hopkins whether the NPO would be in favor of keeping this section of the Code if there were enough code enforcement officers. Mr. Hopkins advised that the NPO would look favorably if the Code were consistently enforced. o There was discussion about the term "required front yard" and Senior ..r: Planner provided definition and clarification. OPPONENTS o Bill Gross, 3019 SW Hampshire, spoke on behalf of NPO #7 opposing the proposed elimination of this section of the Code, as it would tend to ;+: have a detrimental effect on the appearance of neighborhoods. He stated that NPO members do not believe that C C & R's are the best method to deal with yard clutter problems. He advised that the NPO finds that the policy is sound, whether or not the policing is difficult.- He said there was no basis for the proposal to allow larger yards to have more clutter. In response to a question from Commission Saporta regarding any middle • ground which could be taken, Mr. Gross stated that the consensus of the NPO membership was that the Code ought to be retained as is. * PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 2, 1991 PAGE 5 111, 41110 BUTTAL ( o Craig Hopkins spoke again about the possibility for misuse of the Code. He described the loss incurred by the person who was cited in the particular instance which occurred in his neighborhood. He suggested there were other avenues to deal with nuisances. , PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED _ o Commi ssi oner Boone did not favor rejecting the code, because maintaining the community is important. . 111111 o Commissioner Saporta said, while the specific incident Mr. Hopkins spoke of was unfortunate, this. was no_basis for alteringe Code. He said he - _' - would consider a modification to the requirements; but since the applicant did.not favor this, he would vote to leave the Code as is. o Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Saporta. He described the C C & R's in his neighborhood, which- he chose specifically for its - maintenance benefits. He noted that storage is a self-imposed problem. •. He favored keeping the Code as is. ` o Commissioner Castile commented he would-prefer to arrive at some :'`' compromise that would allow for some amount of limited storage. Since there was no compromise currently available, he favored keeping the Code. o Commissioner Barber advised she did not like to see uneven enforcement. She suggested there should be more than one code enforcement of.-icer. There was discussion about current resources in this area. She favored s;`:` keeping the regulation but with modifications to make it more • understandable. o President Fyre commented that having limited enforcement ability was not .:,,; justification for eliminating the regulations. He favored keeping the Code as is. o Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Saporta seconded to make a j `- ' recommendation to City Council against repealing the City Code Section 18.96.06 (A). Motion passed unanimously by Commissioners present. 6. OTHER S - o Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that City Council had upheld the •-�f' - Planning Commission's recommendation and study concerning Note 2 on the • study areas on the Transportation Plan Map. `_r< PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 2, 1991 PAGE 6 /7 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council • FROM: Pat Reilly DATE: August 27, 10,12 SUBJECT: RV Parking As you may recall, Councilor John Schwartz and Dick Bewersdorff met with Rick Perkins and a local representative of the Good Sam Club (national RV owners club) regarding RV's in late June, 1992. Councilor Schwartz indicated to Mr. Perkins that he would like to have a workshop with the other Council members about the issues brought up by Mr. Perkins. Staff indicated that we would review the Good Sam Clubs RV Parking Rights Manual and highlight portions for Council's review. Staff also checked with other Metro area cities to determine what if any other restrictions exist for RV's. The City Attorney's Office provided a response to a court case (City of Euclid, Ohio v. Fitzthum) and its relevance in Oregon. Staff received a copy of the RV manual on August 18. We have attached a copy and have highlighted what we believe are the most relevant parts. The City Attorney's opinion is also attached. It indicates that Fitzthum is not controlling in the State of Oregon. It appears that only two cities regulate RV's. The City of Forest Grove regulations are pertinent only to street parking. The City of Beaverton allows parking of RV's in the front yard by special permit if due to physical characteristics of the lot, building or landscaping, parking in the rear or side cannot be reasonably provided. Such parking requires, also, that the owner enter into 'i``'" a written agreement with the owner of the property on the side closest to the RV parking, hard surfacing and no traffic sight obstruction. RV Manual Summary Various articles provide experience in the actual regulation of RV's on lots and streets in other cities across the country. They provide examples of various ordinances. Mr. Perkins has indicated that a more reasonable approach might be if some provision were made to allow parking in the front yard where access to the side or rear yard was not practical. Staff has highlighted the following from the RV manual: j /1 a o the RVer's viewpoint, pages 7-9 o a San Leandro, CA experience which provides for front _ yard parking if there is no reasonable access to side or rear yard, page 17 o 72 hour allowance in Redondo Beach, CA, page 18 Boynton Beach, FL allowing parking in driveway and where o enfo t on a complaint basis - enforcement� �:as only P West Dundee IL similar to `Q'3 oard, pages o a situation in -- 28-30 .,. IA, pages 31-32, Bellevue NE, pages 35-36, Tena o Tenaflfly,y, NJ, pages 37-38, Albuquerque, •NM, page 42, and �, Oklahoma City, OK, page 47 all allow front yard storage if side and rear yards are not accessible o Euclid, OH case, page 45 • It would be relatively simple to amend the existing Tigard code to , accesse for front yard store rear or side yard was not od sa listedge if �in the RV manual also provide accessible. The other c • much more detailed approaches and examples of standards. Alternatives 1, leave RV code as is; a. continue to enforce on complaint basis; b. begin more proactive enforcement of RV code violations; "`` eal RV code section; 2. rep 3. amend code to provide for front yard storage where not practical in front and rear, 4. amend code with more detailed standards such as distance from structures, limitations on length and height, screening specifications, distance from curb, connection r.'• to utilities, etc. ; I9 ' RECEIVED PLANNING INIMIMMI • n�G 18 1992 • • Chapter I • Negotiating for Your RV Pare Rights i i✓• '+ Owners of recreational vehicles don't expect non-RVers to share their enthusiasms for NMINIMI =ME 11®� traveling by er filer, motorhome. It's the freedom L_ ;MIN 'b camper, t abler,or to choose lifestyles that makes this = L :, a truly country free where we have the capacity to pursue our own interests. However, RV owners do expect the right to use their private property as they wish as long as it does not affect the health, safety, and welfare of neighbors and fellow citizens. Unfortunately, there are a lot of non-RVers who do not share this attitude. For the past two decades, these anti-RV forces have become increasingly vocal in their objections to seeing RVs parked in their neighborhood, either on the street or within the private limits of the RV owner's property lines. Why?Most objections are based on the grounds of aesthetic values,putting forth the premise that RVs reduce property values and are an eyesore. Since objections to RV parking on this . basis alone was defeated in the now famous Euclid, Ohio, case that was heard by the United sh.0`. States Supreme Court (see page 45 in this_publication), the anti-RV forces have resorted to ,, ,` fighting RVparking rights on the basis of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. M Y '' Initially, they frequently have the backing of local government officials, but members of :: the RVing community have, on many occasions, been able to counteract this trend. By co- • operating with city and community zoning officials, they have worked out compromises that satisfy the majority of both RV and non-RV owners. The purpose of this publication is to acquaint those facing anti-RV legislation with the methods which other RV owners have utilized to gain favorable legislation. Promptness and'cooperation are key words when approaching the problem. Every RV owner should be aware of the existing ordinances within his or her own community. Some have learned, the hard way, that anti-RV parking Iegisition has existed for many years, even • decades, only to be overlooked until some disgruntled property owner requested action from • the local law enforcement agency. If an RV owner discovers that his community has legislation on the books against RV parking, one approach might be to let the sleeping giant alone, but this could be dangerous; once that first citation is issued, a situation evolves that frequently gets out of hand and is difficult to fight. - . • There is another problem. A city council can quietly enact anti-RV parking legislation At' without the knowledge of local RV owners. This has happened on more than one occasion, and once this legislation is on the books, it is far more difficult to change than if the RV owners are vocal early in the negotiations. Every RV owner should become a committee of one to be aware of zoning changes that are being discussed in his city or town. This is admittedly easier in a smaller community where -t;. ; f such news is published in the local newspaper, but notices of hearings are public information • and must be published in some manner. • • Once it has been established that a community is considering any changes that are going - to affect the rights of RV owners, it is time to take action, but in an orderly manner. 7 . Vii; . . - , . f ® l through Good Sam chapters to enlist the assistance of The first step is to organize; work the RVers in your area. From that nudeus, select a committee to canvass neighborhoods and. contact homes where RVs are parked. An inexpensive advertisement in the local newspaper announcing an organizational meeting can bring in still more support, and frequently local RV dealers will be willing to lend their support by paying for advertisements or flyers to be delivered Um to RV owners. Other sources of support may come from RV manufacturers and the dubs they sponsor as well as other recreation-oriented groups. if the law restricts RVers' rights, it could extend to 1 / E; i_t- traaters or off-road enthusiasts. Finding out how other interest groups such as ►.►oto.�I-��• -='=_—' this law is going to affect multiple use vehides, such as vans and pickups, also could swing a "t. 1.:,.:. of..e.-:4cn�ts r_ yo;fir ride- e. .__ lid 1 v From this gathering, it is essential that a spokesman with a cool head arta cairn vui iu=i= BONI• approach be appointed to represent RVers at public hearings and to the press. More than one should be prepared,with each presenting a different aspect of the problem.The rhetoric should '' speaker after another stalk to the microphone and harangue about �` be organized. To have one ` ''_`��• �_�' the same issue does no good and creates a lot of ill will from non-RV owners as well as elect officials. An orderly presentation gains more support and respect. Numbers talk.Although you have only a few spokespersons,just having RV owners show up and demonstrate their strength in numbers has been a very effective element in past situations. _. It convinces legislators that here are people who are sincere in their requests to exercise their ,y property rights. ''. Again, the gathering should be orderly. It is rare that the anti-RV forces are as organized .:, or generate as much support as those for RV owners rights. t Suggest that a committee be formed of all of those involved(RVers,anti-RVers and officials) •- , to work out a solution to be presented at a future public hearing. Be reasonable in your requests. Demanding the unlimited right to park an RV tudy here . on your property without regard for others is not going to meet with anysympathy. ordinances that have been successful in other communities, and use them as guidelines in establishing one that suits your community. parkedbe on If opposing forces object to RVs parked in front yards, iggest that to an Rblocking paved or graveled surfaces specifically designed for that purpose. ; the view of neighbors, establish a reasonable setback. are ,but Show that you are good citizens, concerned about your community just as they also concerned about your personal property. inyour community might be in order. When compared A survey of the RV storage spaces with the number of R • Vs involved, it very well could demonstrate that there are not sufficient , spaces to accommodate all of the RVs in question. Maintaining a good image in your community is most important. Keeping your RV and • the area surrounding it neat and tidy will help you in your argument to keep it on your property. neglected and has weeds growing up around the wheels and leaves An RV that obviously is piled around it is bound to draw more criticism than one that is properly parked and maintained. If it is necessary to enlist the aid of an attorney,be sure to have him send for Good Sam's legal brief to assist him in preparing his case in your behalf.That, and this manual, could save him hours of research and save your committee needed funds. d Don't be timid about asking questions. Why did the question of RV pparks ng surfacnly disce? nd • from what source? How many residents are really against RV parking? few or is there a trend in this direction involving a majority of the residents? Frequently just one or two families can stir up a real storm. If the situation cannot be resolved through the usual procedures of public hearings and a vote of the local governing board,then take your issue to the voters in the fo mannot of a referendumdecideby If the voters turn thumbs down, then at least the answer is definitive ..:.. -...� _ __...ter... .•. ... t Nis- erthandful of anti-RV propy owners. a less situation; you are not alone in your efforts. ivot .__ rememberfavorable Ieeislation, but many are finding Just that it is nota hope all communities succeed in their efforts to obtain .a,cra that elected officials and judges are swayed in the direction of the wholesome life-style and family togetherness that RVing represents. Every time RVers present a reasonable argument and win,it is bound to influence another ` That is one of the purposes of this document; to aid community somewhere in this country providing information of organized efforts that have yielded successful results. P others Don'tby p g over every stone.As the RVing community grows in numbers ' •�- give up without turning � ordinances. •and strength, so do your chances to Obtain pro-RV ord��nces.lig Inc. will be We sincerely hope that the information provided to you by TL Enterprises, • _. _n elf the RV owners of your community. • i :,;.- i J.. • • _ 9 •_ f -_ . �V3 CALIFORNIA, San Leandro In 1979, it looked like the RV owners of San Leandro,Calif ow a in h hard lr d time. a e Ap proposal before the city council went besyond strenet peari gd , prohibited parking of all oversized v and would have prohibited parking within the 20-foot front l`also extended to off-street parking, yard setback area of residences. in This ordinance would have encompassed vehicles rise mmp alai ints about7feet inproblems height,and 7 feet in width.The ordinance was drafted m respo of visibility due to oversized vehicles on streets and indriveways Station wagons, vans. and pickups with shells were to be exempted from the res Council members agree that, should the ordinance be passed, it would not apply to short- �, term parking situations; complaints were to be issued only after a vehicle had been parked in { one location for a sufficient time to Went into actton-red nF[rst they learned that there were not Good Samers in San Leandro sufficient storage lots nearby to accommodate all of the RVs that would be in violation of the '"' Po proposed ordinance.They gathered their forces and voiced their complaints to the city council. • P Members of the council listened, and the resulting ttiat RVers unable tofavorable park their : most RV owners than the one originally proposed. It specifies • vehicles behind the 20-foot setback, and who have no reasonable access to not either xtend over the side yard, may park their vehicles in their driveways, providedthey public sidewalk. • As for street parking, non-motorized vehicles are not allowed to be parked between the y hours of 2 and 6 a.m. • > San Leandro,California TITLE VI VEHICLES Chapter 1 Traffic Control A variance granted pursuant to these provisions shall remain valid only so long as the • necessary facts established in order to obtain the variance continue to exist. • (b) Off-Street Parkin Of Vehicles Of Certain Size; Residential. -�;. .:: (1) No motor vehicle exceeding the following two (2) dimensions: twenty (20) �: feet in length and seven (7) feet in Neigh[shall be parked or left standing 20 feet of the front yard or street side yard (on a corner lot) ,` side n twenty ( ) may i. side of the sidewalk; provided,however,tha,osn thereof,��space nut be so parked or left standing on the driveway portion said twenty • available upon the driveway of the vehicles to be parked beyond (20) feet.or if space is not available in the rear yard or side yard.or there is : . • no reasonable access to either the rear yard or side yard; a corner lot is • presumed to have reasonable access to the rear yard. (2) Not withstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no part of any motor ' vehide may extend over the public sidewalk. (c) Non-Motorized Vehicles. e No hal other rkor ft standing upon ana motor vehicle as y street between the hoursy California Vehicle of 2:00 §415 shall be parked a.m. and 6:00 a.m. 17 CALIFORNIA, Redondo Beach person can make a difference comes from Redondo Beach. f Another example of how one California. It was in 1980 that Good Samer Dr Win Buckner almost sgle-handedly defeated the ' ` Redondo Beach City Council's proposed anti-RV parking ordinance. protested the proposed legislation in person at a City Council meeting, utilizing '; Buckner rt his argument. He succeeded in getting the ;,• information from the Legislative Kit to support councilmen to postpo ne their decision on the ordinance for one week. _ It was a busy week for Buckner. He wrote and had printed 500 flyers which he and his wife distributed on every parked RV they found, driving nearly 100 miles on city streets and through parking lots. When the council met the following week, Buckner was pleased to see City Hall packed Fiftyof those attending the meeting were, like Buckner, prepared to deliver and overflowing. '` ;. - < speeches in protest of the anti-RV parking legislation. • After only six of these speeches, the city councilman who had introduced the legislation announced that he would withdraw his motion. Without the alertness of Buckner,nd ed the • support of those he contacted,the legislation probably would have been passed signed into ',. law before the RV owners of that community were aware of the restrictions being imposed on them. '` Once again, it stressed the importance of knowing what is going on in the community. The proposed legislation would have allowed motorhomes to park in the front yard area on approved driveways which lead directly to a garage. Non-motorized otor z of thRVs e be parked , structure on driveways,side yards,and back yards if they were behind the on the property. "` •' Redondo Beach,California • I. Regulations for parking and/or storage for each lot or parcel in all residential land use districts as designated by Section 10-2.1406 of Article 2 of this chapter. • (I) Storage and/or parking, for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours,of • '• j • ler tops,dismantled boats,house trailers,camp trailers, dt yarrdh d area-definedtherein for the purpose orcles,f thisand other section as '. ;. 1 trailers in the front yard area ("front yard the • area measured from the front property line to a line parallel with the lace and extending the of the front wall • of the main building located eel)the greatest permitted.not be stance from the ddrt ort o the above regulation, full width of the lot or pa storage in the front yard area for more than isev ty-two nes) trash, wove or other any materials erials (lumber. metals, plastics, etc.), fixtures. PP for • which are not customarily considered as a decorative landscaping feature is hereby prohibited. (2) On the street side of corner hours reversed of boats. trailers, storageiraitems,parking theigide or more than seventy-two (72) consecutive rear yard area, shall be shielded by a decorative wall or fence six (6') feet high to minimize any appearance from the street and surrounding property; except on the street side of reversed comeerrlots no storage shall be undesirable permitted doser to the street than the required setback of the adjacent interior lot. • (3) Storage for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours of any commercial or construction equipment or materials, or storage and/or parking for more than seventy-two (72) Fi FLOItEDA, Boynton Beach Good Samers in Boynton Beach,Florida,won a decisive victory and one of the most liberal ----:-111::''.''' RV parking ordinances on the books. <;' g Prior to 1978, the existin anti-RV ordinance prohibiting the parking of RVs on residential property (except in a garage) was enforced only on complaint. This led to one RVer in the —'` ractice of enforcing only in response to complaints was discrim- I community claiming that the practice inatory; he had been cited several times while others tatts had the city been filed nued id to park their RVs on their property without penalty since no comp . . This lone RV owner's allegation led to a wholesale enforcement of the ordinance, and a loud cry of protest from RV owners who requested a new ordinance. The new ordinance went far beyond most in allowing not one but two RVs to be parked on a single residential lot provided that only one is parked or stored ne mathe area obetween no right-of-way and the structure on a hard surfaced area-A second red in a carport, on a driveway (behind the front line of the structure) or in a rear yard. The ordinance goes a step further in allowing additional RVs stored in an endosed structure- Chapter 20 RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,BOATS AND ' BOAT TRAILERS Sec. 20-1. Purpose.The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and boats or boat trailers.These regulations are intended for and in the best interest of the citizens of the city to provide easy access to recreational vehicles while promoting the health,safety and welfare of all the citizens of the city. (Ord. No. 78-2, § 1, 2-7- 78) Sec. 20-2. Scope.This chapter is intended to be applicable in all residentially zoned areas within the city limits. (Ord. No. 78-2, § 2, 2-7-78) Sec. 20-3. Definition. As used in this chapter, "recreation vehicle" means any travel trailer, motor home.slide-in camper. or other unit built or mounted on a chassis.excluding vans,designed without a permanent foundation,which is used for temporary dwelling or sleeping purposes and which may be legally driven or towed on a highway,and which body • length does not exceed thirty-five (35) feet and total body width does not exceed eight (8) feet. or any boat or boat trailer, and all other sport type recreational vehicles and the trailers used to i store or transport all such recreational vehicles. (Ord. No.78-2. § 3. 2-7-78) Sec. 20-4. More stringent regulations to apply.This chapter is primarily for the purpose of protecting residential zoning.Therefore,any ordinances of this city or laws of this state providing for the regulation of recreation vehicles,boats or boat trailers or motor vehicles are in addition to this chapter and wherever any provision of some other ordinance or applicable statute, whether primarily for the regulation of recreation vehicles,boats or boat trailers or , motor vehicles or for purposes of zoning, imposes more stringent requirements or limitations then arc imposed or required by the provisions of this chapter than the more stringent - requirements or limitations shall apply. (Ord. No. 78-2, § 7,2-7-78) #� Sec. 20-5. Effect on private limitations on land use.This chapter shall not be con- strued to limit any deed restrictions, condominium regulations or similar private limitation more . restrictive than the regula ico tidheprivaten. Fterhisprovision o shall construed t uas + creating an obligation the enforce 1nd u (Ord. No. 7 § 2-7-78) 24 tlICOMMIC • WI ILLINOIS, West Dundee v Good Samer Ed Kolbab.a of West Dundee,Illinois,did a tot of walking and door-knocking, t but it paid off with favorable RV parking legislation in that community. Ed was fortunate in having a village planner who was cooperative. He worked with Ed - in utilizing information from the Legislative Kit to draft an ordinance to replace an existing one that was anti-RV.Village board members were presented with an ordinance that was a composite ;; ;. prepared from ideas utilized in other communities. _ . The problems in West Dundee surfaced during the su�er of 1984 when several RV and _ y boat owners,who had parked their vehicles in their driveways,received notices from the police that they were violating a village ordinance.They were given 25 days to move their vehicles. Realizing they had a problem to be resolved,board members gave the RV and boat owners r;::`';: I a six-weeks grace period while the board attempted to work out the problem. • At that time, the West Dundee zoning code prohibited parking any boat or RV, including r ;; i motorized units, in a residential area if that vehicle was more than 10 feet high, 17 feet long, eight feet wide and was within a front yard, side yard,or front driveway. Vehides also had to be more than six feet from any building and three feet from any property line. . After receiving several complaints, the police cracked down and started issuing citations. • To complicate the situation, there were no RV storage facilities passed bya unanimous vote, and are The new rules presented to the village board were favorable to RV and boat owners. The new length limit for vehicles in side and rear yards is 30 feet, and small RVs (but not boats) can be stored in driveways. • To add to the flexibility, the new ordinance also allows RVs to be left in a front driveway -` for up to 48 hours in any 15-day period for loading and unloading, maintenance, and visitors; R however, nobody is allowed to live in the vehicle. i AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER XII ZONING, ARTICLE II GENERAL ZONING DIS- TRICT REGULATIONS. SECTION 210 OUTDOOR STORAGE OF TRAILERS AND BOATS OF :or '{' THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF WEST DUNDEE, IL OF 1973. AS AMENDED ADOPTED BY THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF WEST DUNDEE,ILLINOIS • THIS 5Th DAY OF DECEMBER 1983 • • 3. •,. PUBLISHED IN PAMPHLET FORM BY AUTHORITY OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VIL- LAGE OF WEST DUNDEE.KANE COUNTY,ILLINOIS.THIS 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1983 ""' ORDINANCE 83-13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER XII ZONING, ARTICLE II GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 210 OUTDOOR STORAGE OF TRAILERS AND • BOATS.OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF WEST DUNDEE, ILLINOIS OF 1973, AS AMENDED • ,-.' Be it ordained by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of West Dundee. Kane County, Illinois: Section 1:That Chapter XII Zoning, Article Ii General Zoning District Regulations, Section 210 Outdoor Storage of Trailers and Boats,of the Municipal Code of the Village of West NF---,----- • ' Dundee, Illinois of 1973 be,and the same hereby is amended,by repealing said section in its (v/77 entirety.The amended chapter shall be designated as Chapter XII Zoning, Article II General Zoning District Regulations, Section 210 Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles. Boats,and ' Trailers, the same now to read as follows: ( CHAPTER XII Zoning ~' •\ ARTICLE II General Zoning District Regulations SECTION 12-210 Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles. Boats, and Trailers A. Definitions - "'•"Y°' 1. Boat: Means any device used or capable of being used for navigation on water. _ 2. Trailer. Shall include every vehide designed or utilized for the transportation of any boat,auto,snowmobile,and the like,which does not have motive power, but is designed to be drawn by another vehicle. ME • 3. Recreation Vehide: Is a vehicular,portable structure built on a chassis, designed to • be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses and/or vehicles with"RV"license plates.A rearatiOn vehicle shall include but not be limited to the following: travel trailer,pick-up camper, motorized home,camping • trailer. • 4. Owner. Means a person other than a lien holder having a property interest in or title to a boat,trailer,or recreation vehicle.The term indudes a person entitled to the use or possession of a boat,trailer,or recreation vehicle,subject to an interest in another person. reserved or created by agreement and securing payment or performance of an obligation. B. General Conditions ' 1. Dwelling Use: No boat, trailer or recreation vehicle shall be used as a dwelling, storage or an accessory building. ' • 2. Construction Use: A recreation vehicle may be used as a temporary office or storage space incidental to construction of a building/development for the period of ';c';... time such construction is actively undertaken,provided such vehicle is located on the same or contiguous lot as the building/development under construction. ' ' 3. Flammable Liquids: The owner of a boat, trailer or recreation vehicle shall not park, let stand,or store such vehicle leaving flammable liquids aboard other than •'.< in Illinois Department of Transportation or United States Department of T ranspor- ration approved containers. •' 4. Dangerous or Unsafe Storage: The owner of a boat,trailer,or recreation vehicle shall not park, let stand,or store such vehide in such a manner as to create a dangerous or unsafe condition on the propertywhere •• g parked, permitted to stand. '•.:. or stored. Parking,standing or storing the boat.trailer, or recreation vehicle in such •'j ri•-% • Ib. TemPo�^! trailers,and recreation vehicles shall be • t tot ceding/parking: Boats,be temporarily parked in the front driveway of any residence for up to 48 hours within any 15 day period to accommodate loading/unloading operations,out-of--town guests•and minor repair/maintenance work. t c. IndoE Storage: A boat,trailer or recreation vehicle may be stored indoors E provided ttha the residence maintains two off-street parking spaces as required. ? 2 r of Vehicles: No more than 1 boat/trailer combination and 1 recreation ! l be stored on any one residential lot.Kayaks,canoes,and rowboats shall notle may of this subsection. `; shall be considered a boat for purposes i �, ctions�Side and Rear Yard: No boat.trailer, or recreation 3. Bulk &.s re m _.__ • .. trehide stored in a residential district shall exceed the following dimensions and j locations: a. Hei t: 11 feet excluding antennae. i b. jar_30 feet,excluding hitch,tongue,and other appendages. :, ?. I c. Width: 8 feet excluding attached!-ardw�. t d. Rte_closer than 3 feet from the rear property line. e. Side Yard: closer than 3 feet from the side property line. • I4. Bulk and Location Restrions--Front Yard: No boat,trailer,travel trailer,or - camping trailer shall be allowed withinLoading/Parking.front yard • No motorized recreational provided in Section C lb Temporary g.. whize recreational adopted r,,' • vehicle shall be stored in a front yard except on a driveway driveway standards and shall not exceed the following dimensions and location: ,‘ , ,1 a.. a. lie_ it: 7 feet excluding antennae. • • . b, I.ut the 20 feet c. Width: 8 feet ' � d_ Set Back: 15 feet from the public right of way ..s;` Section 2:That any and all ordinances,resolutions,and orders,or parts thereof,in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, are to the extent of such conflict repealed. .. is rdinance is for I • Section o:That if any or,unconstitutional sentence decision shall otOeffect the validity any reason held to be void, m • of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. nd 4:That this dOd law,ce and after publication in pamphlet form purse nt to ll be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as providedby the authority of the President and Board of Trustees. ,y Passed by the Board o usaof this the etVih llagy off West December,Dundee. Kane County. Illinois, and approved by President of said . AYES: 6 ,•, NAYES: 0 • ABSENT: 0 Thomas R.Warner Village President,Village of • West Dundee.Kane County, II. ATTEST: Margaret Jefferson •'.t Village Clerk by Barbara Haines ; Deputy Clerk /n -'... --. rte» ... .. _ _- _ - ... ^..Y.....�.. h �....... I IOWA, Maquoketa In 1981,Good Samers in Maquoketa, Iowa,requested a Legislative Kit in order to prepare f a pro-RV parking presentation to the city council. Details of their actual activities are not available,but the current ordinance regulating RV parking in that community has been written ' for the convenience of RV owners. It provides for front driveway and/or front yard parking when space is not available in the side yard and there is no reasonable access to the side or rear yard. It is interesting to note that this particular ordinance addresses the issue of LP-gas containers, requiring that they meet certain standards and that valves be closed unless the vehicle is being readied for immediate use. The ordinance also allows sleeping in the vehicle for a period not exceeding 72 consecutive hours to provide for non-paying guests. 5-1C-6:DEFINITIONS OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND VESSEL • - As used in this ordinance, camping and recreation vehicles and • equipment is defined as and shall include the following: Recreational Vehicle: A general term for a vehicular unit not exceeding thirty-six (36) feet in �, overall length.eight (8) feet in width, or twelve (12) feet in overall height, which applies to the following specific vehicle types: • 1. Camper Trailer—A folding or collapsible vehicular structure,without its own power, designed as a temporary living quarters for travel, camping, recreation,and vacation uses; and be licensed and registered for highway use. 2. Travel Trailer—A rigid structure, without its own motive power, designed as a temporary dwelling for travel, camping, recreation,and vacation use: be licensed and registered for highway use; and which when equipped for the road,has a body width of not more than eight (8) feet. • ok.'_ z..., - 3. Truck Camper—A portable structure, without its own motive power, designed to be _;", transported on a power vehicle as a temporary dwelling for travel,camping, recreation. and vacation use: and which in combination with the carrying vehicle: be licensed and registered for highway use. .4. Motor Home—A vehicular unit built on or as a part of a self-propelled motor vehicle ': ,•` chassis, primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for travel,camping, • recreation, and vacation use; and to be licensed and registered for highway use. 5. Boat Trailer—A vehicular structure without its own motive power,designed to transport a ` recreational vessel for recreation and vacation use and which is licensed and registered for highway use. 6. Horse Trailer—A vehicular structure without its own motive power designed primarily for the transportation of horses and which, in combination with the towing vehicle, is licensed • and registered for highway use. ." • 7. Utility Trailer—A vehicular structure without its own motive power designed and or used for the transportation of all manner of motor vehicles,goods,or materials and licensed and • registered for highway use. • -_ Recreational Vessel: A general term applying to all manner of watercraft, other than a seaplane _ on water, whether impelled by wind, oars, or mechanical devices, and which is designed primarily for recreation or vacation use. A recreation vessel, when mounted upon a boat trailer, "` 31 _ as , and its towing vehicle,when parked, shall be considered one (1) unit, exclusive of its towing C72 ✓ vehicle. t 5-1C-7• :REGULATIONS GOVERNING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES • ' AND VESSELS: / Any owner,lessee, or bailee of a recreational vehide may park one such vehicle or one such vessel on a single lot in a residential district, subject to the following: t 1. Such recreational vehicle or vessel shall be maintained in a clean,well kept state so as not • 1 to detract from the appearance of the surrounding area. -:a..- 2. If suc aa.�,...�..o t` o•• LTi `s liquified gasnasi.^.^.5,such contain-=ado:al vehicle or vessel s equipped with—„ oa ers shall meet the standards of either the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Federal i __ ' • Department of Transportation or the American Society of Iviechanicai Engineers,as such standards exist on the date of passage hereof. Further,the valves of such liquified petroleum gas containers must be closed when the vehicle or vessel is not being readied for immediate use,and in the event that leakage is detected from such liquified petroleum gas containers, immediate corrective action must be taken. 3. At no time shall such parked recreational vehicle or vessel be occupied or used for living, • ` sleeping,or housekeeping purposes except as provided in sub-paragraph(4) of this Section. 4 4. It shall be lawful for only non-paying guests at a residence in a residential district to occupy i T one recreational vehicle or vessel,parked subject to the provisions of this ordinance,for sleeping purposes only for a period not exceeding seventy-two(72)consecutive hours.The total number of days during which a recreational vehicle or vessel may be occupied under this sub-section shall not exceed fourteen(14) in any calendar year. Y"' 5. Such recreational vehicle or vessel may be parked in the following manner. '` (a) Inside any enclosed structure which structure otherwise conforms to the zoning re- i quirement of the particular district where located. (b) Outside in the side yard or in the rear yard,and shall not be nearer than two feet (2') to any side or rear lot line. • ( (c) Parking of recreational vehicles or vessels is permitted in front driveway or an area ad- x jacent to the driveway provided: (1) Space is not available in the side yard,or there is no reasonable access to either '' the side or rear yard. A lot shall be deemed to have reasonable access to the rear yard if terrain permits and an access can be had without substantial damage to existing large trees or landscaping. A corner lot shall normally be deemed to hay. • - reasonable access to the rear yard. ' (2) Inside parking is not possible. (3) The recreational vehicle or vessel may not extend over the public sidewalk or publicly owned right-of-way. (d) The City Manager or Police Chief may issue a permit for parking on any City street or `, t.z alley for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours. y (e) The City Manager or Chief of Police may issue a permit for parking more than one ,,,;% recreational vehicle or more than one recreational vessel on a single lot in a residential district (f) The owner of a recreational vehicle or recreational vessel parked on a single lot in a residential district shall also be the owner or the renter of such residential lot. r (_ 32 • -- — — , ' NEBRASKA, Bellevue , A few months after the establishment of a favorable RV parking ordinance in Albuquerque, -1-------- New 1- -==New Mexico (see page 41), Good Samer Victor Clarence of Bellevue, Nebraska, served on a El similar committee with the same favorable results. Using the Albuquerque ordinance as a guideline,the Bellevue committee tailored it to suit •rtthe needs of their own community. • ORDINANCE NO,1115 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING AND STORAGE OF `) RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,TRAILERS AND BOATS; >: DEFINING TERMS; PERMTITING PARKING AND USAGE THEREOF; REPEALING SECTIONS 2240, 2241, 2437,2438, 24371, 24381.2537,2538.2637,AND 2638 OF ORDINANCE NO.770.THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE;TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. . ''- Be it ordained by the Mayor and Council of the City of Bellevue, Nebraska: Section I. For the purpose of this ordinance,the following definitions are hereby adopted: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE means a vehicular unit not exceeding 40 feet in overall length,8 feet in width,or 12 feet in overall height. primarily designated as a temporary living quarters for recreational,camping or travel use; it either has its own motive power or is designed to be mounted on or drawn by an automotive vehicle. Recreational vehicle includes motor home,truck camper. travel trailer, and camping trailer. A vehicle meeting the above definition except for size is not deemed incidental to a dwelling unit. TRAILER means a vehicle without motive power,designed so that it can be drawn by r i motor vehicle, to be used for the carrying of persons or as a human habitation. However, a structure which meets the requirements of the Building Code of the City of Bellevue in all ways, - ., including foundation,is not a trailer,whether or not it was once a vehicle. BOAT means a vehide for traveling in or on water, not exceeding 40 feet in body :;w:. length,8 feet in width,or 12 feet in overall height. Height includes the trailer, if the boat is ,,i' mounted on a trailer. A vehicle meeting the above definition except for size is not deemed incidental to a dwelling unit. 7• °.'; YARD. FRONT,means that part of a lot between the front for line and the fronts) of ,;,--' the principal building on the lot,and extended to both side lot lines. YARD, REAR, means that part of a lot between the rear lot line and the back(s) of the 7- .,' principal building on the lot,and extended to both side lot lines. YARD,SIDE, means that part of a lot not surrounded by building and not in the front or rear yard. , Section 2. In all residential zones provided for in the Bellevue Zoning Code, it is permissible to park a recreational vehicle, trailer, or boat and boat trailer in the following • manner: a. Parking is permitted inside any enclosed structure,which structure otherwise . ...,:.... Y `; conforms to the zoning requirements of the particular zone, where located; b. Parking is permitted outside in the side yard or rear yard provided it is not nearer than 2 feet to the lot line; - c. Parking is permitted outside on a concrete driveway, provided: 35 ' L • 1. Space is not available'in the rear yard or side yard,or there is no reasonable • access to either the side yard or rear yard; a corner lot is always deemed to • •• have reasonable access to the rear yard;a fence is not necessarily deemed to prevent reasonable access; 2. Inside parking is not possible; 3. The unit is parked perpendicular to the front curb; • d. The body off the recreational vehicle or boat must be at least 13 feet from the face of any curb; e. No part of the unit may extend over the public sidewalk or public thoroughfare (right-of-way). . i Panting is permitted only for storage purposes,and any recreational vehicle or `" J trailer shall not be: '•� I. Used for dwelling purp0ses,except for ov rJght�t ..ing f of a a days in any one calendar year.Cooking is not ermitted at any time. �� 2. Permanently connected to sewer lines.water lines.or electricity.The recreational vehicle may be connected to electricity temporarily for charging . batteries and other purposes. ". 3. Used for storage of goods', materials,or equipment other than those items considered to be part of the unit or essential for its immediate use. g. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections (3)above,a unit may be parked anywhere on the premises during active loading or unloading;and the use of electricity or propane fuel is permitted when necessary to prepare a recreational vehicle for use. h. The unit shall be owned by the resident on whose property the unit is parked for storage. • ,; • Section 3. Sections 2240, 2241,2437.2438.24371.24381, 2537,2538. 2637,and • • 2638 of Ordinance No. 770 are hereby repealed. Section 4.This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. r-'' Passed and approved this 10th day of June. 1974. • Signed/Robert M. Haworth Mayor g' ATTEST: Signed/Mary Struklett -• City Clerk • • First reading:May 13, 1974 Second reading: May 27, 1974 • Third reading:June 10, 1974_ f • y g . 2G ire NEW JERSEY, Tenafly When RV owners in the community of Tenafly New Jersey, lanched their Olive Enos. legal battle, RVs were "not allowed at all," according to Good Samers tie k andOlive utilized This case dates back to 1979 when a lawyer representing re the information owners. tom. convince legislators to vote in behalf of - from Good Sam's Legislative Kit►:, o--- side RV parking when it is The results, which went into effect in May 1979, permityardar yard - . . due REMO determined'that "the recreation vehicle cannot reasonably be o parked would in �e e rear e:ar "substantial to the size of the lot and the location of perms removal of existing landscaping." can live with." RVers in Tenafly agree that it is an ordinance "that they , PUBLIC NOTICE ;. •':' - BOROUGH OF TENAFLY ORDINANCE NO. 1166 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: 'THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE BOROUGH OF .TENAFLY- KNOWN ORIGINALLY AS ORDINANCE 838 AS AMENDED AND 1158 ADOPTESUPPLEMENTED ANUAND 23, 1979.AS ACTED BY ` } ORDINANCE the County ;''.; BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Tenafly in ;,•';`Y of Bergen and State of New Jersey that the basic zoning ordinance of the Borough of Tenafly be and the same shall be amended and supplemented concerning the subject of recreational lements to be as follows: • ' vehicles, said amendments and Supp by the • Section I. Article r o�der, "Definitions-. Section of the following definitionsshall be supplemented insertion in alphabeticalped or capable of being RECREATION VEHICLE - A transportation structure,self-prope towed byit a passenger car, movement permits, sit, and primarily designed or constrpick-up truck,of such size and ued to not _ to require any special highway Pe provide temporary,movable,living quarters for recreational. camping or travel use,or to carry such equipment but not for profit nor commercialnor o�i it be a mobile home. It shall include but not be limited to the following • CAMPER- A separate vehicle designed for human habitation and which can be attached or detached from a light truck withthetruck havingd cheer er nole the cdor oubl chasse rcar is oeel and with or without an assisting tag axle rs are • the truck chassis behind the truck's rear wheels.are sometimes called (truck the truck,rcampers called unmounted campers.These campers � ' CAMPING TRAILER - A type of trailer or trailer coach, the walls of which are so m of rigid ateas to be collapsible and la tic or metal.eithere out of The walls are coUappsed whilear cloth, the recreational some °: vehicle material ssuch as fiberglass orp vehicle is being towed or stored and arc raised or unfolded when the vehicle becomes temporary living quarters and is not being moved. MOTOR HOME - A structure constructed integrally �a no motor o�cmotor designed for human habitation and incapable of beingseparated van chassis may have single or double rear wheels. BOATS, SNOWMOBILES AND THEIR TRAILER- brted oat or s is mobi towable ble ily aer is a vehicle on which a boat or a snowmobiletruck o�a e reatonal vehicle as defined. A private boat passenger car, station wagon, pick-up or private snowmobile when removed from the trailer is termed an unmounted boat or snowmobile.37 __ M Section 2.The basic zoning ordinance shall be supplemented by further supplementing Section 360 entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading"by the insertion of a new subsection known as 360.10 entitled"Recreational Vehicles"to read as follows: -, ` 360.10 Permitted L1�ofR as defined in Section 700 of this ordinance on any tional Vehicles. ft shall be unlawful for any person to park or store any recreational property in the Borough of Tenafly except as follows: , A. In certain specified places in a residential zone or on non-conforming residential • premises as follows: ;: . 1 1. Within an enclosed building conforming with all provisions,restrictions and ( _. . N I regulations of the Tenafly Zoning Ordinance. ordinance ,<the 2. In the rear yard which is defined for purposes of this ed tharethe p ti vehicle the lot to the rear of the rear line of the principal buildingonly i \ shall: _ — a. Be located no closet than 3 feet to the principal structure on the 1Ur- �` b. Be screened from adjacent lots and streets by a solid fence,wall,door,gate, - shrubbery or hedge,not to exceed six feet in height and ingaoother conformance with enclosure to a garage or • ; regulations of the Tenafly Zoning Ordinance.Any doofrom adjacent lots or streets for any vehicle or parking space which enclosure provides screening `' equipment parked therein shall be kept dosed e sept or when nll opening have se least enclosure lo uie is necessary s do ry to obtain access to said parking area. Any facing the adjacent property or the street. A fence shall be 75%solid. Shrubbery shall be at least six feet high and planted at sufficiently close intervals to provide immediate effective screening throughout the year (evergreen). - c. Not exceed thirty-one feet in length and nine feet six inches in height excepting an additional twelve (12") inches permitted for vents and air conditioning units. 3. In a side yard which is defined for purposes of this ordinance as that portion of the •, lot to the side of the principal structure and between the front and rear lines of the pby rincipal structure only in cases where a variance pursuant toil.in aside yard the limitations to set forth in Board of Adjustment; provided,however, that if pa provided further,however, that in . ,:;;fi Subsection 2a.b and c concerning o of recreatiyards ll on also acolor the screening provided therefor the case of sa corner to loi nportion shall be closer to the side street than thsideset street. 4. of the basic ordinance for princi- \.r, pal buildings where they front on said 4.a. A recreational vehicle may be permitted to park in a side yard without the necessity of the granting of a variance by the Board of Adjustment under the following conditions: i. The recreational vehicle shall be parked in the side yard as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance. "` • ii. A finding is made that: a. Torm withcio ordl inance due to thcle cannot e sizely be of the lot and the locatio of permanent .- ••. in the rear yard in such a ' ' way as to conform with this structures thereon: or b. To locate same in the rear yard would require substantial removal of existing landscaping; or r ., c. The recreational vehicle, if parked in the rear yard, would be more offensive to �+u,•, public in general than it would be if parked in the side yard. neighbors and the . iii, The owner of the recreationalvehicle hrclBoard as hereinaft, within 60 er const cured for s of the adoption of this ordinance, apply to the Recreational Appeal certification of the facts required by paragraphs 1 and 2 above. • Appeal Board shall certify to the applicant and to the _-�:a::; • .: I iv. The Recreational Vehicle � . Construction Official within 120 days of the adoption of this ordinance that the facts required by hs 1 and 2 above are true. If the Recreational Vehicle Appeal Board fails to formally paragraphs or period,certification shall be certify deny certification on any application within the 120 day automatically granted.b. The Recreational Vehicle Appealappointed Board shall consist of three members by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Each member shall serve for a term commencing upon appointment and ending 120 days after the adoption of this ordinance at which time the • • • l.• TRAILER means a vehicle without motive power,designed so that it can be drawn by a motor vehicle, to be used for the carrying of persons or property or as a human habitation. However,a structure which meets the requirements of the Building Code of . __ •..-.-5A,3-.,.-� -.--•- .n a(t ways,including foundation, is not a trailer, whether or • ...J.•: Fuer-= .art of a lot between the front lot line and the,front(s) of -t .r,axip t..:,.. -•.•.;: = •: :at,and extended to both side lot lines. YARD. REAR. means that part of a lot between the rear lot line and the back(s) of the principal building on the lot,and extended to both side lot lines. M !'ARD.SIDE.means that part of a lot not suncttrded oy building and not in the front or rear yard. El ca,_,:,..2. Semon 7.A.,.f of Commission Ordinance No.2726. as amended, is hereby repealed. WWI Section 3. Section 7.A.2-e. of Commisior, Ordinance No. 2726. as amended. is hereby redesignated 7-A-2.f. Section 4. The following is added to Sect otr7.A.2. of Commission Ordinance No. 2726. as amended: , e. Recreational vehicle,boat,or boat-and-boat-trailer parking as follows: (I) Inside parking,or .4.sY y.: (2) Outside parking in the si•le yard or the rear yard,or (7) Outside parking in the front yard, providedfi''•`r !a). ,wee is not available or there is no reasonable access to either the side yard or ,, • : . .rear^:ac;=a tyrrae:r iot is always deemed to have reasonable access to the rear vied•p ant necessarily deemed to prevent reasonable access: __—- (t» snssar f ai. e n •- possible: ` ' i I (c) The unit is parked_•r.erpendicular to the front curb: (d) The body of the recreational vehicle or-boat is at least II feet from the face of the • curb: and ; ;. • ;r: Nr. par.if the +-n., extends over the public sidewalk. f .- r (4) Parking is permitted only if the unit, while parked in this zone, is (a) Not used for dwelling purposes,except one recreational vehicle may be used for dwelling purpnses for a maximum of 14 days in any calendar year on any given lot. Cooking is not permitted in the recreational vehicle at any time. Butane or ; propane fuel shall not be used. (b) Not permanently connected to sewer lines, water lines, or electricity.The "r , !- ; recreational vehicle may be connected to electricity temporarily for charging batteries an' other ourposes if the receptacle and the connection from the • recreational venae nas been inspected And approved by the City; this connection • - must meet the Electrical Code of the City of Albuquerque and a City electrical .< _ :: r. �.: • ro•-,,? :.ned for all such installations.The individual taking out the - : ; ,.,.t.-,i;.:.,•:-:: inspection of the electrical wiring when ready for •.{_ rt_ �:•t: -.rn1.412.,_ ; - r. •;:spection fees will be •charged. except no inspection shall be "` • . . ,e.-. R-: -.t•• = 5;-50 fee. at, (c) Not used for storage of goods. materials or equipment other than those items considered to be a part of the unit or mential for its immediate use. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections (3) and (4) above, a unit may be parked anywhere on ,he premises during active loading or unloading, and use of electricity or propane fuel r: - rmitted when necessary to prepare a recreational vehicle for use. (6) If the dwelling on the lot is under constructidn the provisions of Section 7.A-2.g.(3) below shall control, rather than the provisions of Subsection (I) through (4) above. - • g. Trailer parking as follows: ;1) Inside parking if ill provisions of Section 7•A.2.e.(4) above are met, or . (2) Outside parking .n the side and or the rear•yard of cargo trailers of less than 2500 -' pounds carrying csracity. t •. (3) As a dwelling connected to any utilities, fora period of up to six months or until +•- VA. OKLAHOMA, Oklahoma City In 1978, Sam Peters, then Good Sam state director of Oklahoma, enlisted the assistance of Good Same ,other 1W organizations,and RV dealers in a long and hard-fought battle which r...-suited iri regulation favorable to RV owners. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a rather •-• bittersweet victory. _ The resulting ordinance, which still exists,allows RV parking in side yards, rear yards and in the front yard provided that space is not available or there is no reasonable access to either the side or rear yard." It was one RV owner's refusal to abide by the provisional dause that created the turmoil that followed. He had access to a side yard for parking his trailer,but refused to use it,preferring to keep it in his front yard adjacent to his driveway. He was in violation of an ordinance that most RVers felt was reasonable. .„- Neighboring residents complained, but the RVer refused to comply with the parking re- quirements. Since this was in an older section of the city, residents in that area had a six-block by four- block section established as the Linwood Place Urban Conservation District, formed the Lin- ,-; wood Place Neighborhood Association, and proceeded to get an anti-RV parking ordinance enacted just for that area. Because one RV owner refused to abide by the Oklahoma City Ordinance, all of the RV owners in the Linwood District were adversely affected. The resulting legislation also set a precedent for other neighborhoods to follow, and Peters reports that the ordinance for which he and others fought is gradually being eroded away as various neighborhoods follow in the footsteps of the Linwood residents. -'; .:-.- This is a strong argument in favor of properly caring for parked vehicles, keeping them • .,.;3 clean and presentable. Otherwise,favorable legislative action might be difficult to negotiate and maintain. 64002 Accessory Use Regulations for Residential Districts .'.. ; (c) Recreational Vehicle, Boat. Boat and Trailer or Boat Trailer Parking. Recreational vehicle. . ..,•. boat, boat and trailer, or boat trailer parking is permitted in the above districts subject to the following conditions and requirements: _ I. Inside parking, or 2. Outside parking in the side yard. or 3. Outside parking in the rear yard,or 4. Outside parking in the front yard. provided. .•,' a. Space is not available or there is no reasonable access to either the side yard or rear .. :.. � yard: a corner lot is always deemed to have reasonable access to the rear yard; (This applies to all recreational vehicles except self-propelled multi-purpose vehicles and applies to boats, boat-and-trailers and boat trailers not having a boat mounted _ upon it); 4*• b. The unit is parked on a hard surfaced area; - c. The unit is parked perpendicular to the front curb,unless parked on a circular drive; 47 d. The length of the recreational vehicle,boat and trailer or boat trailer shall not be greater than 8 feet••n width and lle�v�ettides in and.frLength om bumpeshall r to tongue�onfrom towed bumper tb bumper on self-sero the and tongue of the recreational vehicle, ' vehicles.The body including the bumper gu boat-and trailer or boat trailer is at least 11 feet from the face of the curb; e. No part of the unit extends over the public sidewalk; required by ordinance shall be violated: and 1 .-;, ,.. E No sight triangle as {un in the front yard. g. Cargo trailers,or stock trailers.are prohibited from parking 5. Parking is permitted only if the unit,while parked in this zone is: - except one recreational vehicle may be used by the a. owe er or for ant of dwelling purposes.re ends,relatives or guests for dwelling purposes owner tenant of the premises, any calendar year on any given lot,provided that for a maximum of 14 days other than temporary said recreational'vehicle shall not be connected to any utility,shallreceive no electrical hookups.and provided further that the host person compensation for such occupancy or use.Provided further that cooking is not petional vehicle at any nme,and no such recreational vehicle shalldischarge in the arny discharge any litter,sewage.effluent or other matter,except into sanitary facilities designed to dispose of such material ater lines,or e.lectricity. e b. Not permanently mayconnected i nnecteder lines,wto electricity temporarily or ate batrecreationalrian vehicleoteooy only shall comply with applicable state law and batteries and othElr cal Code- Oklahoma City c. Not used for storage of goods,materials or equipment other than those items -• part of the unit or essential for its immediate use- considered to be a � the provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 5 above,a unit may be parked 6. Notwithstanding premises during active loading or unloading,and use of electricity or r `- anywhere fuelon the pmittto re a recreational vehicle for use.A propane is permitted when necessary P� period not to exceed 48 hours shall be a reasonable period for active loading and unloading. (dl Accesso Si n.Accessory signs• including on-premises directional and information signs, ± ry g ra signs,are permitted, subject to the provisions of '"'' : identification nameplates and temporary E Y' the Sign Regulations. :y . ... . IS':. r. r, . Euclid III Editor's Note-In February of 1977,a landmark decision on the rights of RVers to park their rigs on their own property became final when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a decision of the Ohio-Court of Appeals in what has become known as"the Eudid case." The history and significance of that case from its beginnings are outlined here in full for your education and assistance,presented step by step by Corinne Shulman,a California attorney who is the author of the Legal Brief %*;^;;.:' which Good Sam makes available to attorneys representing Good Sam members in similar cases anywhere in the country. Mrs. Shulman also authors the column,"Legally Speaking,"which appears in the Hi-Way Herald. The most significant recent victory in the fight against restrictive RV parking laws occurred `. • ``` _. in an Ohio case, known as City of Euclid v. Fitztht m, et al., 48 Ohio App. 2d 297, 357 N. E. 2d 402 (1976), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1094, 51 L Ed. 2d 540 (1977). We've given you what • lawyers call the "citation" to the case, a reference to the law books in which the full opinion is printed, because you will undoubtedly find the case useful in your battle against adoption of a restrictive ordinance and you may want to draw the case to.the attention of the CityE. Attorney, (and your own attorney, if you have one). - , Some years ago,Euclid,Ohio,adopted an ordinance which prohibited the parking of"any ( type of truck, trailer,auto trailer or trailer coach"in residential areas,on either public or private • property, unless such unit was "parked or stored in a completely closed structure." ' In 1974, nine RV owners were cited for parking their RVs on their own property and they and others banded together in a determined effort to fight the ordinance.The matter was tried at the municipal court level as a criminal offense and the owners were found guilty and fined, the trial court finding the ordinance constitutional. The RV owners appealed and the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed their convictions,finding the ordinance unconstitutional_ It is that decision, made in February, 1976, to which we've • referred you, for subsequent petitions by the City of Euclid, first to the Ohio Supreme Court x and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, were both denied and the opinion of the Ohio Court of Appeals is now final. The state appellate court said that in Ohio, zoning restrictions for purely aesthetic reasons are unconstitutional, and that the ordinance, to be constitutional, must be a valid exercise of the police power, the power to regulate for the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. The court then stated that: • The vice of the present ordinance is that the record will support neither an application of the ordinance which : bears a substantial, and therefore reasonable, relationship . • to public health, safety, morals or welfare nor the im- position of a taxonomic scheme based on any state of ; facts that may reasonably justify it. Part of the lack of ( reasonableness is exposed by evidence of an uneven reg- ulatory application. . . . Reviewing the facts illustrated the"constitutional inadequacies of the ordinance."The City had produced testimony to show that a trailer parked in a driveway would interfere with access 45 • 2/q f qr 3 - -. When You TNnk Red Estate Trink a21 OREGON FIRST To: Mayor and City Council Members DAVE DISNEY '* / City of Tigard V SALES ASSOCIATE ` MILLION DOLLAR CLUB From: Dave Disney SERVING OREGON SINCE 1984 03 10910 S. W. 108th 10700 SW BEAVERTON-HILLSDALE HWY. OFFICE(503)6466.5006 Tigard, Oregon PARK PLAZA WEST,EXECUTIVE BLDG.II HOME(503)639-2317 j. SUITE 360,FIRST FLOOR,WEST END FAX(503)626-3547 Subject: R V Parking BEAVERTON,OREGON 97005 • Introduction: I have been a licensed full-time real estate agent since January of 1984. I am also a Tigard resident, having moved here in 1985. ., : : In reference to your memorandum dated November 10, 1992, regarding R V parking; I am inst;tpport of options number 3 and 4 to resolve conflict of opinions I. J'iave heard comments stating that R V's pared in •, driveways, .-along a gravel strip or oh ' concrete pads appear unsightly to -.Some citizens and that they drop property values. - _ To show support for Options an-d. 4, I researched the Realtors Multipl2 .Listing Service to determine how many homes in this City are` listed with R V parE;ing and list for under $250,000. This data is maintained for approximately one year. -f Currently there are thirty-six (36) residential ; - properties on the market that offer R V parking. The average list price is $126,060. , with a high value' of $249,000 and a low value of $80, 000. • • • Recently there have been one hundred thirty-nine (139) residential properties sold and closed which offered R V parking. • The -average closing price was $118, 000. , the high value being $2_9, 000, and the low value at $65,300. • Since I began in real estate, I have personally sold fifty (50) such homes, within the City Limits of Tigard. With this information, you can see for yourselves that residential R V par-king does not, in fact, lower property values, that there is a demand in this City for residential R V parking and that this should be allowed to continue. • -- No one should be told what to do with, or on, his own property simply because of another persons ' idea of asthetice,• `.' and this is the reason that I am in support of Options #.= and #4. Sind "el•/• ; tr David P. Disney • 1 • . . . , . . MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ...._ ,, . ptu Q. ,._., TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Patrick Reilly t 5 ,`; :-.�-ter—� ...- mm I. asphalt, or similar durable surface and are only restricted ( from parking in the clear vision triangle of corner lots. Wilsonville - Has no regulations regarding RV's Lake Qawego - Not allowed in public right of way, nothing addresses aesthetics; There are no regulations addressing RV's on private property. Washington County -- Has no limits on storage of such units in iii residential zones unless the number exceeds five which is a code violation. pptions There are a number of possible ways to proceed. These include: 1. Do not repeal ordinance section 18.96.060 A. This would mean that RV's, etc. would still be restricted from being parked in the required front yard setback. 2. Repeal the ordinance section that restricts parking in the required front yard setback. Clear vision standards (18.102.050) can still regulate the parking of RV's, etc. that would• block the vision of vehicles backing out of adjacent driveways. Parking on a public street, living or sleeping in an RV or the connection to water or sewer services would be regulated by other code provisions. 3. Modify the existing ordinance for clarity, health and safety but allow RV's, etc. to be parked in the front yard. Possible code language: .:��F`° Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, •.4R- recreational vehicles or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity are allowed to be stored in a required front, side or rear yard setback in a residential zone l."A. but may not: r, , a. be parked in a visual clearance area; '.1-, b. be used for sleeping purposes for over 72 consecutive •�.; I. hours; c. be connected to water or sewer services; 4. Modify the existing ordinance for clarity, health and safety as in # 3 above with the added limitations: Boats, trailers, campers d. Only one such vehicle or unit may be parked in the front yard. Said vehicle or unit must be parked at least 10 feet back from the outside edge of the sidewalk, face of the curb if there is no sidewalk, s _ • ( or from the edge of the paved surface of the stet • if there is no curb or sidewalk. • e. Front yard storage or parking shall be hard. surface or graveled. f. The vehicle or unit =et have current state license plates or registration and must be kept in mobile condition. 5. Modify the existing ordinance to prohibit storage in the - required front yard setback unless there are physical • characteristics of the lot, landscaping or the lack of reasonable access the side or rear yard which would • • preclude such storage. Possible code language: • Boats, trailers, campers, car bodies, house trailers, • recreational vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess • sof; 3/4 ton capacity shall not .be stored in a required front yard in a residential zone unless due to physical • caharacteristics of the lot, building or landscaping, :r space is not available in the side yard or there is not • •reasonable access to either the side or rear yard. A lot ` ' shall be deemed to have reasonable access to the side or • rear-.yard if terrain permits and access can be had without substantial damage to existing trees or a ' ( landscaping. A corner lot shall normally be deemed to • have reasonable access to the rear yard. A fence is not •deemed to prevent reasonable access. • �tecommgnd ati on There a pears to be no community •consensus on the need for. .apse etic control relative to RV's etc. Public safety can be controlled by exp, sting visual clearance regulations and subdivisions that wish to control parking can do so through protective covenants and restrictions. It • is, therefore, recommended that option #2, to repeal the code section altogether, ..r *.` be chosen. ,Y • 1 . . • ,,,, - • . , • .. : . ' .... ,, . . . .: , , .. .. .- ,,.. .. ... , . ,.....„. - ,.. .,..„... . .„_;.,,. ....,.. 1 1*"1- Page 1 ..:,...-:, 111: COMPARATIVE MARKET ANALYSIS : ..: .. . 1--'• ,•.•"red b:,9 0.2/06/33 ..;, -.• „,... It C 211HACT, 05LD A 11. ARE : 151 cITY:TIGARD LIST_PRICE:‹250600 1-i: F. E.:T_YEAT...1:RV-PARK 177777FAT_2:R.V-PARK .. .-.... , .1111•••••••••••••1.. : . ;,....:...., ., .WT 11 ..-.. .-.. . .: • a IYPL? Addrel..a' . A# Bed 5th 1-51:" Vv'BIL L/P( 1,-..e •-...'. 4 ,16 RE1.,11) ..)::;:j:.; OW EDIIIEWOOD 151 1 1.0 34E 19.!,) 70560x - - . .E5 1 D l4-4..5 214 I!ALI_ DL.VD 151 3 1.0 1315 1340 f;0500 '-?•,' ,:.;,, ;,.;).; '; RESID 11506 SW 11i..cuillAJR6 151 2 1.0 0337 P.)50 34500 2u15o RECHD 16267, 6W RARK SI 151 2 1.0 92E 1946 84900 FE ,ID 10346 SW 60TH AVE. 151 2 2.0 1367 1950 54550 , .., . •-• ,.: 33424 RES1D 12815 :-.4W wRAN1 AV 151 3 1.0 1171 1964 07500 -- c• •" . ' , 4 PESID 11665 SW 92ND 151 3 1.0 1120 1982 102000* ..4. o..- 2:3313 PEE I D 10-o2C,0 SW i3F001.EA DE '3T. 151 3 3.0 1700 19E36 1045;.,;:,,, • r•Lb I ID I...:`1_,....:, 514 I '11111 DRIVE 151 3 2.0 1742 1555 107000 '• -1;.:..E-; f‘'LS 1 D 7516 HERMOSA WAY 151 4 2.0 2016 19E1 107600 -.: . . 9.26 .2 kEsID 161355 SH 10OTH 151 2 2.0 130O IVY:, 167600 • 91774 RESID 13155 ...,W CRESHEP 151 , .2.-2..0 its 10: 1 1149C,0 - ••. ', .;;3..,E, r''L.:311., 113,25 5W 116ARD DR 151 , '.a, 2;0 1515 1971 116600 )5598 RESID 12106 SW NORTH DA1OTA 15E:- a ..:.0 1496 199: r. 92212 05210 ...05-; 511 1 i-,F1.11 21- „ 151 3 2.13 1E330 113,35 113500 J3..:57 ESID 13e.10 SW FAMILRIHE ST 151 4 D.0 19.24 1976 12/56. ,,..... - • ......,...;1 0L310 1.2395 SO 12/ill 151 4 2.0 1632 107,1 1:24%306 '',•:'..c. _.... 1J..". 1E510 V760 1-M MCDONALD ST . 151 3 1. 1 11..'5 13 ,.1 i: . "' - 2-122" RESID 9'65 211 SAITLER . 151 3 2.5 1305 1355 12E997 ••,:..';;;• 9261:: REBID 1:870 SW 13181 AV 151 4 2.0 2601 19E5 139056 t7..77 RESID 1.:3,;5 511 1111111We P1D6L CT 151 3 :2.0 160 1 6 ) 13•1 ••••• 92469 1ES1D 1 -5.25 sW DELI • DELL cl 151 3 2. 1 2 1--•1 1)57 1305 "' s9:: RESID 1531221-i i :tUt$ HVL 151 3 .:2. 1 l'01,.) l..,J. 1.28900 .• • '.'55 0E211) 71:10 211 BARBRA IANL 151 2 2. 1 180o 1970 1395W. , :.",••••: : R1611) s -.:5 51.1 '.331-1) 151 4 135 ..:40 ; i , ‘; It.;:yr,' 1.11„11, ;.;034 .-314 V1UL,.; 151 3 3.7' 1113.? 1.1 .: 15-) ,••4 1-15 1 14 1 1:, ;',1 ;311 -:1121 1"..1-111;:- I' 151 4 L. i :.13' 15J3 151 ,..', --, -'; 2-.,10 1---•;-; t.t1 :s..)1.1 I . inf. 6 3.6 :'-.',0 1'.411 1:'; .,,, 33635 RES15 14355 Sit FO11.1 M61.111fAIN RD. 151 4 2:1 --I-A 19/0 15/50 - • Ile FE:AD 11390 SW 02:111 AV 151 4 2. 1• 2450 1 .'51 159500. --'• wt-_,107 RES11i 3035 SW VIOLA 151 3 2. 1 2..:;(; 132 164006 6, 165 1.-LS1D 16696 5W 103FD AVE 151 4 2. 1 205b 1-r):: 1 ;4950 "-ti RESID 16363 SW 1C'350 AVE 151 4 2. 1 2091 1992 173950 -, ,• RE511/ 11550 SW BULL 11111 RD 151 3 3.0 3362 135/ 185900-. .., A., • L.3.11.• 1.13V4 51: IAN5D6WHI LH 151 2 2. 1 25-4 1990 219900 ,1 . 1. 11) 1-1156 '511 FELN T 151 3 2.5 2042 19/9 249000 '.* . % • ... ;•_ ........., AO Bed Bth 1131 (1.1311. - 5;3 • I i5112 :2),5 '..41 II:o1 II E_I ST 151 32.') 1353 1%.6.2 114900 11 f..I I, 1-575 SW 115TH AVENUE 151 3 2.5 2526 1953 1.....:900 .,,.. - - ,. . • • • 1.1s10 14110 ,41 9/1H AVL 151 5 3.0 4.2.:-.k. 1-.))C-.. 210950 • q• .-: . . , 1 I, • ' 11 1i T y-pL, Addre AO Bed Bth 121 1.1 .'1),.,l , S/Pr ice •• .3.'6 RE310 16O05 SW 35111 AYE 151 2 1.0 1,110 j/.37/•:11 65300 - - . , -_ . " • . ... ...',-..:. --'•• 2 , ... ** SLD M.K • : ....,' 41.••••=1,• ML11 Tyw. Address Atl. Red 8th rEir C:1/D. 1- ' S/Nri,.0 .. 55711 rp7In '':.. .: g , ,. . - , - .., 8910 SW OAKWAY ST. 151 2 1.0 710 6/12/92 71 .450 50021 I 11436 SW 115TH 151 3 1 960 4/09/92 :311.4:: 13EF:11) 11710 SW 121ST 151 3 1.0 960 4/28/9:: !,..1,1721 171-511) 11970 SW 95TH 151 3 1.0 1309 10/::0/91 H.4:. RESID 9570 SW LEWIS LANE 151 3 1.0 1105 5/23/92 780044 --, 66179 PE311/ 1013130 SW 79TH 151 4 1. 1 1400 10/25/02 79500 G 1.p-.(1) 1:7.135 SW ASH 151 2 1. 1 1208 4/21/92 91500 Fr IF "iii RW STEVE STREET 151 3 2.0 1080 12/04/91 025(.-., 761-.97 RESID 6725 SW FLORENCE LW 151 3 1. 1 960 10/13/92 8...-±.. - PP1211) 11035 SW HALLY 151 3 1 .5 1236 11/21/91 03000 111 6752::: RF511' 9119 SW WASHINGTON DR. 151 3 2.0 1570 9/24/92 87500 • PESID 11640 SW 90TH AVE. 151 2 2.0 1220 0/11/92 89000 5433/3 PE,ID 9235 SW MILLEN DRIVE 151 0 2.0 1086 5/29/92 89000 719.;0 RESID 1421$ SW FAWN() CREEK LOOP 151 3 2.0 1086 0/01/92 09000 72518 111:7;1D 12955..5W HALL BLVD • .151 2 1 .0 1.238 9/21/92 0:_i50': -.. r,)!8.1 Pc= 8312 SW mnrLELEAr 151 2 2.0 1263 3/27/92 80000 ' 16569 RESIO 10432 SW VENT ST '151 3 2.0 1088 2/06/92 91000 ..7.C.41i3 PE'S I 1' P2HMS 00 Sw ALET T 151 2 2.0 1252 9/15/92 90 100 ', '‘• 45,•(!,•, III '_!11' 1 - 175 SW 121ST 151 .7' „:.0 1460 4, 07/92 Gn; .9 PUHD 11 :6;.! (1W MORNING H11 L DR 151 3 2.0 116!-. 12/-11/92 '!:7,00 . . 57''''.11 Rrfl112 10030 SW TIGARD Si . 151 4 2.0 1830 5/29/92 ' . .,:. 57215 FE131D 14315 SW 1121H 151 37.0 1200 F.•011/9.2 0:1000 4'-...:4-..5 P1331 Is 15630 SW 88TH AVENUE 151 2 2.0 1.256 1/16/92 9.2s4."' 63.179 PESID 12127 (314 LINCOLN AVE % 151 .71 7.'.0 1273 n/04,••••; •!F•;,:,••; ..., t t • n, 1 :-:200 SW 126 151 ,: ::.0 113.•0 1,••y•-•1•'0',-• 55_-,,. _, -, ;':'•'•;5','; 1•"•1-.'-,11) 1r.......,60 SW 10STI1 1 151 : 1 1412 11/10, 92 .. , ' 14,'.1, FKSID 11850 SW NORTH DA1:010 151 4 ::.0 1511,J 12/.'7/91 17 .,'., '7,112 R1r;1D 7072 SW cONZAGA .. 151 0 1.5 1648 9/1.9/9T ;1 Ir.`1 Cl'',11, 110,-0 SW 02R4 AV . 151 4 ..:'. 1 1704 1';'/19/ 11 .3./5,),.. s. 1:::1 PLSIO 111F,5 SW 02110 151 3 1.0 11,211 4, 1;'/ 3 .: •,7000 - , t r ('1 '1, 7210 SW '1,'1 NE 151 '1 .3.') 11321 9/11/'81 ''''..:,•' , • .- .., `," ' '''' RT `111) 10 :( !.. ',W 02111) 151 3 1 . 1 1,',14 1 .','1.!',/•:';' .1.10',0 ,_ " . '.3 Pr'.114 '120 SI.) LOCUST 15! 2 2.0 1741' 8/21 /.:.,-. .90:m, --- .. I.r--ft9415 5W LEHMAN Sr. 151 3 1. 1 1.110 9/0.-:1'.):' '20'.00 20539 PE81P 9605 SW SArTLER(AT 96TH A 151 2 2.0 1526 4/1.179:: 9.7,00,", 13E1111) 8825 3W BATTLER 151 3 1.5 1200 el1-2 ''',1 '7,:-/D50 . --.. .761",- : F1 :111 7045 SW SHADY LANE 151 2 2.0 1201 9/17/92 99?9-. ' 1;y.... PC.'..50 PFSID 11645 SW TERRACE TRAILS 151 3 2.0 1514 12/22/92 100000 : .-- 54.:.,4 11,'.1D 10765 SW DLA1.1: DIAMOND 151 3 2.0 141: 4/27/9:' 101'000 .., :...:.: '5/(,0 1:1211) 13750 SU 111TH PLACE 151 3 2.0 1321 3/02/92 102000 ...,, :r.377. PrZlIn 11860 SW JAMES COURT 131 4 2.0 1662 7/02/91 102000 31.1,1,., 114 59 13210 SW PR1TTANY DR 151 2 2.0 121)4 12716/91 103000 -.,.-..-2 P1511.) 13795 SW COWLES CT. 151 2 2.0 1059 10 '.1-2/92 104000 -6110 F17-.11) 12025 SW 11.ARMEH Si 151 :1 1. 1 1440 1 1,/03/ ,2 1.01000 153 1 ' r 1:511, 17. .''' SW 131"31 AVE. 151 :.! 1 . 1 11-.,!W 1: 4,'•_/.:. 10500" 1-1-"'.11) 15005 EN LESLIE CT 1(31 2 3.44 1-..--, 1 ::/ :0/.42 1, -,,.),,,, .. , . 31E-r,3 1::1-_511, 1 .K.145 SW MCDONALD 151 :.:. 2. 1 .:::94 2/ 10/02 1..15'..”,, 7tq-s-171 RESID '3765 SW FPEWING ST. 151 3 1. 1 25613 10/17/91 106500 "..,. . , :-:- -H--, 1 ',IT' 12010 SW WILTON AVE 151 ::-: 2.0 1.432 10/31,91 10700' 1 fl ' : 11!".11, 2245 SW 1EHMANN 151 4 2.0 1410 10/37.--22 10'-.1000 4' ..,, ....::: t 1..." 4 I R3 II) 13605 SW GRESMER DRIVE 151 2 2.0 160:: -.!,.7'5/7+1 1.'2''‘I'/ . .;;• , . ' 11 (31!' 1310 SW MILLEFI DR. 151. 3 ..:.0 1400 1 z 0:!,,,,,z; i,, v!,-_,(1 • ,- 25G4.'' v.in 9105 SW SATTLER ST 151 .8: 2.0 154.' 10/2'5/91 10',--P'. 1,';1(.1 rq-',1.1, 11055 SW COTTONWOOD LANE 151 3 2.0 1578 9/0•)--',': 110000 , •_''. 15075 5W DAWN CT 151 3 2.0 140c. 4/:::0/92 111000 -,,!1 I', r•E' I l'• 10640 SW 127TH COURT 151 3 2.5 1608 1/17/ ,2 11 . - .0 11 ;:11. 115'15 I-i11 79111 151 4 ;'. 1 17.1'. 7 ':-•;/./..-' 11.1',',.. ..,..;• .. 1.“ 11 1:1:• M 1231)0 (31.3 TlEDENAN 151 4 2.0 2:15:' •:-..,'20•'I 2 1 1 - I . .. :.,tti• :',;-•,. ,.. ..... ,• • . . . .. t.•.. ..... : .. . P,10 a .. lr* Sl_D ** I.11..t4 'lype Address All Bed TAN TSF C1/Dt:e 5,r't i•.n= 40946 r 5ID 3975 SW BATTLER 151 3 2.0 15372: 4/317/32 115000 71971 REBID 12020 SW ROSE VISTA DRIVE 151 4 2.0 295 10//15/92 115000 /1214 REBID 10980 SW PATHFINDER WAY 151 3 2.0 153S 10/177/92: 115900 '-.I8051 f ES1 U 11295 SW COTTONWOOD LN 151 3 2.:5 2320 12/12,:01 1I' '11: ) 35951 F,EBI1) 13295 SW SHORE DR 151 4 2.5 .1744 11/14/91 1.160,!„ ". 51;3.19 P15131D 10025 SW 109TH AVE 151 3 2. 1 1875 7/06/92 11C.00,:, 62/35`t F E 3II! 10915 SW FAIRHAVEN WAY 151 3 2.0 1650 ':a7,:'2:/_i;: 1 1 + C! 311.•13 PE ;1D 9.4055 SW MILLEN DF:. 151 2.0 1531, 11/2_1/':11. 117900 "-a f 311: 10975 SW 1 09TH AVE 151 2.0 15550 1/1 1/9: 1 1 A2'1`., 1.1.1;11, 1,-50(,(1 SW HAMPTON CT 151 3 2.5 160.4 1/':6/53 I1 _0,! III 45'i+56 fF.3Tl` 1706/1 W 131ST AVE 1`._11 3 2.0 16621/24/92 II'''.'•1., 7-P.,01 1:6211' 15045 5W SEREN4 CT 151 0 2012 11/25/02 11 3 '119 • 7626,6 I:'r^•1I' 13230 3W BRITTANY 151 4 2.0 1072 12/17/32 11050, 111 57-7,i1 1:61310 11555 SW TERRACE TRAILS DR .151 3 I 10.:3 10/01 /,)2 II 6.1,0.i 24." 1.2211' '303 SW -MAPLELEAF 151 '1 1.'' :1)7(1 10/01/91 11 .7)00', I 31,'1C),SW 'HOWARD Dr' 151. 4 2.0 20011 9/;•13/91 1l i 91 5'1.19 I.1 :-.I1! 116'..7 ?W WOODLAWN Cl . 151 3 2..5 1593 6/16/.1f2 1 1 ' .' 1.9_147 r1 11, 15:',6991.1 400x11 AV . 1`.51 4 . 1 1, ',0 I. !,1, I2I1 t 5,.)-_-:1.t 11-':1 P C,!..-;::.1 ^,t1 LOCUST 151 . .,`'.i 1 +:' •1.1/ t'• 1. Ir, 6731)1 1.1::1311' 12475 SW 12.111 AV 151 .4 .`..'' 19.:,:! I 70,32 12a590 •16Th I AVE 151 •4 2. 1 :'1":1 14/.32 I' 411 1 .1'..,;:!!):* f ':1,,> 14415 ,ill ! ,F;J 1 P1 :11' 9720 SW MUF'DOCI1 ST 1131 4 3-:; ..:491_, 1 1 :. :1.' 1 /5009! 1') '.IB 11572 SW WOODLAWN CT 151 4 4. 2 2001!.1 1 1 '1 2. 11 1250"'s ,_ 'E. r`F.S1D 13355 13W 110 AVENUE 151 4 :3.0 2006 l' /22/9=' 125000 .1_il,,;-.1 PI '..• SW MOUNTAIN VIEW LAN 151 2.0 2 03.2 6 '02/92 1.:'.., .. .) 71042 56511' 13675 6.5 SW 118TH CT 151 3 2.Q 1 ,;'•t 10:12/92 1 -0509,,, 61214 1:1:"5111 1 .116 ;3W BEN1SF1 S;T 151 :.1I 1700 10:91:72 I r ,., T,?. 1:1501 RESIT) 10255 SW MI::DONALD ST'. 151 3 2. 1 1792 11/20.'02 127909 52410 RE-.::1D 11035 SW WESTEBUR'I FERR 151 4 7.232.7:(2,, !",,, :::92 1 ( '.' •4S113 21::515 127213W WALNUT ,,. 151 3 2.0 2232 3;09/92 1:0,01, -f-. 'I PE-,I1) 15205 <W' 100,TI-1 151 2. 1 1 11 1 1 1 3-• :43 131:_I09 ,' 1 k3 6 / .0 i 1 1 I.t. ,t f.E:. l I) Iii:'; 41,7ti FII cI' 1`.:�1 1 .,.' 74:32 I'' 3 1 6 11330 W F:ii 1 T DI IWOOD LII 131 2 3.9 '. 11 :17'102 1 U ? STREET 151 .4 :'. I IP5u 1/23/ ..:' 1 I FL-110 I 0 s'-, .X41 BEDFORD 20345 RF -',17 I'313E ^ll I I1111111_'r RI I 1 ,•II 11 •'I•ti01 I 1 1-'1510 1215 94.1 1::3 FD COURT 151 _ :1 1I.1 , , 0'?;''1 1 v0'.' PFSED 13 1111990 1341 DERRYDELL CT 151 3 1 . I 1700 4.-10/92 1 11x1!' RESIT) 7530 31.1 VARNS 151 4 '973 12/11/92 1 100 3.-4179 1-'I-';10 15365 F;5 SW 7'1T11 AVE 151 3 2. 1 1 ,,,/ 1 - I s:),, 11'., 'I ''1 D 1.7':-190 SW 1•IARION ST 151 1 3.0 ._51t) 1, •e t t-" !i 67;.:79 I'I: 1'! 9:33:5 SW RENE:ROO! ST 151 - 1' ' I 3.0 1 ' :6I.5'..7 F'F 1 D 15320 SW THURSTON LANE 151 2 2. 1 1 i (161 !1 12075, 1 :1l :' II '.11) 11130 SW F(1NNEP 151 3 . .1' H-143. r,/7•1,,,9.:-. 1 t ! :u! r° 1.^1 it 1.5211! 3985 11W 1ENT CT , 1.51 3 -. I 2190 1/1 :-91 1.4.:000 ., 34 IT-',ID 11529 SW SHOREVIEW PLACE 191 „ 2. 1 1840 1"/21/02 I440,v; •.f 8,131 1:, r::1r-.ID 110611 SW 91ST COURT 1.51 4 2. 1 1905 ,. , :,.....,,r, 1 .1.4-400 # , 5.1 I'I '.II' 1.4105 SW 117TH 151 3 2.i1 2270 .2/27/97 14.49: r '.I't. ''1 '•II! I-n,q.1 SW CHATEAUt`,1 4 l !/__ 1.15904 256;10 11.111) 15335 SW HALL BLVD 151 4 1.5 11102' 19,05,9.' 1.45,,t,'.' • a, 135,1r.; RES I E: '1110 SW PEMBROOI: ST. 151 4 3.9 2209 1/27/9.3 1 40'1!" , 11 RE:210 11630 SW TERRACE TRAILS DF' 151 5 3.0 3/27/91 14'35110 ' 1` t R['311 12'1332 SW 123 RD AVENUE 151 3 2.0 1610 7, 0'1,01 1.10',,, ! I' I , 1:1 5,1 1' 15860 SW COLONY DRIVE 1 5 1 2 2. 1 1' 10/04/91 1 , 1001 • 1 t 1 3/.11 RE:=11' 12010 SW WALNUT 151 '.0 2431, C.1.:'4l,':1. 4 ,. „ ,, •I' t • RLSI1) 12792/ SW FERN STREET 151 4 .-_. - 7, 70D2 152"%': ,ti ,:r2.11: 11275 SW OLIELLE_ COURT 121 1 2. 1 2616 .,:. '25/71 1 >12II' 1370 SW CHEERY DRIVE 101 4 7.9 1 +I 157:7,5.7," ., '• 1 5F'?I!' 15365 SW 79TH 1:51 1 2. 1 211•'1 •i.' 17,2:,,,, .4‘....• •••.',:::. :'•;''',',;.;": ••:..':'• ,,,4:,; •:::: c:• ... '';: .•'.':,.?.-4Y. •::,.4-. •,: :''' •"--:' .1- .-•.. . ::• 1,!...i•- • ,.q-:. • :, . , .•-'•.. : •.• • •-•4: 4- L,:: ..;• Pi.vdu .1 ....,• Tr.:,•,.• 41.--. HUI- Type Address AO Bed Bth TSIv LI/Date 5/Pci--.e -...,. RESID 111'45 SW WILLOW WOOD CT 151 3 2. 1 2365 7/06/9:- 154506 ,,,,'• -,- • ;.:...:„., 70Y7 . RES1D 103.J, SW HOODV1EW DR. 151 4 3.0 2602 0/11/92 154900 , ,35..N0 RESID 13102 SW DENISH STREET 151 4 2. 1 2300 1/07/93 156651 ..''..... 8616 REBID 14340 611 164TH AVENUE 151 4 3.0 2560 12/,r:/ 'I..' I t'..,;'1")(11:3 . i• ;:r.,1';..) 1,:tc311) 1122:''., SW ri:IRIIAVEN 151 4 3.0 2048 2/21/9 'l:'. ...' 160000 : ',' RESID II:75 SW '.0Th 151 3 1. 1 2362 12/11/S1 160000 :•:.'.:. ....•1•7•I•I f:,C.511, W:0 1,151D n4.:,71 11.81b 15:-:9 RES1D 11, 1.7:551.: 80 EDGEWATER CT II ..:7:5 SW WITLLE PLACE 1.568',.., 1.'.W 0151 8.•46 611 HILL STREET 14:30.1' SU 915F 151 4 2. 1 2003 1/2C... 'Zil 14'....:S00 151 4 2. 1 2C.4113 1.7.:.':41.• 'D:: l C.,:', ,:,0 151 3 2.0 1705 Tilil .",:i,' 1,-,' WI' 151 4 2. 1 2280 77.2E, '..1 i. r /0000 151 4 2. 1 2500. 11/2t./91 176000 In ,,,•„;,-... : .1•:)1 13 1;'ES 1 i'l 1 3 6 2 0 ;.:1,4 t L.1.14 ti WV.:.L.I 3.5i 4, 3.0 2742. 7, 15. 4,.. P.r.s11) 11885 8W DULL MOUNTAIN RD 151 4 3.5 3936 6/09/92 18:1“.)0 ...- .: 1-'•/:',6 PESID 13175 SW DULL MTh ROAD 151 4 3.0 3422 7/65/51 184500 33-1, RE51D 14u90 SW SUNRISE LN 151 3 2.5 2358 16/10/91 1850‘,0 :,,I.......:: ..:1,-.,:.:',4 REGIS 14400 SW 1561H 151 4 3.0 3225 4/1!)/9 188000 10625 RESID W.C.C., 611 BEVELAND 151 3 2.0 1590 10.-36/91 189000 : ,..; 5t-;30 RESID 142E5 5W 150TH 151 4 3.0 35E9 5/15/92 193000 ......-, .;:: 1333.3 RESID 159u3( SW COLONY CT. 151 4 2.5 2652 S'.:',$. 2 1'D5'ii00 ,57016 RES1D 16050 SW COLONY DR 151 5 3.0 3214 5./25/':L. 217500 ,., . - : .. c-,5580 RES1D 13:50 SW DULL MTN. ROAD 151 4 2. 1 2576 9/11 ;92 . ,. . ..,'...-.1 .), ,E510 I 41E,t, SW SUNRISE LANE 151 5 3. 1 3/52 11/25/91 239000 *, Al-„T Status Subtotals k* ''':';,': ,4. • 36 Pi ,pertie5.. Found ,...-., 4;, I...L.-A P, ice :. L.i ,0 ..;Ft..., I.IC ;-)A i/11: 125090 ...,' ..., Hi....,w. .7'49000 .., . I ,.,.): , ,A ION Status Subtotals * S _., ..:`'',...' '..:.' 3 Properties Found . . . Iis t I', 1.:-.E.. . • . ":?;•••::- , •:.: c4... . ,-..,,r _.....,,: 155•i . •li .. 006 ' ..,-• !licit-,: 21 El).:50 •--,•,-''--. 4 •: 11-1,.4413, • . '.'''• ::•-• tx SLD Status Subtotale-. AA '.r.' 1. ,) Properties Found 4,4. ., , 1..11., El 1..,.t' .:-..,..i., .'''o .1.....e !,.,, i•L'ir..D.:3 12,3Z3-17 11 JJ54.• lid000 ..., ,':-...44:,,-• J''.-°- . •I 1,444.4 ...-1,-.,•jc4co ',. 1•.: .4.4 t..;., 6.4 •,.4, . ., . . .•:-.:::.::4•2: ,.-,...-.V. • . . . ' ' - .:•,•• ":.'-'•:',-:••• -! :•'.',' '.1- ,....-- ..,,-.. . ,... -.- e , • ,.,,, Total From All Statuses , , ... , 1 /0 P.roperties Found • . • . . . , Lid t P, 14.4, ...-„1,1. r.-1,-.,. . .,. 1...f321.S 121047 . •• ',.....,..'.... I!t•tl I,-I I: 1...:. ...-0,-) 118000 . 1: , • • -....- illgh: 240000 239600 63:306 65,300 ..„.. '.. .s 61%Rcti.;.A...2 5 0, Q00., 11 0 ik R D, IWIPPigAIWO___AVAlt_tIkel..-.E.. -'7777, -- _ :.:•`' . .. ., - StbrnItied bq (rte W) AVAILABLE RV SPACE - TIGARD AREA 2/6/93 R)eKi'�,� # SPACES STORAGE FACILITY LOCATION COST PER MONTH f 0 U-HAUL ALL N/A 10/FULL * BURNHAM BUS PK TIGARD $25 0 SHURGARD ALLEN BLVD N/A t1 " " DEIIIJEV ori II..,/ 0 " KING CITY N/A 45/2 '�'„ rHrtnJ 1 VC BVTN 53 !WSW 's �; 50/4 ABC RV SHERWOOD $35/$55 13/0 **'- 1 -5 MIN ! TULTN $35/$45 38/0 SAFEGARD TIGARD $32 • • -' 0 PUBLIC STORAGE TIGARD N/A 0 PRIDE TIGARD N/A 400/40 TOTE & STORE TULTN $30/$54 • * Most spaces are paid well in advance to insure space available ** These two spaces are reserved for returning customers *** This firm has 30 spaces available but downsizing by 17 to make room for more buildings. • Where topark RVs not .. .. _ ! , ....„ an important cit issue -_ A dispute over a city of Tigard ordinance restricting the parking of -. • 77; boats, RVs and campers in front of homes points out problems in ..'W how the city handles this law and others. including the city sign code. Codes like those restricting RV parking are complaint-driven. If no one complains,the codes are largely left to be unenforced. _ A strong case can be made that the city should protect Tigard resi- dents' health,safety and public welfare.That definition would allow the city to prohibit large vehicles,trailers or boats from being parked ". in the street or used as permanent residences. • Otherwise• , the storage of an RV, trailer, boat or camper in a ,; driveway or to the side of a front yard really isn't the city's concern. ,. At that point, the issue is aesthetics, an issue that should be handled by neighborhood associations, design convenants within a planned - unit developments or through neighborly communication. Selective enforcement by the city of such codes only occurs when • someone complains about their neighbor. Meanwhile, the city ig- -'_'� notes similar situations in dozens of places around Tigard. The city • f- - should recognize its limitations on enforcement and concentrate its energies on more important issues. • .. . . , ..,. . ,,,.:,..„, .:::..:. RARKSIDE MINI STORA.GE . . . . .. • . .. • . •• -` ( 7675 SW Nimbus Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97005 u (503) 641-5228 _zlr24ca2 4� /q y3 O' Q4tec : y;/1/ Sim I'Wake `yJ� -r n c/' 6�i2� , - fr L Lel j /do/ y-tleii-ee. ez�<� , 1 zC� ��c°�22-C2.)ezC�JG �.tG1 �� G22QCt i / . .... c/re-v)i ..,2f izet,PG -.7iiee.-e.."/ .,4/2.4..el„..1 .., (,,4/, &,ee. Il?e6 21 ;2Z- y i/e-e-IY43440,2 , _� /L�eG SGC/ ✓2"-e. c%0 ,:. t afr ti . ,. 24 , e a th.cae-- /_ ,� - i U-e ;pf �� Gym ice' e /6-44 A6 . ... is . af,,,,, ,,,, -,,,zz,, * . • ,( ,,,,e_ eed-21 /ex- -.'et-ej -.1a"-' i .--'14' '''') CA' A�� ,. • . id, , C • W U'1�C.c Q February 5, 1993 .lel K _ Tigard, Oregon nn ` bel c /Jea't,112 The Honorable Jerry Edwards, Mayor, Or) a 141JQ3 r Tigard, Oregon. ` L-^ iiiDear Jerry, 111 Yesterday I received our copy of the Tigard newsletter "City Scape" and for the first time was made aware of a Recreational ss • ,:v Vehicle (RV) storage ordinance change to be considered on Feb. 9, 1993, which would allow RV's to be stored in front yards. • Since I will be out of town that evening, I am writing to tell you of -my feelings on this matter. Briefly, I am profoundly " . opposed to any change in any ordinance that would allow anything such as this to occur. Storage of objects such as this is the start of a degradation • that ultimately will creep or spread throughout our city through ':t. precedence. Another desiring it will say, "If that person can do it, then so can I. " Once in effect it would be extremely diffi- cult if not impossible to reverse. Also, besides looking just plain bad it will be an invitation to burglary and vandalism. If we want our neighborhoods to deterio- . r rate, then this is the way to do it. On the other hand, if we want to keep Tigard a beautiful, desirable place to live, then I ask you to oppose this change. I believe that anyone who can buy an RV, needs to consider stor- age space rental along with insurance and other cost consuming . maintenance items. I have determined that RV storage in a proper _ storage facility to be about $32.00 per month. That's a far cry from the $155.00 per month I pay for hanger rental to store my `;;i,. light aircraft. (No, owning an airplane does not mean I am rich. To the contrary, it's what keeps me poor) . - .. . I have discussed this briefly, in the short time available, with some of my neighbors . All agree with my request and suggest I . - .y. write directly to you. Respectfully, ^ 4 / .....a067 l� '' ohn F. Sedey 11650 S.W. Hazelwood Loop , -4:',..- Tigard, OR. 97223-3309 . (503) 620-8589 is 7i1a L IJ FEB 0 8 1993 .1>,c.JC - dL7�Lu�: El 1:.5t2.9 h6A-n-D C, N 1•14 -1 I - 13.IZs Sw NA-II 13iva . s. 6- .rc.-ew,gh, —..__.w1I1_6-t.uNA z_1`0 X1_1.wit. "TN E ‘- a rv�1*-t.—Ft - -- — COuu.¢.11_ ,kceren�1_ , bvr_'r-��FIs z ------- U b:lc_ c,-+ o,/ —A-4.,G .. _.ca_ Os o -- -- --1 -R«Ow. .S_t_odt c 1 N_ 1-0 S HAvit. t 4-vrt-we-4 44.-- a t.:1--",-,..•vl r p•-r (4,1-01 is kus-ere.-rte • use. T.,k.,- 100 ` -'V1e G P i(tp rA-tt1 sed AM f'A.Kt 14.14- µ,el-AA . -- -k-JA e.. ro s AVitt n Ld,.,s . —t ,atiKi-t-4 t. .A CA a!e *±oc-._S .. oatk Tt$tS Att$ - lotit.E 4„ ---- -- ---- __II-e cT t C Ov4/e,1 451A-10u Cr' wA-...c dcsA.ttssrt.Mj b . --- ----- 10-3-A... 14.4 41 AAtt-ci e-,wtMtss,w 4.----0 -rK.� e t e-tl c tic',t.c,,a t: _ T % P 0.0 POS f e u O4--Bina- /44-C... uv..rteer(-44r e rk M 1h _- ' .., O e_ .l�Wt�i t.11�1iCitS .� 0.#4,v ?/-C C„eA To fit (7r Svc St�a� `,i-e '..f:. .- 1344 ua 0-- 0 N IC GL -(�-�w e-,r -rr- _ " (Cr�sa C. pt. .Ad of virc IN res ,dtr 1k�41 l3I-O2/45 s. 3 t `'c4 t".� v.`-1411 fi it 11 t �tf�..t ~xJ L6wttxt �- v-c rs4-w ,Oe pric.�J fe.- su4-E, SttiM-1r 4-A,er 14v `: r ---- --- `°^l- P 14-8_411.`t S'Ark.e4-1.cJ 1 (Ado dc4-3,.6 A4s_6'. tic 1.114io r m,l.D. — — TSA-4SAcCc wo.rlA. 5e.T 1C t. h}-AcLL To 9AR1c &its t - - _4)iuvvon M T4A 11th, •,1111_. _ SVotQCT 'Tv%.r.-- (9e-fl('4hcC_. Sr'- .4-3 LW1CA Wrt kit)l g/ry t VI O a bJ e-tri tr4 -i-c.) A- t .v --a4 J4--- -t-te#t leo-s, .. A( 1,1"S 44V, r vsSfi o- SI'eaP k)w-esc.c MO'T- "exc� 1(1 -;.r I3 Q � �41L � S J�d h.4-.. vrb3F 442 - s1D n,�g � cerw.s ,. — � s bFs..LO»0+ �ae:l+s -. o- -±- ,ts t4 00 ld 010$19F._ $v :. I-11 I-0 p c-- I , L i ICOtttPIMLIIS p,aA...°l fib- J t,tcipiIA-)-"t•-z1 p,L IM4I .lam ,- -- - -f-or- _ Vl t r.ti• r•-_R. {!uT- G'}- L sr- �A.w tL A.v ____ . _ W.44µ4.4440.0r- s-toCt e_. ---- _..-Pi- fti .t).,.,___—"..3-.._._. «1--a -. eQp (.7r.-_, 1\At 'i— :' u,j 0LP�, (Via�ett�re_l-t_n �v a ssu& o.v 'Tn _E `~ — - - —- --- C 000 c-.% uJVIw-C-14 Z.. p.4 JC rt., lat .9 -I- € ------ __Attot-W_ ®.+w1_+�+ --. _N-e-e..h_n c$ _,u c ti S t veja_O Nal- -, - 4 "; Aug* 6.1•5k_....-1.0... 51- on c_ . ?1tA%4._ , lc-«P gYcl Inca ®wN istr••k_/Ciq,14"4rs T Q i-ac_. , !V F' 1\V C b t C YL fU It;. 2,4 f1-e_ft.t1-S AN Or - '90Au:- w-Aair 7-o s IE. ft. v s slut l3 t...w1)-s111 .. ��_- -_lam .._f� cL,,slit'irv' ► op `-a_ QYt jc Ar,sliw.rs vnx rs.-. -Gkr ldd k►k-OST__1 -0, `tj-t- e rV FORCE; . . , ___--.•. '--.. - --., . ...•-•., .., C; 01.1Afxci, t in. . . • • . . .• . . at- IDAL \.2) - • . . ... ..• . .:-... - '-- ,1,14d11_, /993 --: .,- . . . . . , :.' .- - ( , ‘-- , ..16-11:44-1i) .. , t..e.) 1 : ,_... „.....„,..1:. ..i.. it ,: . lie • ,,:i . FEB 8 199 0 t 9 I (9,a3 6 i . ,.....,f: ...E'Ll'.:-...,...:1 . ..,.: . ...................... : ., ..; ..,- •:.:.:,. (2-7,6- ee--9-1V, 'WV-) Lty__ 0-61-t-t-AA-A-4:-6 c€4,11--- Zit& - : - • .. ':.. Pd2A.a. (r.) ae,./rnAAoriri..e4CIL j 041-') .• . , :"::,•. a :tlwee) 216) Al-E-4-4'444-#"' d'eLf; Wiled7 '''eli .Z1J--61-4.Zilj 2 -1ex-e) -z 4i‘ 4 • 7,4 0_7-2. . t_. -_,te ....e„ k Zh,'2-71& 40 • •• I•,•. •. i /4e1/ '' e , 0 WLeg i Atirt.404 -Vv.) f-to,f2a4:4e/-1---ef Cou-/-44--61-° f .• •,. f• :, .ida.) 4-ed4Ze )416. 11 ji411-4/t'e/ .- .'"- ' t-tfei tC:"1 2e'et, C(Yri YUltrk a r'v f C ....1--,- .x2';.4-• W.e., degei-i2-eeZellefl)' 4441e2 . . ..,„ . CR V) iteej A . • - kj., cict 6 i ..., .. .. I . .. r•:, . 4 ., .. . . . • . .,. . . 45--tuecto 01,,Lt/b64443924, eti_,L0 a t,i 4,a 2) "--Azu) 4 . ' .. h-n_ a._.} ...A..-4- 2 . 'o ' ' -eke-- -\ . ,,. . . . c...zt_ e--x-e/1-- -17-1- • :-, . . .... __ _ . . .. . ,. . , . ... ---Ata-7-ne.4, txl, azi_e__ex) WvLede/P: f,L4.../a_e_,k.124,1_) ., iz-eme7/ Yeit—t-'Ar) -46v.rptz,pi. :44:642,1/4„..)4,6*-4.4dir, 1 .,,•• ....„., . . . ir....„....,..„, 1.,__ei.,,,,4.,-,ct...kciee... ,.?...,.....e.fe O. . c)11:1211-' le-Itie-L12-4-e-bitAl) e:4-14-4-/ e-- --4--AL---2 MI / a,.1 , -4-A-L-CA, a-tz} //6" .?? . cder--n-te-A-a-ea2 A •-:: •--I ,e ///Tit...) cc/./..e..) .-�4 e/• , ' , ...- / 1/V ,yl�� /f 4-602-7,a/a) ki,e-i. •".e0-Vim/ ✓/f/V- '�-r /e _ . ... _...6...e..e...6....1„--,-".11..i_c ?"e.,(.44./.../..'"...e.;ty 04/4-e_g_A-0-4(-6-6 • • . . jezil.e,/ 6'f 0, S //1 /J/J l/ /0 950 x(iv, 1/5 - ., -iliz}ae-7 Oke, 9A,1 .3 . . N . 7Z.:-.,Yx' t • • COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON x' , COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 417 ebruar 9 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: Januar 28 1993 AGENDAEOF: F PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Gaarde Street Extension CPA 92-0007 irll PREPARED BY: Cit En ineer 5 DEPT HEAD OK / � CITY ADMIN OKJIIf� REQUESTED BY: • ti Iff2L BEFORE THE COUNCIL Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map to define the alignment of the future extension of Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION the Transportation Map to adopt the "ReportEb1 Opt Ation iralignm alignment Amendment of 7 of ff ? . and associated language as recommended on page f-.: to prepare the appropriate ordinance and findings . : INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 4, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Transportation Map amendment . Exhibidt ons the staff orereport tito the proposed P background the Planning Commission, containing Commission hearing. considered. Exhibit B is the minutes of the Planning suggested a new - Commission hearing, Cal Woolery of NPO #7g new At optionthe for Planning alignment. After considerable discussion, Cal for the roadway proposed Planning Commission recommended adoption of the option __ Woolery . at their regular January meeting, NPO #7 reviewed the option Subsequently, and voted to recommend that option. Exhibit C is suggestedhmiby Mr. WooleryNPOExhibit D is a letter from Cal Woolery the minutes of the NPO #7 meeting. clarifying his proposal. Based on Cal Woolery' s clarifying letter, staff have reviewed the new option and prepared a brief analysis of how t anal is osis on is Exhibit compares E. the two The staffY ww options previously presented. - 3rd to consider "� with NPO #7 on February NPO #3 is scheduled to meet jointly new recommendation from NPO #3 ��ill be the option supported by NPO #7 • Any ,._ presented at the February 9th Council hearing. .,.` At the Planning Commission hearing, there was some discussion of applicable ^ m rehensive Plan policies. Attached (Exhibit F) for8 Council ciltconsideratrough ion,.o ppolicies are copies of Comprehensive Plan - - i .. • _e. (Transportation) and 11 .3.1 through 11 .3.2 (Special Areas of Concern for NPO #3) . PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1 . Select one of the options presented and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance and findings. The ordinance would be brought back at a subsequent meeting for Council review and adoption. ,.,. 2. Direct that a new study be performed to identify additional options, as recommended by NPO #3 . Discussion would be needed regarding the scope of the new study and funding for the study. • 3. Leave the Transportation Map unchanged. A study area would then remain on the map and it would be necessary to try to resolve the roadway alignment on a piecemeal basis as development plans are submitted within the study area. In the past, the NPOs and the Planning Commission have expressed discomfort with this process. FISCAL NOTES _ ( f,•Y • • • rw/note2cc •• • • \ :fir' • Is c EXHIBITS 1• ::. .. a Exhibit A: Staff report to Planning Commission t ' Exhibit B: Planning Commission minutes of January 4, 1993 i Exhibit C: NPO #7 minutes of January 6, 1993 � f Exhibit D: Cal Woolery letter of January 7, 1993 Exhibit E: Staff analysis of NPO #7 option Exhibit F: Comprehensive Plan Policies 8 .1 .1-8 .1 .3 and 11.3. 1- 11 .3.2 . rw/note2exh • • • K, . i i ( EXHIBIT A AGENDA ITEM 5.2 MEMORANDUM - ( CITY OF TIGARD : • • October 1992 Requested Revision to the \ {vis.- «. . • Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map GAARDE STREET EXTENSION `+_ Pro osal Currently,the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map includes a study area referenced to Note 2. Note 2 indicates that two options are under consideration for a future connection between the Walnut/132nd intersection and the Gaarde/121st intersection. It is proposed to select one of the two options under consideration and to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map to reflect the option chosen. History .'r In 1983, the City of Tigard and Washington County both adopted comprehensive plans that called for a future extension of Murray Boulevard to connect with the intersection of Walnut Street and 135th Avenue. Both plans also called for future connections between Walnut Street and Gaarde Street in the area west of 121st Avenue. No specific alignments were indicated. In 1986, Washington County entered into urban planning area agreements with the cities Y of Beaverton and Tigard. The agreements indicated that the extension of Murray Boulevard would be designated as a collector street and provided a drawing showing the alignment between Old Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. In addition, the agreements stated that an alignment would be developed for a collector street between the 135th Avenue/Walnut Street and the 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersections. The agreements established design standards for the road. In 1989, the City began its Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study, intended to define the future collector street system for the area. Following several public meetings, including hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, most of the recommendations of the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report were adopted in April of 1990. However, the recommendations regarding the connection between 135th/Walnut and 121st/Gaarde intersection were not adopted; at the close of the hearings, two options remained under consideration. In addition, the Council had heard requests that the urban planning area agreements be amended to delete the Murray Boulevard connection between Old Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street due Y : GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - October 1992 Page 1 - . ..- .... .—,:. a . .._._.—. • _. .. .. k'; •o : concerns about through traffic. Selection of the preferred option for the Walnut-Gaarde connection was deferred pending a decision on whether the urban planning area agreement would be modified. Q : : In subsequent discussions with other jurisdictions, there was not support for amending •' the urban planning area agreements. However,there was support for an agreement on • the timing of the proposed Murray Boulevard extension. As a result, an agreement was drafted that assures that the Murray Boulevard extension between Scholls Ferry Road • and Old Scholls Ferry Road shall not be opened to through traffic prior to the completion of other road improvements on the west side of Buil Mountain as provided in the County's IM itatiM T ns ortation Flan. The agreement is intended to discourage the development of the Murray Boulevard extension as a route for through traffic. The agreement has been approved by Washington County and the cities of Beaverton and Tigard;the agreement was signed in January 1992. When Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map was updated in 1991, a study •. ; area was added to indicate the two options still being considered for the collector street connection between Walnut Street and Gaarde Street. The study area is known as"Note 2". A copy of the map is included as Attachment#1. It is now proposed that the process be completed by adopting one of the options for a collector street connection between Walnut Street and Gaarde Street. " ' Report Option The 1990 recommendation of the City staff was contained in Figure 12-1 of the Northeast • Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report. (See Attachment #2.) Under this plan, Gaarde Street would be extended as a major collector street west and north from 121st Avenue to connect to Walnut Street at a location 300 feet to 400 feet east of existing 132nd Avenue. In addition,the Report recommended that side street access to the major collector be restricted,that direct driveway access be prohibited, and that reduced design widths be considered between access points. This option will be referred to as the Report Option. NPO Option - The Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO#3) recommended that Gaarde Street be extended west from 121st as a minor collector, connecting to 132nd Avenue. The NPO recommended that the street be designed for a speed of 25 mph. Under this option, • existing 132nd Avenue would provide the collector street connection between Gaarde and Walnut Streets. In 1991 a preliminary plat was submitted for a subdivision along the 132nd Avenue extension west of the Gaarde/121st intersection. During the hearings on the proposed • GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - October 1992 Page 2 • j subdivision, there was substantial discussion of whether the subdivision should provide • for the westward extension of Gaarde as proposed by the NPO. After reviewing •'"''h '` alternatives submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission voted to approve a • preliminary subdivision layout that did not directly provide for the Gaarde extension to 4., 132nd. Commission members were persuaded that the site was not suitable for constrdction of an east-west collector street due to steep grades. Evidence was provided that a collector connection to 132nd Avenue could better be provided north of the site where grades are less steep. On appeal, the Planning Commissions decision was upheld by the City Council in Resolution 91-75. • Ili Consequently, the NPO Option represented in Attachment#3 shows Gaarde extended west and north from 121st to intersect 132nd at a location near Benchview'Terrace (north of the approved subdivision site). Traffic Comparisons In conjunction with the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study, future traffic volumes on the collector street system were forecast. The forecasts assumed full development of the area,based on maximum practical development under existing zoning and recognizing the development restrictions of steep slopes,drainageways and existing •':'` subdivisions. Based on these forecasts, Appendix E in the Northeast Bull Mountain Study Report contains material on future street capacities. Appendix E indicates that the collector street system designed to typical City of Tigard standards will provide acceptable levels ; • r�i of service under projected future traffic volumes,except at a few intersections. Additional traffic lanes may be needed in the future at some intersections. These intersections are along the Walnut/Murray connector from 135th to Scholls Ferry Road; along Gaarde Street near Highway 99W; and possibly at the intersection of 121st and Walnut. The information in Appendix E assumed that the Report Option would be adopted. ♦ Selection of the NPO Option would not change the general conclusions stated above. • However, selection of the NPO Option would change traffic projections on some streets, >,A •' as discussed below. All discussion is based on work done in 1990 in conjunction with the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. Copies of the 1990 Study Report are available for review in the City Engineering Department. The NPO Option would reduce the future traffic on Gaarde Street. West of 121st ,: .• Avenue,the build-out traffic under the NPO Option would be approximately 5,000 vehicles per day, compared to 10,000 vehicles per day under the Report Option. Under either option, the projected volumes exceed the guidelines for a minor collector street and fall within the volumes typical for a major collector. A two-lane street with a center turn lane• at intersections would be adequate under either option. =:,=> GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - October 1992 Page 3 A. On Gaarde Street near Highway 99W,the NPO Option reduces projected traffic volumes , by approximately 20%. The need for future additional turn lanes would be delayed but _ the long-term facility requirements would be generally the same as for the Report Option. p4 On Walnut Street near 135th,the NPO Option reduces projected build-out traffic volumes -_ .. from approximately 16,000 vehicles per day under the Report Option to approximately 10,000 • vehicles per day under the NPO Option.'� ' ...v NPO - r • n'nated under the NPO Option.re lanes at the 135th intersections would probably be eliminated _ Tre.ffi` removed from Caaardla Street under't the NPO 'O tion ivvuld .+:•xt •" cp.::: :" Impacts would be most noticeable south of Walnut Street on 132nd Avenue and 121st Avenue. Under the Report Option, 132nd would remain a local street between Walnut and Benchview. Under the NPO Option, 132nd would become a collector street with a projected traffic volume of 4,000 vehicles per day. On 121st between Walnut and Gaarde,the projected traffic under the NPO Option is roughly twice the projected traffic :,ry under the Report Option. . When compared to the Report Option, the NPO Option is projected to increase future • traffic volumes on 121st north of Walnut by approximately 17% and on Bull Mountain Road west of the 135th extension by approximately 29%. Smaller increases could be expected on other collector streets including the 135th extension south of Walnut, North Dakota Street, Bull Mountain Road east of the 135th extension,-and the future Sunrise • Lane connection. These traffic comparisons are summarized in Attachment No. 4. T<• -' Land-Use Impacts cuyundevelopedThe In general, both options are located throusubdivisions pare developed in the area. Roadway roadways would be constructed as new alignments and grades would be coordinated with the design of the new subdivisions. =.. :. An exception in the Report Option is the area immediately south of Walnut Street. To . , complete the connection to Walnut, it is likely that the City would eventually need to t,,.. = acquire and remove two existing homes. :;: An exception in the NPO Option is the area along existing 132nd Avenue south of Walnut Street. The existing street is narrow and has no sidewalks. Several of the existing homes have very steep driveways. Widening this portion of 132nd to collector standards • or adding sidewalks would require major reconstruction of driveways. In some cases, it might be necessary to abandon vehicle accesses to existing garages. Major retaining walls would be necessary in some locations. • -yi GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - October 1992 Page4 — _ _ f '/ • Coordination with Other Plans State regulations require that comprehensive plans be coordinated with those of adjoining t jurisdictions. The existing Regional Transportation Plan, Washington �� Transportation Plan, and the urban planning area agree�mentswththe County and the City of Beaverton all call for a collector street connection between 135th/Walnut and 121st/Gaarde intersection. To satisfy State regulations, Tigard must either adopt a plan consistent with these other existing plans or persuade the other jurisdictions to amend • their plans. -:.r 7 'When the other plans were adopted, it was envisioned that the connection between • " 4 Walnut and Gaarde would be a direct extension of Murray Boulevard. It could be argued • that neither of the options currently under consideration precisely complies with this ,;.._.. "`'' concept. However, the Report Option is more closely in compliance than the NPO Option. • Operationally, the Report Option shows little difference from the previously planned concept. Its route is only slightly different from those considered when the comprehensive plans were adopted. During the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study,this route was selected and the direct-connection routes were rejected in order to minimize impacts on existing development. From previous discussions with County staff, it appears that this option is sufficiently in conformance with existing plans to be • - I considered in compliance. It appears that adoption of the Report Option would not -` ``` require amendment of the other existing plans.The NPO Option deviates further from the direct-connection concept. As proposed by the • NPO, this option would not comply with the design standards adopted in the urban planning area agreements. If this option is selected, it appears that Tigard would need to request corresponding amendments in the other plans and agreements prior to adopting the plan. Timing and Funding Whichever option is chosen, it is anticipated that the improvements will be made as development of the area occurs. Each subdivision would construct its piece of the roadway as part of the subdivision improvements. The countywide TIF (Traffic Impact a ..,. Fee) ordinance provides for TIF credits to developers who construct portions of this : roadway connection. The TIF credits would apply to all of the Report Option route; it is ,:,•',,•:, i; - . not clear which portions, if any,of the NPO Option route would qualify for the TIF credits. y The area immediately adjacent to Walnut Street is already developed and is unlikely to experience substantial redevelopment within the next 20 years. In this area the collector •- street improvements would likely need to be completed by the City. Under the Report - Option, TIF funds could be used be used to complete the collector street. It is not clear GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - October 1992 Page 5 r • if TIF funds could be used to upgrade existing 132nd Avenue to collector standards under the NPO Option. . Preliminary cost estimates indicate that the NPO Option would be more expensive than the Report Option to construct. Because the NPO Option would traverse more steep terrain, it would require more earthwork than the Report Option. Widening of existing 132nd Avenue to collector standards would require extensive earthwork, construction of retaining walls, right of way acquisition, and reconstruction of existing driveways. It is estimated that the improvements requiring City funding would cost approximately $150,000 to $200,000 more under the NPO Option. • Since construction is tied to private development of subdivisions,the schedule of actual ,. construction is not known If necessary, the City could eventually complete any missing sections of the roadway and recover the costs trom developers as the remaining land is developed. h• ` Exact Alignments • The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map describes street alignments in general - _ terms. Precise roadway alignments are usually determined at the time of actual development. The precise alignment is typically based on more detailed engineering and • the needs of the specific developments that are proposed. F 1 Therefore, the proposed options describe only the approximate alignment of the future • streets. When specific development proposals are considered, there is additional •'':: opportunity for public review and comment on the specific alignments. Under either option, the projected future traffic volumes are within the range associated with major collector streets in Tigard (1,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day). In either option, it is recommended that major collector standards should apply. The Report Option can more easily meet the collector standards as it follows a route with more gentle grades. The NPO Option would traverse a steep rugged area east of 132nd and would require 4Y, steeper grades. Existing grades on 132nd Avenue exceed collector street standards. ; : Discussion First review may suggest that the NPO Option is more desirable as it has lower projected future traffic volumes on the Gaarde extension. However, further review shows that under the NPO Option traffic will be diverted to other existing collector streets such as 121st, 132nd, and Bull Mountain Road. These existing streets are already substantially ar developed as low density residential areas and are not well planned for high traffic volumes. We conclude that it is preferable to carry more of the future traffic increase on the new roadway where new subdivisions can be appropriately designed to accommodate the greater traffic volume. This way,the increased traffic resulting from new development GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - October 1992 Page 6 • • • _. _ . . - - - _ - - - - - - :: _ c. ( will,to a greater extent, be routed to the new streets created by new development,rather than to the existing streets. Therefore, we find that the Report Option is the preferable 0 option for the routing of traffic. We also find that the Report Option is a better route in that it will have more gentle grades, has fewer impacts to existing residential properties, and avoids the need to reconstruct existing 132nd Avenue south of Walnut. - - Finally, we find that the Report Option is in compliance with existing regional and local ---' plans. We are not optimistic that the amendments to existing plans could be obtained to • bring the NPO Option into compliance. Recommendations 'd, It is recommended that the Note 2 study area on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map be replaced by the Report Option alignment as depicted in Attachment #2. In addition, it is recommended that Note 2 be revised to read as follows: "I' to "Gaarde Street to be extended west and north from 121st Avenue to - - connect with Walnut Street at a point 300 feet to 400 feet east of SW 132nd Avenue. Direct driveway access shall be prohibited along the Gaarde .,,,; i c. Street extension and roadway connections shall be kept to a minimum. The width of the street may be reduced below the standards for major collector streets where turn lanes are not required." a Fj_. rw/note2 .N!. I-- .-i' ty `:Iz fk: i - A ' GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - October 1992 Page 7 ..., -....-.;,-.i-.~?t•.›. . The City of r-irs--:,'-.,.F• .. .- i- _ s e e NOTES 110 = .asitoitl.„...— -- . i.....sit... TIGARD ,. ..„.:,,i.::•,:,,..,„ ,...... ... i : . .,T. - back of a , ,___. .., •,, I.! „.• _ . I ti II ' , ,. -, ComprehensiveSEE OT V -- - Plan .: t 4 I , ... # ,-:- .. .... .- Transportation' .._ „ .,..,._ I .. .:: .. _ ... 4 d ,,.: ii a p ,- , - k , _- --• --." --,--7,:-.----,,,,.-7,s „,,,,,,,-- •---.- ..,,„,,,,"/ ? 4 .”' - '''''...` 'f" Y : h -.' Fi4re 3 1 .k. . , .- -' , SEE NOT E 4,, *-4':,--- --- =-, '--,,.,N,••=N\,-=,*-','-,'!--1,-‘-- .• --, '''',--,,,k-;'''''',17:'V- •' II . "1. s ''\'''''''''''''''' Light Rail ....,-,,,,..„-....,.......... . .. .,.,.„....,. ...., ,_, „ ...... . ,. ,-- ,[- -',.-'' Corridor - -- •... .4. -, -1••....z- -"` '--=;'- _--'. .'.' '-...?• T --,.. •:-.5.•-;:-..-.F.,‘::.-•:-.i...- S t u d y Area .. ... t : .0 . 77-7,77747.1 ;.: ,;.r., - _. , ,,,,,...,-.„. „.„,_„,.•,.. ........---11r, 4;;;.,4,.- :, studs Area ?-_ ., -_ ,... .-.‘ ,• --.-3-7,-,-;,-,,,,:-.,, . 1 ,. i.. , NOTE v4itaiiii . ' •,,;(-' -,,,,.--,--= v e .., ---- ,,,,,. ;..., ,- SEE Ni:',, -f,'--;.-- - !'= =. ...: .1-1-'4'...... vi a j o r - -4.- , . Arterial - , S:E. 411111-44r ---.;11111111k7 : ;41:-. ; 11,-- - :;`1; ilf— &t.,77.-..:-....,,,:: :; . - ',51 jA:tiftirri Ig 1, « •..•..•• .A14%.i -...! .. II -'-':"`.. .',---.F.:,..1.01 ...-4.: :, Collector .,_. / ' 1 • _., „.,, • . - E .00,S Minor 1 ' •-. •, ••- ,.,- ', I NOTE 9 1..., , . ,,, ,_ 'Z'k,-;.. Collector I - 1 .. fr,.0 i -WP,A7^,•''--r- ' . ,\ lif . ......•1.'''' $4 Ti 8 Freeway 'N\-$ SEE NOTE ' , . . , ,..,. ,. Interchange ; . • . ' . -•. I ...,- 0 t F.! :V`e • ” 0 kilo' IoIt ta • map rep - $ .... ... ... ......e . . Itlica cokci:t0 IT Ike Ctly . ikosrp- 111 - pkIc lalerwallkk Spites ....-------- ' 1 0. 4. I GIS) 1311.4re. tiller- ,. ' , nation perIttypd kite .:// ci. 'LA.,IA ss may be inlelded to b. -- %----..!,•,,,, Ordinance No . oRD 91-1.3 ,. ., . .. . E.t..-. S E E r ksell 'ilk odditiolel ' - '? „ ,..., i ,.., 4 NoRTH tech, and/or interpretatite cola r : Map adopted JUNE 11 , 1991 NOTE ....0 , 0 . 0 es eetermited ly '-,iisia:zor lb, City ot Tilerd. See back for revision schedule s' .1--.0.- 8 . /1 ,... 1 (mPIPAS) 0 3600 (03/19/91) ...s. Alf 02/09/93 AGENDA NO. 5 1 OF 2 1i' THIS DOCUMENT IS LESS .-, ',''. ' 7.li rillill 111111- • 411)11111 • • . 1 1 • ,, •i-' ' - ".•,,,,,';;-4,— • '‘ , , •:- LEGIBLE THAN THIS NOTATION, 4.,..",--; 1 I 2 ' I 4 1 . . 1 11 11 111 •--;,.i, MARCH t.:;:-. ... • . 0 1 30 ...4.i,;:e. 1994 IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF---,-."4'41-, Tio.013 - THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, I . t Nu.VII 1IT 11116111111111111111111111 IIII 9111111.111'I MI s11111111g1111 111131111 1111 111:il • 1111111.1111 1111.1111.11111111 11111111 111111111111 1111 11111111 III 1111 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111 1111111111111111 11 11111 HI Ifil II 1111111111111111p Is I elz I 911 .4 I 913 ft 1 lt 1 gz 1 I° lig 1 6I 1 'st I zli I it - ' 111'111 I MI I 1 I I I Is I I . I li I . - - • ''''"' -.. ..... .. ._....... ., . *,-- .• . . .. • ... _• . . . . . . -, . • . . . .... . . . • . , . . . . . .- . • • . . - - . , . , • . • • . . • . .. _ . _ _ •.• • . • . . . . , . . • . . . • . • . . . • • • • ,_, . , . • . . . . . .._ - . . . • _ .. _ . . . , • . • . . , • •• , • . • , . .. . _ . . • • , ____ • • . . CeibsPuBitionlig ruts TaimilivenrATIOrni MAP eleflrES . ___ tommilli1111111.1, -,- ,-, COMPIMPOIMIMMIII stag 1- ratiallso Feat,liard ht lie feeNtrand IIP CIPIROBC1 ail 011401$agagt i imamoirrastresserra nor a itholy area to determise a base cassraes hawed*the letabeet1Oraft auffissai saradeurd intersected and lao Cianideri2lat ifillawastirat. A matiew cella:lot arransise of - Cali*511ilieee hes heist reopioneeeled to the Ilicelheest 11N81111ramillaie 1W1111111:5 filkla Traireperteibee filltd4f Illisoset. A.isfreed cerwarlieeet railer arilledetts has hese aranietranded to IWO EL 91-22 alio/est 43. ;MI 04P411007 ilaardD 746 IWO a ateletiiimate aNgivisoft we illarsono far the TWOf 132ed.01rassue sefda el fillemtraileir Tema&illiNk avenue south al difairut Shramt.ralgt Etanchflieuf Toraerst velet of 13bid Menus- Moot)sheets see to be disigeed as railer callackss eel a demise'speed et 25 amok- 4. Ski*arse to chiesemine ths confounion er a new comedian between seellidoound Paciikri5Owasy and Make Shoat. . 5. Shrtiy oast to delleredne the allpionent at*ominor colkodor street connective 601h Paden,near Red Rod'Creak eilh the Defenouth Sliest radendora and edit tientplon Sheet at 72nd'trews vita the Dadmouth Sheet alanskon%tab .._ the efeelledy portion at the Tigard Mangle. & Study ants to&tramline the allotment of comedians beeveen Highway 217. Kruse VAsy.1•5 and the Tkead Triangle. 7. Corinedlons between Hundker Street,Hall Soul...raid at this Street (gratefully)and Bonita Road. 8. Study area to consider extension of Hal Sodom/ford southward to connect alit Scones Ferry Road In Tualatin for either pedestrian or vehict.der access. 9. A local street connection from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue Intersecting 100th Avenue either at Settler Street or at a point at least 100 feet from the existing Settler Street intersection. 10. An extension and realignment of 109th Avenue south of the Settler Street extension,to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Prakway. The realigned 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet to • • 450 feet east of Pacific Highway. mptms.per 02/09/93 AGENDA NO. 5 2 OF 2 1994 3O '', ''''''."7-,1,71 I.' ......_ ,„..._ ...--:$IF THIS DOOMENT IS LESS I. ,, 1 ITII.r1 p I tr.;.-Willl 111 111 - 1 111111 7:"111- ,A. LEGIBLE THAN THIS NOTATION. ot 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 . 7 I 8 1 . MARCH 1 I 10111111EglitillW1::;t'l' ,- , - '....‘- , IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF i'.. _... THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. - '' - N.36 e`=.1-4T-•-.7". -,,-,-- . 1gI6ZIggli.g ] 'gr gltgle 13glIglIZI6I1g/ ILIIgI SI ] I .T i g I ilIgin 6 1 z I MINH ,...t,'"' • 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 11111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 111 1111111111111[1111111 ilallamilmralim 11111111•1 I, 1 • 1 4'. '-al'- ' . ,.,. , fC,''' • _ . • . - , . . , • . , . • ' •,—. . ....;.1'),;..."t . . . . . • Iii • - • ....r . ' w MM= ARTERIAL • _ '-...,..-.'...,,.•1.,-..'..........,_,:, . Cn_ • M.1 3101 MI MAJOR COLLECTOR • • --- o MINOR COLLECTOR ( ) _ ---- LOCAL STREET ic7 eo, _ Op t o • c '.f ... ., .6)/4,, 0 p.,...w.g. APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT • ...: (Exact alignment to be 0 - • o _, , Ave .. . determined at time of — --• — ":;::,•,2,--- "-"\ development. --- t N \ 0. TRAFFIC SIGNAL .6,. -., ..,k (When Warranted) ••• , ., .. tAi 0 -C o1 ...1';..g.• 'Ss' J • . '....• - 0 -6- col \\--- -;=• ---..--,. . , - ..,,., • : c cl , ---'--, ' o. • .',...: " . p.. S.W .,II5th Ave. . 9W . . ...,...,..:......"...,,...... . . • . . 1 • i : . ---... ....-1 .... :i.:': . ......„\. • , .i. ' (Jig ... CY . •.. . , -Ci • -' '''..;:'• SW- __ 12Ist i cc • — ",...''.... ....”.r......... ...r.......,,,,. 4 ......\, , •-::?. Pe . ., .....• . ..... REPORTOPTION -..., . c . 3- ' ,:.,.....,. . . ALIGNMENT 0 -;.--. .- . ., ••••• ,"...C' , • ••• -. *E:..00..,,.,::i".:" • .:--:.;,. ...... ..m. ',..... •41:;:403.4 ---. .:.--S-.. .4 Bull }fountain Rd. ' .:',„ •!' i ---- 1.;.;$:-.0t-'4' ..,,,,,v,,,,,mm., ,i.. internec-tion Corridor location :Ik. .07,C.W_Lif 4': ---- ,,,T"..,,t-- Ettet-,-• approximately 200*.' ele5:4•'...0!„7,0,...;04.e.;Us,..1.•-.. '''il*7-- ..:*..",r..7..i.:4?.;,;.• „,.....',-23.••••,e.: -.„:„-.*,..14.14...t.......- west of 126th Ave. “‘,.• 300' — 400' east .tv :- ::0:: 0-''''' ---„:-.1 '\„ei.,:-ne.•,5,..:1. of 132nd Avenue W' "”- ''-'-'-- -,EEFF-a."*2%Y- \\. ....--1,..4.'-\''''' ' SW. 131st , \'"•'' •,.. .....,.,t at Walnut St- Ave:14''' 1 te...,..„4... . ': '''‘'6'. ?. A . ,. :,::;,,. . .N, I • ' SW. 133rd Ave.v ,,' SW 135th Ave I.:5 - ...• ••=4..zst-e-,,, % .......„, _. u..,.;..-4 lis.,7•i.....,,iii - ......,.. ‘K.:•-i-. •••••, . • --,-...-r----2-•-•-:t--.--1--. ...c.,a,#•-.-.".r..,t.,......-....•;;-•',- ..i____.,_s•••.•:,-,:•:,,ZMN41,;:::.:,, „st',,,..,,. -3',.„ . . 4A•.,.,..`:.,, •--,'' ..r''-:f'..• .0., . -----,..,411„ .W.4;,,v4.',t''..'N..!‹•• ••-,0$0.kl'XS-:-:.:",F.\ 0 ,*, c1) " \ - e,•?; ,s.,, o s.- at ..\\.N4N-S.ItN),„If6S'IN . ' ....., ... 40. . C 1.1-. s•-•--........ 'N-,,:,--X,„aqt,..,L'A-- v<z ,... • .. A. , „:4\zi.z.,,....,,,,-0.2.,...„.., 0 — ---... -Nsmagw----arEEETZI -------------------- so 3%. .•. „ ...•. Rip 4.... 1./J ,.- .. te. . ' .. 8..iiii.4‘ 14Ist Ave.- . • .1. -.. s_ '•,-'''.''.. J'-- _ .. • .... .._ : ...,......6 . - ::(..•:.:_..06 .. -C -. ..,,.% . .-• .......- -C :-..... .. N.,.,,. ... ','r•' ../.-• M '• • , '-'•1 fr .f... ••-• .- •••., e,.. .- . . I, ..._.....-- . •'• ...-',1.'....: ./ -•"•-• :„:'-': • ''',,ei - •?ii ._,..-----•'...-----.. ,., . . .. --. .-• ....._.._..„.. .- e ........ ---- ,. '-. - • t-.'. ....,. • • . _.. ..., ._ Z . Sunrise Ln. S.W. 150th /1.176-.------ . ...),) --;F2---f•--•-4 --.. . ,.. ..o- . ......,...___,,,___;.,,..............11 . . . , ,t • ;. „,,:r.-----, . N.,.... . !. •.. -... • •-- • ., . .. . ( . 1. - -, - • -:-=F---ti--er . , .''- C ' • '. ATTACIMIENT NO. 2 .. ., REPORT OPTION . .- .. ... . . - _..33.,32 ,--- . • .:'' ., • • ,• • • '. . , •,.. ••••- '.-3•:.'•.- .t• . ... 1 ;;'. ,.,•...,:.,: r . ..,. ...r:, . . = AnktiOTERIL MAJORCOLLECTOR . • ( . ' • -' '..• _...„ ... • i --- MINOR COLLECTOR • ''•''''' ••c • 0- ...... ,-•eo•-_, - •,„ •.(0,..„ ;:-.. .,7 LOCAL STREET = ' • • O %•k;•,M7..5 APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT III o • • cm: 4--.42maz0 ''.4717 ...... 0) • '... (Exact alignment to be 0 ' - •-... 2 - determined at time of '12 7 Ave. - 7,...:-.iF„-..:-•., .--7-- ----- -\ a development. • ‘ ''' • Ali. TRAFFIC SIGNAL • • •• .s. \ . .1 . .--. _.19- (When Warranted) . . E -.. , ••- *15 •,„, cs, 0 ,, Cl)' . A. "•••,,. c, .• • - ..c 3._- = . ... " a \y. . 5 .. . . ci• . • 2.7.,: -..... . •• -•*- f; c ••••• - - - o- c , • ••- ,--, ,. • ... cl . . . . -..:: • . , . ., , ••-...,. . . ' - o .-- ' LLI • O") ' . .. .1.:• •. 4 •-. . .. 99W . : j SYil ,I15:th Ave • i ......./ 1.- - - •.;...,:-.....: •-- CD . . . -4 ....,,..,,.!. , . . E ••......\ .1:1 . . ,.'..., ,!-•.;',,.."4- _ s'..•.. •::, Crif . .". CI. . . . • ' -' ... ' • -I 0 . • •Ci . • ..., CD • .."':;.''''' SW• . -.....121st . I CG _ '.. -; . - ••••‘..,.--- e. *•.* • • * ,r..--f•• • . . . • • • ' • . ''.,.•t-,•• ' • ' ' .,, ••.;"•:,••• - • NPO OPTION - 0 1.\—)---- . • • ••••••;.,, ..'.-- -3.: :.,:•;•;^--) ALIGNMENT 45::' .},:-; .. - cp •, ,. .4, ,,,,• ; ..„...,. • 4.4...if • . .,-•••• -•• • ----- 0 e ... ep4Ap'p ..--..,:-...k: 128th. ,..4.5'. 7 ;?•f ' • • •--141,4.;fz- •-• -• Bull Hountain Rd. s• ,:•.;,.r,'''.•,,;•.; ,•-•-:;••,..:. 4 S.W. --,. -7- ,.. '... .- ---- Ave. •41,1-'• es.,•.1.---S.:tve"..*:-.:,,,i4-.:',•-•• .=-- int"aecti°ft • • --.--ii*,,,ii ; approximately 700'.• ..• . • tAwcit • . ,..,....1.4.i,iti,-,:,4-t. D.':-.--- west of 126th Ave. _„..,.. • ' • f • ., • ..etVA - r 1.32nd ' ,.;.• .-ky.,..,...,,.. ...2:1:. • .... . - • .,,c,t14,"VasslEFIt menA.an . •,1;..s.7!'''''''fi4„ ..7=. ;•:' • e„,......... ,12..tfrAiii.*;3‘..'4.:,,,s,..k....S.W.........131s-: .,r.,,•,.....,:„. -• :,..- • ,..,•.:v,-....> \Ave. ''4' ..'''''E",,<'::-'•- P.r..-t-4I'vV-V., 3:-....;itizr9... . ......,„. . . SNV. I33rd Avell:W-- Va';:;,' , • . , , • ... - • .. • '•-, • •-• • ...-- . - . ., . • ...,_,•. SW 135th Ave. .. - • .t.-.,,,,,.:.,..,:‘,...... \ I. •._....„, .....--=-1'. . . - , .......:;:-.7.•5*.z,:*t.,:„.. 5. -.ff.,' ••• 0.1......p.."*.f*. -----.1 ...,-. , ._."*".1.tretrera•nt",••,,,, ,. — «•'<'-f-;%•,-;:x•••,:-.x..,:f*:•4$:::,z-•;,,,:::.,...........::,..:.:.-.:.,...,,s-.*::"... v.. ......i-rr—...............c.,r.d.1,-....,..r.m...!."...tItt.,.„.;• ..- -,• . . • U7 ---z._••••••••?..:z.1:::::.;z•:, .:-.7,:z.zs,•,,.. .•- ,.. ..'•-..tr :...`"4:-.•.S.f:•. , .PsiNi:::;4.•••, • \ . •& :•••• I • C , 4-;,..:!•:.::::. 0,_\;Xiz•,5. . •,,,-,e.'N.'s-I-N, .-VIk o• • . ..... oe, 4•• - • , ---...... a• I cu . ti... --, ,,lis.;,),,,s..,._..\\....:::::„.,.,,,,,.,, . ,....,,t4.,...' ,-4-NPit 45, .s, ‘, . . . .., . • •-• 'f,e4‘,..'..7,,,%.,:tti,:....3iii:,.*••••:;ka.:"..37.47.M.? :------"•'.••................••••-••"•- -----•••-•• I • % II • - ....-'N.---- -- ' .--S9c.r:- '41st Ave. • .- — P.- ... . ,-- .:-..:".1.• •,. , 1- V.Y...22 •• •..= .. -i.l.*- Ci5 • ••• ,...N. , ....." •.4 0/1 ...4 ''. ......••••••• •• . .... ••• • /../...• .= ••• ,,,-•r- '1+; "C•••,,, . ;.,...4•.,1,,.. 4r • '... C:,... • .• ./ .. • . ••• , •.. .. - •... • . • •• . • '1. \ ../..---....".... ',..__,,.. .•• ,.s "... ..,.. • 4..... ----.*c.. • - . V.....'"i'''.: A____.--------. . ...s. Sunrise Ln. . SW 150th ye. - ,.•• tt-P -71 ,:-..----___;,,--___„„..--:-..;.,....„ 8.4.-,,,--,..-Tr. -.•_.•-,.',A.........," .• 7.4(?.. .rl,'•1:i'—' :'..-'' • • , .1 •-• ;I•:...'.'....1. :.2 -.C. ' N....... . •. .. •• 7----. ( r t • ••• .. 7". ......"...'"'s••....„ " : .1...r.e•R7i. • . • ••••—_,.., ...• .,• MIMS! ••.... . . -.':.' I.,. • .,..... ,. . ....:==.7E 1.1...••.• ' ':.. . .• • . . ' . . AlvTACIiIMENT NO. 3 . . . . .. ........,::_::..:,-,- :,..:......1NPO OPTION... „ . • •' ' . • , .. ' L - • Zil65 • > r\N'S-- °'''. '' CPkv "o mi 1 noL,',, o.) cc Ave. i ` co c3 T C �. ,S.W\IISthAve. -cd 99w )S 118%) 121st 216% • qLP 3. R rt c° Go S• 128th - W Ave. \ �- — / ..• S.W. I32nd \ \ Ave. l SW. 13Ist C450� _ \ r`../ \ Ave. S.W. 135th Ave. N. S.W. 133rd Ave. \ . \ `� It ` ` \ `�... "••••'...:-," - -/ ..........N.............. CC• 141st Ave. / 0/, .... _C _ �' Projected traffic under NPO Option • '� L...... �` = compared to Report Option. ?' {• Pte^ v• •/ Numbers below 100%indicate I08 . �� traffic than Report Option. fi' •'' _ `--- ,14 • v Numbers over 100%indicate ; -.s that NPO Option would have more traffic than Report Option. • -N--.:==[ • • ATTACJNT NOa 4 : TRAFFIC COMPARISON ,-_ 1, ,.. . Aft WASHINGTONRECEV D / e COUNTY, NOV 1 2 1992 1 - -T OREGON CITY OF TIGARD 1 • F, November 10, 1992 Randy Wooley, City Engineer Mill City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Randy: ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Per your request, we have focused our comments on the Gaarde Road extension and the consistency issues relative to the Washington County Transportation Plan and the Urban Planning Area Agreement • between Tigard and the County. Our comments follow: i;, Consistency with the Washington County Transportation Plan r '' The Gaarde Street extension is a proposed collector on the County's ` _ Transportation Plan. The City and County plans are consistent with regard to - functional classifications. The Gaarde Street extension is not included as part of the Countywide Road System and therefore is not a road that the County ,. 1 expects to have jurisdiction over. On the basis of functional classification and the Countywide Road System, both the Report Option and the NPO Option would appear consistent with the Washington County Transportation Plan. However, the ' ....k. Report Option would appear to be more consistent with the Transportation Plan. In particular, the Report Option is more consistent with Policy 2.0 which seeks •� the greatest efficiency of movement possible for Washington County residents ;..:<-r 7 and businesses, in terms of travel time and distance. "z'I..; Consistency with the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and the .Y, „ ` County �s • ,1••. The Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study indicated that even with Yw` construction of the Western Bypass and the extension of Beef Bend Road south to Six Corners, there will be a demand for some non-local trips through the "'. Northeast Bull Mountain area between south Tigard and the south Beaverton area. �" ``: While the Gaarde Street Extension will primarily serve local trips, it's important that the street be designed to serve some non-local traffic. As <,. noted in the Urban Planning Area Agreement, the design speed for the Gaarde '•--� `' extension shall be 35 miles per hour and access shall be limited. It would "`'`.. appear that a project compatible with the Report Option could be developed • :" consistent with this design standard. ( Department of Land Use and Transportation,Planning Division Phone: 503/640-3519 r„.,„w; 155 North First Avenue Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 FAX* 503/693-4412 -". 7*- Randy Wooley 4'`` November 10, 1992 Page 2 With regard to the NPO Option, as noted in the Northeast�BuBull ExMountain 132nd Transportation Study and in the Staff Repofo. Avenue near Walnut Street is an existing, narrow street with no sidewalks, and very steep driveway accesses to existing homes on both sides of the street. The street is currently not improved to collector street standards. Improvements to this street consistent with the design provisions in the Urban Planning Area Agreement would have major impacts on the existing homes and accesses. Therefore, 132nd Avenue would not appear suitable for a collector rugged area east roadway. Additionally, the NPO Option would traverse a steep of 132nd and would require rather steep grades. Thus, it seems infeasible that a project compatible with the NPO Option could he designed and built that would [}, be consistent with theaccess limitation and ndathe her35mmile per hour design standard contained in a Conclusion We concur with Tigard staff that it is preferable to carry more of the future Northeast Bull Mountain Area traffic on a new road where new subdivisions and access points can be appropriately designed to accommodate the traffic volumes. We support staff's recommendation to adopt the Report Option alignment. We request that you keep us informed of any new alternatives and any City of �` Tigard decisions regarding this issue. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. , S' • -rely, 4 :r= t Curtis P .nning Manager gaarde 4,_i rf. ,L r 1 AQ, e:- s 'mil ~ EXHIBIT B • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 4, s;3 11 1. 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. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre; Commissioners Boone, Castile, Holland, Moore, Saporta, Saxton (arrived 7:35) , • ;,' Schwab, and Schweitz. Staff: City Engineer Randy Wooley, Senior Planner Dick `.:,. Bewersdorff, Associate Planner Jerry Offer, and Planning Commisslon Secretary Ellen Fox. o President Fyre welcomed the new commissioners Holland and Schweitz to the Commission. Commissioner Schwab invited Commissioners to attend the ^:;:1; upcoming public meeting to discuss the possibility of converting the soon-to-be vacated Fire Station into a ommunity center. He said the proposal includes asking the v ters to approve financing by general obligation bonds., . f :. r • •-.t...,' 3. APPR OF MINUTES ',; The minut for the December meeting were not included in the packets for proval and will be approved at the next meeting. 4. PLANNING COMMISgN COMMUNICATIONS There were no communisations received regarding this meeting. 4- 5. PUBLIC HEARING ": 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR .92-0018 HARRIS/P.D.G. (NPO #3) An appeal of the Director's, decision approving a Site 7.Z . - Development . .-Development Review request to construct a new drive-thru only restaurant facility with related si a improvements and a Lot Line Adjustment to adjust two parcels f approximately 53,143 !,.. and 11,761 square feet into two par is of approximately _ 42,232 and 22, 672 square feet each. The eal has been made --' f by Neighborhood Planning Organization NPO # The NPO appeal -.; ;1 : requests that the Director's condition of a roval #17 be . modified to require an enforceable restriction ainst left - - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 1 - - / _ \N - iii ' N'-ar►end Condition 17 to require official City "No Left Turn" si4n which would be enforceable by police. Hotiva carriad by majority vote---of-.__Commissioners present with Commissioners Moore, Schweitd, and Holland--voting_ "nay. " ME RECESS - 9:05 -" RECONVENE - 9.15 - 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0007 CITY OF TIGARD (NPO #3) A proposal to amend the Transportation Plan Map relating to the future alignment of a collector street i connecting S.W. Walnut Street and S.W. Gaarde Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, { :. and 12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.l.la, 1.1.2, 8.1.1, •-':''- 8.1.2, 11.3.1, and 11.3.2; Community Development Code Chapters rti 18.22 and 18.30. LOCATION: Northeast side of Bull Mountain west of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, south of Walnut Street, and east of SW 132nd Avenue. o City Engineer Randy Wooley explained the Transportation Plan .. •.,.k amendment and referred to the wall map to show the subject `_ area. He explained Note 2 which is a study area. He : described the two alternatives which were being considered. Alternative I was called the "report option" since it came about following the 1990 Bull Mountain Report. Alternative 2 was called the "NPO Option" because NPO #3 has proposed this option. Ur `1 • both Engineer compared projected traffic for options, as well as feasibility. He noted that 132nd is narrow with steep grades, making Alternative 2 a less feasible option. He recommended adopting the Report Option because is provides a better route with less steep grades and would have fewer ;� , impacts on existing neighborhoods. PUBLIC TESTIMONY -7 : o Herman Porter, 11875 SW Gaarde, handed out NPO 3 minutes (Exhibit C) and stated that both NPO 3 and 7 support the Alternative 2, the NPO Option. He discussed the daily traffic . volumes on Gaarde Street. He voice concern about ending up with too high of volumes. He was not in favor of turning Gaarde into an arterial, or an alternate route to I-5. He = ;� voiced acceptance for a collector but not an arterial. ' ` ' o Cal Woolery, 12356 SW 132nd Ct. , discussed the area between Walnut and Hampton. He favored developing another option which would join at 132nd from 150th south of Walr_i..1 :. He "1 ?'' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 5 fl - { (. advised this option would not displace houses. He described this option as a combination of Report Option and the NPO 3 III Option. He explained using the wall map and showed how his plan would look. He discussed the impact on developments and talked about ways to deter some of the through-traffic and to III relieve some of the traffic on Walnut. 111 OPPONENTS 111 o Rosemary Shrauger, 13030 SW Walnut St. , advised that if Report Option is selected i t, 1011 take her homo She read a IIIMMO � r= prepared statement (Exhibit D) . She said it would be _ difficult for her to relocate and still have the ideal , . situation she has now for her dog kennel. • • o Harold Shrauger, 13030 SW Walnut St. , voiced his agreement with the previous speaker. o Jill Link, 13050 SW Walnut, noted that the new developments have caused the impacts. She said it is morally- wrong to take out established homes because of the impacts caused by new ;: homes. She also commented that there needs to be a better ,;_; r method for communicating with neighborhoods regarding ,C-, meetings, as she did not receive any notice of this hearing. -; _ w.' ,:F .. ( o Paul Heavirland, 8685 SW McDonald, talked about the Westside .i: By-Pass meetings and recommended more discussions between cities to help facilitate the transportation plans. He favored gathering input from communities and working together better. o William S. Hegge, 9965 SW McDonald St. , voiced his concern about the traffic volumes on minor collectors. He suggested _ determining whether the purpose is to serve neighborhoods or more regional and built to that purpose. He preferred NPO Option because is provides a series of minor collectors. He was not convinced that the two options being discussed were the two best options. o James Shelton, 12015 SW Gaarde, discussed the impact of the NPO Option. He was concerned about increasing traffic on . Gaarde and suggested that it be widened. He noted that the ' ' • traffic situation at the intersection of 99W and Gaarde is worse than before the realignment because of stacking problems and people running the light. o Lavelle Helm, 13280 SW Walnut, said she has been fighting the Murray Extension plan for years, and she sees this plan _ proposed is the beginning of that extension. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 6 ; - y o Bruce Anderson, 11205 SW Gaarde, expressed concern about the 111 heavy traffic volumes on Gaarde Street. He said the Report Option would increase traffic further on Gaarde. Iie preferred the NPO plan; but he suggested not completing this until an IIIarterial by-pass is completed. 111 o Dave Leary, 10020 SW Johnson St. , spoke on behalf of his mother who lives on Walnut. He agreed with the previous speakers. He asked the Commission to consider the impact on people, especially long-time residents; "Take care of the iii people who have built Tigard. " o Rod Silver, 11333 SW Gaarde, spoke in favor of the NPO plan. REBUTTAL -:r': o City Engineer answered questions which had been raised concerning grades and relocating people. He provided statistics regarding traffic volumes in areas of concern and discussed how the two options would affect these volumes. Discussion followed regarding the two options and the newer one presented by Mr. Woolery. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED , ,. e o Commissioner Boone favored the NPO 7 plan because he said it eliminates two connections to Walnut that are too close. o Commissioner Holland discussed the need to look at long-range needs and how to get traffic through the area more efficiently • and quickly. He favored the Report option recommended by `' staff. o Commissioner Saxton agreed with Commissioner Boone and favored the slightly modified Report option as suggested by NPO i o Commissioner Saporta favored the Report Option and said he would consider the NPO 7 option. He discussed the transportation problems in Tigard and preferred not to delay a decision. o President Fyre discussed the need for Westside By-Pass and the :'' inter-regional traffic problems. He was concerned about making decisions that are detrimental to the neighborhoods. • He preferred discouraging through traffic, as well as being 4 . clear about whether it is an arterial or a collector we want. ''; o Commissioner Schweitz did not agree. He favored looking at PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 7 NPO 7 Option further before making a determination. ill o Commissioner Schwab said he agreed with Commissioner Fyre that traffic should be diffused as much as possible, and that he 111 did not want to see the new route used as a race track to the freeway. , 1 iii o Commissioner Boone said he would support the Report Option if modified as to its connection to Walnut. MEI Olin * Commissioner Boone moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded to : recommend to City Council to select the Report Option modified as per NPO 7's suggestion. Motion passed by majority of Commissioners present: 5 yes, 2 no, and 2 abstentions. Commissioners Holland and Fyre voted "Nay. " Commissioners Moore and Castile abstained. 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0005 FRONT YARD STORAGE' PROPOSAL TO AMEND SECTION 18.96.060 (a) of the CI y of T and Community Development Code to allow the s 'rage of boa s, trailers, campers, camper bodies, hous trailers, - :, ... recr tion vehicles, or commercial vehicles i xcess of 3/4 ton ca city to be stored in a required fron and setback in a reside ial zone subject to the followi limitations: 1) $''' : , No parkin in visual clearance area; use for sleeping ,..4 ( purposes lim'ted to 14 days per calend r year; 3) such units hall be licensed and kept in mobile Eondition. Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff ave the staff report, stating the Council is more intere _ ed in safety issues than in aesthetics. He saidthataff was recommending that the Commission repeal that e ion of the code. PUBLIC TESTIMONY / ,� .N OPPOSITION �NN • o Bill Gross, 11035 SW 135th, spokeNon behalf of NPO 7. He discussed past meeting of August 1,. 1991. He said NPO ..7. rejected CC' & Rs to protect homeowners as they were often - '`..; ineffective. He voiced concern about protecting home values. : He talked about the code which City of Portland has to protect , 4 .. homeowners. • PROPONENTS o 'Rick Perkins, 11740 SW 114th P1. , Tigard, said he live on a cul de sac. He discussed a trailer which he has maintain in his front yard and described his site. He favored the repeal q / PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 8 1 • • -TAN - T - 93 T H U 13 : 2 8 O R P AC P - 01 EXHIBIT C • ti ' Bill Gross noct ixfs 11035 SU 135th top U Tigard. OR 97223 Tel: 524-6325 January 6, 1993 Liz Newton Tigard Community Development r vK 13125 SU Hall Tigard, OR 97223 Tel: 639-4171 Fax: 684-7297 • RE: HPO #7 MEETING; UEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1993-7 PM MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7 PM. • •r ROLL CALL Present: Woolery. Blanchard, Gross, Howden. McGlinchy. Excused: Dorsett. yY Absent: Cunningham. t • . APPROUED MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 2, 1992 MEETING AS READ. WELCOME TO GUESTS Chairman Uoolery welcomed to our meeting: Scott Russell, landowner in the Scholls Ferry and Murray area; Larry Westerman and Gary Steele, homeowners on Fern Street; John Hong, homeowner in the Cotswold Subdivision; Steve Dunlop, on behalf of Matrix Development and Castle Hills Subdivision. Bill Hegge, homeowner on McDonald Street. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: CITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL r='j Our NPO convened with NPO fl3 to hear a presentation from Councilor Judy • Fessler and Community Coordinator Liz Newton on a proposal to disband the seven existing NPO's and replace then with three or four Community Involvement Teams <CIT's). Members voiced concerns about the CIT's concept. Each CIT would: 1 ) Encompass too many neighborhoods for volunteers to represent; 2> Involve too many neighborhoods and issues for volunteers to handle; 3> Involve too few volunteers familiar with any one neighborhood; and °k 1> Lessen neighborhood , and as a result community, participation. . JAN — T — 9 3 T HU 13 : 2 9 O R P AC P 02 '.:fr.,: &ill. ''.-...' ter) ® Membersobserved .the !IPD's concept is sound, but the implementation of ' Membe _ - 111 the HPO's existing charter needs: 111 1) More City resources available to HPO volunteers; 2) More training for HPO volunteers; and • ;' 3) City boards cross-membership by HPO volunteers. • • Members recalled that Ms Fessler and Ms Newton told us the City Council :, ` wanted to broaden the HPO's goals and their volunteer participation, ; but neither mentioned the Council wanted to disband the HPO's. _ w'. Members find no reason to disband the existing HPO's in order to broad- ' ^ en community goals and participation in the City. Members find, •to the contrary, if the Council disbands the HPO's, it would lessen neighbor- `:a hood and volunteer participation and weaken neighborhood representation Motion: Jim Blanchard; to endorse more goals and such for the existing HPO's and reject the CIT's concept. Second: Ed Howden; In Favor: 4; Against: 0; Abstain: 0. .. Lie will submit a letter on this motion, under the Chair's signature, to the City Council. /- ALBERTSON GROCERY STORE PROPOSAL John Shonkwiler, on behalf of Albertson, invited members and guests to comment on a proposal to locate an Albertson grocery store in the uic- inity of Scholls Ferry and Murray. Comments on access, screening, buil ding design and such were given. Suggestions to add a gas station. res taurant, laundry, children's day care and such were also given. REUIEU OF NOTICES OF DECISION i':- ,f S. Notices of decision were read. '-F OTHER BUSINESS ELECTION OF UICE-CHAIRMAN Members nominated and elected Ed Howden as our new vice-chairman. 'Y..-. UPDATE OH CPR 92-000?: GRAROE STREET EXTENSION ','`t. ( Members reconsidered the request for approval of the final alignment and designation for the Gaarde Street extension. Chair Uoolery recited another alignment and designation option developed by members and res- idents. The intent of this option is to mitigate: . : . JAN - 7 - 93 T H U 13 : 30 OR P A C • li .-,7.,',4:•:--i.' raal4 , -.p ill ( 1) Resident displacement: Ilia 2) Severe road cut-and-fill design and any land-slide hazard; MEI 3) High road construction cost and any housing cost impact; and 4) Neighborhood segmentation. Rnd to discourage: 1 ) Through traffic between Beaverton and Tualitan; and r� 2) Any arterial re-designation and widening. Motion: Cal Uoolery; to recommend the final alignment, design and des- ,•: ignation for the Gaarde Street extension as follows: 1) Alignment: connect to 132nd as shown on Exhibit. R; '1 2) Design: minor collector standards with deviations to comply _ _` with the UPRR; and 3> Designation: minor collector. Second: Jim Blanchard; In Favor: 4; Against: 0; Abstain: O. c: , • We will submit a letter on this motion, under the Chair's signature, to ��s_ . City Engineer Randy Wooley_ -,, REQUEST FOR AN OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY Members discussed a proposal to request the City Attorney to advise us on whether it is possible to make a land use decision with a referendum or initiative petition to the voters. _'`. °. Motion: Bill Gross; to request the City Attorney to render his opinion on whether it is possible to legislate a land use decision with an ini- - :'• tiative or referendum petition to the voters of Tigard. Second: Ed Howden; In Favor: 4; Against: 0; Abstain: O. UPDATE ON STREET-GRADE CHANGE ON 121ST AT SCROLLS FERRY The street-grade change made on 121st during the Scholls Hwy reconstruc tion project is too severe for a safe approach to Scholls Ferry. Chair •'' Uoolery discussed this grade change with City Engineer Wooley. Micheal Mills, City Construction Inspector, is discussing this matter with the State Highway Division. MEEETING ADJOURNED RT 9:4S PM. Respectfully submitted, Bill Gross, Secretary • s., 6 3��`` `I E � '��:ji.;� ■BUHt�` •►; dun :I • t..• .. I� Ali / -. 4 •• �IU1s■ 11 +1.1 rMIP .A T� c41-7- ' mm".."-, A' • Is �hhl '01111111:"/ 33 34 -ry � ■t71!t�'h ■tl1' ttllJi �`� tf d r w1C 11 3 ��— `�.-i in crrrro r—q to 1� j-`,ilei-.•- - �""c� . �� I \ ew1� �; 11.:...:t:..„..,,..-1:',.:...s. 17 x•12 _�11,-1•=d3 6-.... �, --j'.:'f.If 1 Li O,,,,j---- - T>• " - 1 , 4/ gli.11-•-74,..... k(--- ' i I: 'I I I 11-'Y''V Eltil-L-•-': 'Ll-F1- 1 '. ' ' --' I I I f(-��f ' 11--(S _� ;_;,,_,..1:_. ~�� ./......L.,,,,-r � �-fL;:rr� 1 I �i�. • " 1 �/I I I �\�` -1 T It h•! t 1_ - III f.-..1--....-. - j 1„1•le 'I 1' --n_r�.J 4 J i.1 I ,i . ',i' _ _ P .I .1 �"ii.i .' J • I J , wI 1i J I I I ■ � �J. \� `.. -f-r—�s-_z 'T .-g-,,,y moi/' 1 Exhibit fl -..-:----'.e=-"7---::i �/ i'r, - ".-. �111.Ai_,.: __-'- ..�,_..,1 -1� HINGTON iQ blT.Y_._•.• 0' . "-/ 6,,..•:" — =1- `-• GflflROE STREET EXTENSIOM I , t ISLAND 1i,,;,`\i I-•••, V. \ �1' �'`1'-`r�.J -, 7 NPO 07 Option Hlignnent tin,^ `-'� < ' `� 4.i9!y1;;:; ' ( i-1' �`i ' F • �rY'1-1.4A-...J3 ��- T %<'rn• 1?-!i •t I mo_ J . ; l 'ems/ ..------r- ,r ..`, "141 -�_, . ia r' ` f �� •�/•r4-'-, fh _-- ! - :1 _.t• Q NPO 7 HEFTING-JflNOORY G. 7993 1 -L Z - • i :f a,' Y �Y JI • J ,• t ;: y 2 • EXHIBIT D }• ( Cal Uoolery 111 NPO #7 Chairman 12356 SU 132nd Court Tigard, OR wrcLa 639-4297 January 7, 1993 Randy Uooley CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SU Hall :-E Tigard, OR 97223 639-4171 RE: CPR 92-0007; GRARDE STREET EXTENSION Dear Randy, This letter clarifies my oral presentation of the "NPO #7 Option" to the Planning Commission last Monday. • The "NPO #7 Option" proposes the alignment, design and designation for the Gaarde Street Extension as follows: 1 ) Alignment: connect to 132nd as shown on Exhibit A; 2) Design: minor collector standards with deviations to comply with the UPAA; and 3) Designation: minor collector. The intent of the proposal is two-fold. The first is to mitigate: - '< 1 ) Residen•'c displacement; 2) Severe road cut-and-fill design and any land-slide hazard; Y:. 3) High road construction cost and any housing cost impact; and 4) Neighborhood segmentation. And the second is to discourage: • 1 ) Through-traffic between Beaverton and Tualitan; and 2) Any arterial re-designation and widening. Sincerely, Cal Woolery Enclosure • • l • _ - •- . . . :.....,. , ( ,..... . .• 1 ..• -....-.... 1 , . .: .. , 1 . ..„.„____.,_,....,_... .,,,,,,,„„, , , . .. . . .i _.......-, ,: . __::.,,- .. *ear III; r-' , '.' EMI= '. m -- *Pf r--• ' 3 1 1 2_._.__:- . . I li . ! ....7 - - , ---//I 6--tr---;7----.,.-Lj .. _;-,.. ......„ 41 .1 ...--"' „ed btu: . ..el rr-.° \-1, 1 -A rasa. .1. ....pri rrrn- -..,..,,,. ... " -t ••••,IL 4b_ ..... I\••C J I I' , /rI\ / iiN ml I • .. ! . .j.F.......r-I.- .• . •' ---•----- '7; 7-7 7 I.'"....L-I .±Ie-___•Z;.. ''. : ITST'''"2'' . • •,•••-; I .. I \ l':14 l-'1-'-1-:''‘4171.fIr.e•-.--•••••"-. . _..1...1..''''Al •,-..... .,7,-L.11 ..... 7 .- ----' I -. '• -ss,s-. / , 33 34 .1-.....,___•,. •.....-i 1 .. '.1 -_-,--f-,- -,,,i-c_i-r-i-,.,_ E, • ,. .,....7 ,.., . !)(2.i, __ rr-i .4•••••••-•It1g2LI-24_____.--F-__•,:,,,9c: ''_"=:V__.1 _,• 1.......S, .m. , ..... 1... . _.2,_ sc,,o0L `74.1L-1- ....1.., ,---- • ,,,,-• . ;•,..--r.„---___.-3,_ ..,7 • ,--i-r-.4 .,„...„--_,......,-;__.• • [17"-- , ; ->-..---!--,I4A ,g__,,,- Ps, , -••=-', .. ..s::.;--",...,__-_f‘' , . !--4 .'I 1 I - '.. A / ---7,..;-.: --: --•-.. .-7... .r.,-1-4'a-,.:t . xf,._\, ...--..,.-,._----.. .. _ , — &-, /--- ---;------',.'-2,-...-,,... I -— __; 1 :. :x, • I' .,1-5 . -7--r, 7, • ----i;-7 : . ,.',.. I-,-.c-''''''',„_,.,-`,-_-` - ------.--.•--,, " -.I- - , - • • II : ' ' I I ' I - / ...=_...„...;-".e......1-1,.0:-----:.---:-.5,----f,•' .x•i--t '-------1 0.!h.- .-2,...----, .„.0 i ._,_, ...___4',--t r , -.• -*— '-'-'=----'-\----sn-',-\\A,i2) t ' .. , r"-' i 1 t i VI__ , ,, r-.-.- , ; „N. - -• 4,':- N: III I-I • .. • lr,.:4"'S. I•., - ;:,,I, h711Lr.7•::,:f77-7111 _jr-...F-41"' __..L....r ,..,.:.....1:11 1--, I I. •--• —;__.••••1..._,,_--• " /-I•4- --r•--____------ ' . ; 1, 4,- ",-,• .,.. .. . • *---'-• --1-7-_, / .... '- '• • 1 -,...—^--, i ' '- r;.2 • 4',. • ,,,....: ,.- .... . i i r-. 1 -'" ...c.'.....• ., II -,....„. • . • 1i • - - -.. • , , !....-- , -, . .•, t__..a• c..,2 ' • I •- ---L_J!,-1---r•_1_., ; •<-:"..--r,'-.m_L-•'',--''`e- -• • .;•.:.''.:':•.,.."... ' -- __ • : - -- _-- ;. • - - - - - • '-.-.-.--.....--... - ----V..---•'.-.-•-‘---'1.-•..-••.-••--'.•,-,-'7'.' --- - .'. - -. -''-.'. _,-.L7_•2.,--....•-,-T-..1-.---"7,r1'------!-'.-'.--.--...'-- • ,•....1, ....'.' i-L.- - .41.7. C• W.... .....r.-•••..--.T ''.. .. _•_..- ____,___.-- .• - •--;-'7,' - -f,-.---- -----•'---- ,,._•-,i-' 7,-3,,-,..--4,-_ -..,`.-,;--• ;--.. II.---7-=-r- •- -4- -- ,..., . ,C...,i-''..,.-1, -I"-•-- —1. ._--- • .. .•'...' Exhibit II '. ' HINGTOfd--G-01.441-Y- — .NPe. ... ----i-I •r‘ .'-;-'"- ...'t' -.-----r-1-----,22_' L-1.,_-,.... _•-_ • - , ='••.• ---ie—z>;'---'•1: 1)-_-_!-P . —, ,......!', - -1- r p ISLAND --' '/,6•Mnv... .),,,,,N(;) ., , I, • '71 GOAROE STREET EXTEKSIOM I. • -• ..,,,,...:...,.. , r , CA-- . •- ."s*/,--.-ET''(I?'', '- '- --t. ,.....------'--—f / HPO H7 Opti on Alionnent ‘' .0, :-7k" .: - - -''' - ik -7.1to -":„,'P..41- ....•...„..,,„ ___12,.. _ ., . ---' --7-n-71-Fri ,. -=-'i"--1_:•-t;;=' 7 --t-m ,_,----,,- , -, ___,-- , , ,,,, ,J-•.:_-•• '.., A.....'4 :I1‘,C•••-•",Y • -••• .;l';•)II ,• ., '.•:: -.41.,,,..-- 2-_,,,,(•:',/ :;::•-----f....•—:"....-7 I't ----Tt......----'-',—L— ..--4-1= -"II-Irr •I"'„. . •,.. , ....• NB — --p -4-,'--• ••-:---_=------•-• r--7.-=-1,-— -- .7.f.,'. .T.T. 7.4'•. •''-- ' • - ", ,---",..: . =.7: - L.,.1: "- • ,.. , ,,, • I ; --1 . ••- 1., .,,..„ I •,'•'''' ; I i ji --- ' > t. / `-......ii HP0 7 IIEETING-JOHUORY G. 1993 , 1 FT __ A - r.„W„t3..SHING1-0 Lii., ; -• , ,-;a- - • : 1 .. . .,,, ,... ' .,-..f.-.. ---• •-•, •••,i,-0`,,,-•',"-," --- . s•-- -- -.•, --, •, r-:•;!.. ---;-....'1,,. :,"l'I•''-. 7' •-•-•."..r,- , ,; •., ,•...;., '.:-::: :‘,.,-- t,',.-..,' •e' :-,,,-. -':,•,.4..e.,-.?.....„.•- ...!e...•• ''', -'•-:.:t . ''i'',-- ..,,,1. , ' -: ' .....::,7,.-1, ,- .. , , . . '•,. $ - , . .--.., •-.• J..v,•:: ,-.• ''•;.,-;.- ....- • ., .--: .:..--• .:.;,„,- .....",, - 1:-,,- •,'.-:- sz...,..k..'",,J., -',i'----2.---- ',- •.- -. _-_-;_c_......"•... • .. t---.-'-:.•••••-t,--1-s . - - :- . . - , c , :z.1-- ,,',.--2.i•-,;.,3,...-:,:---,..---• ,-.-:'.''!: -1:-.'-'•: - ' 1- .1-7-4,..,.. •r-• , .' '"' . -, • . . .-.,. . • • , '••;.)-•-:-• • • • . - . .. . - • ...- - - --- _. • -- • - _ _ _ . _ EXHIBIT E STAFF ANALYSIS OF NPO #7 (CAL WOOLERY) OPTION ill - - -. III Iiiii Attachment #1 is a map of the NPO #7 Option drawn in the same format as the options previously presented to the Planning :. .: Commission. General The alignment proposed by NPO #7 avoids the very steep terrain that the NPO #3 option would traverse. As a result, this option would be easier to design and build and would not require major cuts and fills. It avoids the need to acquire any of the existing homes on ::,..':'i Walnut Street. '. It has the same problems as the NPO #3 option regarding impacts to existing 132nd Avenue. Under the NPO #7 option, all of existing ' ` 132nd Avenue would become a collector street. Widening of 132nd Avenue to collector street standards would present the same problems previously discussed in the NPO #3 option. ,> Traffic No detailed traffic analysis has been done for the NPO #7 option. However, by comparing it to the previous options, we can get an idea of future traffic under this new option. �' Under the NPO #7 option, the Gaarde extension is a less direct connection to Walnut Street than under the Report Option. As a result, Gaarde extension could be expected to have less traffic under the NPO #7 option than under the Report Option. On the other -,---7... hand, the NPO #7 option is more of a direct connection to Walnut '- ..-- than .than the NPO #3 option. It also eliminates the steep grades of the :w= : NPO #3 option. Therefore, the NPO #7 option could be expected to carry more traffic on the Gaarde extension than the NPO #3 option. <b Simply put, we could expect the future traffic on the Gaarde Street extension under the NPO #7 option to be somewhere between the 5, 000 • ", vehicles per day projected for the NPO #3 option and the 10, 000 ":`"` vehicles per day projected for the Report Option. This would put " : ' the street in the traffic range suggested for a major collector street in the Comprehensive Plan. So, if the NPO #7 option were -=. adopted, the Gaarde extension should be designated as a major ' , +..', ,' . collector street . Likewise, the portion of existing 132nd between _ : ,,_ Walnut and the new Gaarde extension should be designated as a major .. +_ collector street . The portion of existing 132nd south of the new ; - Gaarde extension could be designated as a minor collector street. Similar comparisons could be made on other streets . Under the NPO ;;'= - #7 option, future traffic on the other streets could be expected to r _T_: be in a range between the projections of the Report Option and the ` NPO #3 option. ° Land Use ., :. Under the NPO #7 option, the impacts to existing homes along 132nd ,.- 4.:- `:. ..ice Avenue would be similar to the impacts under the NPO #3 option. ( Future widening of 132nd would create severe impacts to access to existing homes . Because traffic would be yrea .a under tho NPO #7 option, the need for widening would be greater and additional turn lanes might be needed at the major intersections. 1 The connection between Benchview Terrace (a minor collector street) and the Gaarde extension would be less direct under the NPO #7 :`;`x;: .:;• option than under the other two options . As a result, there would be a potential for future local streets between Benchview and the Gaarde extension to carry additional through traffic. Cost 'y The cost of improvements that would require City funding is approximately the same under the NPO #7 option and the NPO #3 option. These costs are primarily associated with collector street improvements to existing 132nd Avenue. It is estimated that the required City funding under the two NPO options would be $150, 000 to $200, 000 greater than under the Report Option. Recommendation While the NPO #7 option reduces the construction problems associated with the NPO #3 option, staff still recommends the Report Option. In our view, the Report Option has the least :%,•. : . impacts to existing developed neighborhoods and provides the best system for long-term traffic needs. rw/note2#7 • • !a 4 7.d a- ARTERIAL • CO o.rermsMAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR COLLECTOR ac. -o o LOCAL STREET l �E+Qre� /C ;' '. APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT 6-,- Ave. n irxaat alianment to be a _ ,Vn determined at time of ("I Ave. _v development__ \ TIu FIC SIGNAT- I 0 -y; (When Warranted) E; VI r ....1 .:. C \ c CD T c1 < �-1,.. S W.115th Ave. _ c : • w 99w ...._ f -U , • v' C. I a \ C� , o S W•. ,. 121st 1 4L s e NPO OPTION 1.:i;! . ALIGNMENT I = ;. -'" m l 'ro 128th S.W. 1 Bull Mountain Rd_ 3.= �` \ �internection • Ave. FP�� ? l ,'w -• approximately 700.- \ xt - "F went of 126th Ave ,• ..- t S.W. 131st ., 132nd \ t .,,®' Ave_ \\ � l . -. . ,ye. - { _SW 133rd Ave ` Y "` SW 135th Ave. �J- Y''Ir �r ` �~ v 37 x q\ , 0 A". , r ra,-4, :',..? ;44` zsr K»fe`.•x a s C:c,,_ J a -- �, / f.: 141st Ave. - -4. it . ....• ..._.... L . .,i...,„..... . ........_._._____ Sunrise Ln_ - SW 150th vA e. ,..:.....::... •�.' 3#need , ! \ ,.‘ :::-.. F �... .'fir • --rte--N-—. C J:. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - NPO #7 OPTION • EXHIBIT F • 8. 1 . 1 THE CITY SHALL PLAN FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT STREET AND ROADWAY SYSTEM THAT MEETS CURRENT NEEDS AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. :fit.,`.: :,,•.: R . 1 . 2 . THF r-TTY SHAI_I PROVIOF FOR EMT:TENT MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION 111 PLANNING PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA THROUGH COOPERATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL • JURISDICTIONS. 8. 1 .3 THE CITY SHALL, REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT" A PUBLICLY DED:ECATED •STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY; • b. STREET RIGHT—OF—WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH: c, THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS; e. STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND STREET SIGNS OR SIGNALS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTENSIFY A TRAFFIC HAZARD; P. TRANSIT 'STOPS, BUS TURNOUT LANES AND SHELTERS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE PROPOSED USE OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT" RIDERSHIP; g. PARKING SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY DISABLED PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES BE LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED PERSONS; AND h. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE/PEDE.STRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PLAN. 11 .3 . 1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN PREPARING STREET � �. IMPROVEMENT PLANE THAT AFFECT S.W. 121ST AVENUE OR GAARDE STREET. a. THE IMPACT ON THE EXIST:LNG RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE THE MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECT IN TERMS OF: 1 . REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE STREET; AND 2. NOISE .IMPACTS. b. IHE EFFECT THE IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE.EFFECTS ON OTHER STREET INTERSECTIONS. c. MINIMIZING THE USE OF THESE STREETS AS PART OF THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC. 11 . 3 .2 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL WORK WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTERIAL ROUTE CONNECTION FROM MURRAY BOULEVARD OR SCIIOLLS FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. THIS ARTERIAL ROUTE SHOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN, AND SHOULD NOT UTILIZE ROADS WHICH PASS •�.' : THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN TIGARD. f'w .::..... February 9, 1993 T. .>,.:' To: Tigard City Council 111 Re: Comprehensive Plan «mendment CPA 924007 City of Tigard (NPO 3) I am i.:rs. Rosemary Shrauger and I live at 1303C S.W. Walnut street, Tigard. If the iteport Option is selected for the roar to connect with Gaarae street, I will 4 lose the home in which I have lived for over thirty-one years. i would find it extremely difficult to relocate because I have a small dog kennel. I believe that i rs. Jill Link, my neighbor who would also lose her home, has really stated the matter best. I agree with her 100.; that it is morally among to take out established homes because of the impact caused by new homes. It is grossly unfair that new residents can come in and enjoy new homes in this area convenient tc everythin•- while we old timers are forced out. Please remember that until about a year apo there was vacant land right next door to beth of as which could have been considered for this road but I don't recall that it was ever so con e_icered. idcw it has been sold anu the new owner already constructing the first of several houses to be built on this land. These new homes will be enjoyed .., +; in this prime area by newcomers while r:rs. Link anc I will be forced to leave if you choose the Report Option that would take our homes. `;:u I._uet remember that you are not dealing jest with land ins houses. I L' -re dealin with peoplete lives and "homes". ...- ;',:e have paid many tax dollars while living in this prime area end should be given every possible consideration to protect our piece of the .ecerioan Dream. No matter how much _. the government ai,ht be willing topend to help us relocate, it will not be possible to preserve the iaemorieL or replace the ius:..l lo`-at.ioni .`r• the frionas and good neighbors that we will lose in the process. -11e4,:::: Time is as impertant as the financial part. at my a:e a cannot wait in limbo while it takes years, who :(Slows ho`, many, to go ahead with the ac:qui a.ion of lana (our land) and the actual construction of this road project. =4-t(:"'' in an effort to face what okay be iI:eviteble, may i say that i would be willing to keep an ,en i:anu .):ovi' ee we are ass'1.•e�;; t'et we ' sola be compensated euL ficientl; t•-, fully cover relocation in a home on property of our choice t:•.at mets our requirements. i5. i really co not wish ;,c move. 1 woal i prefer that you choose one of the other options for t' is road that woeld not take anyone': home. .. .. $ 1411-246zikti - jj(446r1- „ ,, i•.rs. •Zcse...ary 6k,rauger `'•, ,.._.x. ..„,...0,, A,,, , , ,,, :. .....,,„ i•.r. Harold R. -t:rauge� ',* 13030 6.W. a_lnut Street Tigard, Oregon 97223-1711 4 1 PGS aL L t;; • _ , �� 4't-e,---O /993 ,..261,;,,,,L,e) e_z-,,y. ,e,--ce-44.66e) ----t r^: r .. •--)f-i,.... . 1 izi _ 5- 0 .,.. ,,,,...i, ,:c.i.,.... ,I . 4 /� 4. - - n i N iFEB (► 8•• i99 'R.. fp x (61 Ot-44dL ‘e44& r vez....4.A.4.6i...47 cx;tez....r.L..1.&if \./...a.4,-.04...4.7-- , ©�z ,•J d . ^ ! a CJS/v A, ad2e,,,, ir..,„..„:„1„„er) ,.. //e..6tv . . , - '- d� rd ' I ( . - Ecte,e,t7 ce_,4, _Me) 4. se=xtei_ge_f fli--ftd, - .:•, , 01m:to&..49/./ )ritiv ame, v -i-', Refer_A...e€,(--•Irrf . . - CR V) c 4 7. a do ._..g.,_,,,,,,./ ,i„ ,,,i,;,,L -712 ., ,,?..,,,,bi,..ezie-, ....,, , '. -. lyee:Z11; ( � C re / !7 C ,� a - '� J • , . T. . , . . ...;., ---Ae-rne-4, 4 ewe...4d 0.....„,,Li,J .2611z,e,..4.../2_,2,2„.0 . . ... .. . ( . . . --yei...,15i,..".. ..L.J.,04,9-in_t ,,..„..,_./. , ,, _ ..,e,...47., .._,,, ...,-1, . U % ..,..r. ...„..,....,....,.„ • °-tt-e"-erl-lr'a"4A--i'e---.--Ye--r--e-je-)Ai-i---4 . . . , ..._,P4,0„e 5/1.-4),.6./„4_,_,,,,t-e i-xi.,,4_,,e2.w _Hu, . ,.• . . ::::, . ,,,tejt..t j.,-itift....dz,___,, ...,,,d) v et-tt) /1.5 24'afil_ ,S.,ee-yle.tz-e--e.,--a-, A . . /G Y/11---) C.eJa "/I,A-, -- ,... ,. . ffiu2-si-e-,rd) ..6-"vi-A1-1-zgeicez-, a-6 ,e; Awe-VA / i bct- ... ' Q • . .---s)_„.6...e.6.6 L_,.fr.7._1,.,e_ i 1 e.....,ed(44.1.11..A.:e ii Cyft.A.A.16"c 2 4. 9 =it . /0 950 litv, 1/5 . . %.Tert-eei Oke, 9”-;, 3 . .... 639 56 V I