Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 05/25/1993
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be . recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. 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. 6:00 p.m. r STUDY SESSION Council Discussion: Capital Improvement Policy Meeting with Metro Councilors Richard Devlin and Jon Kvistad to discuss reapportionment and issues of mutual interest and concern to the City and Metro. 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 p.m. 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: April 20 and 27, 1993 COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 25, 1993 - PAGE 1 i i 7:50 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION SUS 93-0001 VARIANCE VAR 93-0003 SENSITIVE LANDS SLR 93-0001 WOODSIDE VILLAGE/BONFORTE (NPO #7) An appeal of a Hearings Officer decision regarding Subdivision approval to divide a 16.28 acre parcel into 65 lots ranging in size between 3,583 square feet to 8,352 square feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.8.1; Community Development Chapters 18.32 and 18.160. LOCATION: 13824-14102 SW Scholls Ferry Road; west of the Cotswald subdivisions and Sunflower apartment complex. (WCTM 1S1 33CC, tax !ot 600 and 1S1 33CD, tax lot 203) ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) The R-25 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support services, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report: Community Development Staff • Public Testimony Opponents Proponents Rebuttal • Council Comments/Questions • Staff Recommendation • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 93- 8:20 p.m. 5. COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP • Update from Long-Range Planning Staff: Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan Wetland Identification (Goal 5) Transportation Planning Concepts (Department of Land Conservation and Development [DLCD] Transportation Planning Rule) 9:20 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Council Communications • Council Benefits 950 p.m. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 P.M. 8. 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. 10:15 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT =0525.93 COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 25, 1993 - PAGE 2 Council Agenda Item 3.~ T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - MAY 25, 1993 • Meeting was called to order at 6:00 by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Ron Pomeroy, Associate Planner; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel (arrived at 6:15 p.m.); Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:01 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. • STUDY SESSION: (Convened at 6:39 p.m.) - Council Discussion: Capital Improvement Project (CIP) C Policy After review of City Engineer Wooley's memorandum submitted in the Council's meeting packet, consensus of Council was to consider the purchase of the Link and Shrauger property in conjunction with a CIP priority listing on June 22, 1993. At that time, the Capital Improvement Project list will be submitted to Council to determine priority of project funding. - Meeting with Metro Councilors Richard Devlin and Jon Kvistad: • Reapportionment: Two proposals are being considered. The City of Tigard, and both Metro Councilors Devlin and Kvistad support Proposal A. Although both proposals keep the City of Tigard intact and within a district that is Washington County based, the proposal dated 5/11/93 reflects Tigard's "community of interest" by including Tigard in a district with the cities of Beaverton and Tualatin. Councilors Devlin and Kvistad noted the importance, in their opinion, of keeping growth communities together in a district since they face similar challenges and have interests in common. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 25, 1993 - PAGE 1 • Local Government Dues - Voluntary Contribution Metro did not seek mandatory dues approval from the Legislature. Metro staff advised the Metro Council that about 90-95% of the response from local governments has been positive. Tigard's allocation (calculated at 43 cents per capita) is about $13,434. Councilor Devlin distributed a budget outline depicting how the dues would be spent. Almost all expenditures are for planning functions; i.e., transportation, Willamette Crossing Study, Region 2040. • Metro Budget Councilors Devlin and Kvistad discussed the Metro Budget process. Almost all Metro revenues are dedicated with little discretionary funding available. Metro is looking at excise taxes and whether they should be increased. The areas of contention in the overall Metro Budget are small. Revenue sources available to local governments are not available to Metro. In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz, Metro Councilor Devlin advised that the Sears building purchase, renovation and parking structure ! cost $23 million. • Metro Regional Design Images - Councilor Kvistad briefly described a regional design program. The Regional Design Images program will allow Metro to begin preparing a set of images and drawings covering several development and land use areas. He recommends that the City of Tigard become involved in the program. It may allow the City to have downtown redevelopment images provided either at no or minimal cost. • BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: No visitors. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 20 and 27, 1993 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "Yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 25, 1993 - PAGE 2 1 Council meeting recessed: 7:50 p.m. i Council meeting reconvened: 8:00 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0001 VARIANCE VAR 93- 0003 SENSITIVE LANDS SLR 93-0001 WOODSIDE VILLAGE,/BONFORTE (NPO #7) An appeal of a Hearings Officer decision regarding Subdivision approval to divide a 16.28 acme parcel into 65 lots ranging in size between 3 , 583 square feet to 8,352 square feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.8.1; Community Development Chapters 18.32 and 18.160. LOCATION: 13824-14102 SW Scholls Ferry Road; west of the Cotswald subdivisions and Sunflower apartment complex. (WCTM 1S1 33CC, tax lot 600 and 1S1 33CD, tax lot 203), 'LONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) The R-25 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support services, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director reviewed the staff report as presented to Council and is on file with the Council packet material. The Tigard Staff report advised that: "Neither the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan nor its development codes give the City the discretion to deny a development based on school capacity." d. Before Public Testimony was received, City Attorney Ramis noted, for the record, that the Beaverton School District had been advised of the criteria specified in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The issue of school capacity as presented in the appeal application does not represent grounds for appeal over which the Council would have jurisdiction. The Beaverton School District decided to proceed regardless. e. Public Testimony: • Jerry Pflug, Executive Director of Facilities Planning and Construction, Beaverton Schools, District 48, P. O. Box 200, Beaverton, OR 97075- 0200 testified. (See memorandum dated May 25, 1993, from Mr. Pflug to the Tigard City Council which has placed on file with the Council meeting material.) He advised that the Beaverton School District appealed the above hearings officer 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 25, 1993 - rZ,GE 3 decision because projected school enrollments at the Nancy Ryles Elementary School equals nearly twice the capacity of the school. The District representative testified that the District is not trying to slow or stop growth. The District is only attempting to meet the responsibility to provide a quality education for every young person within their jurisdiction. After review of service provider problems, the District representative advised that they understood that the Tigard Comprehensive Plan does not require the approval of development plans based upon the overloading of local school capacities. However, the District believes it would be irresponsible if they did not bring this issue to the attention of City Council. Council comments to Mr. Pflug were as follows: - Mayor Edwards acknowledged the School District's concerns with new development and increasing demands on school facilities. He also advised of problems associated with two adjoining cities, two separate comprehensive plans and with Tigard children attending Beaverton schools. r - Councilor Schwartz noted this development was comprised of 65 lots, which was meant it was being developed at a much lower density than for what it is zoned. In addition, he called attention to the fact that the Beaverton area which is serviced by the same elementary school is developed very densely with apartments. He also noted the problems associated with having two school districts within the City and the efforts made to redraw boundaries which were unsuccessful. - Councilor Fessler noted the good relationship between the City and Tigard-Tualatin School District fostered by joint meetings and an effort to work together, where possible, to work on issues of mutual interest and concern. • Anthony Bonforte, applicant for the proposed development, advised that previously the property was planned to be developed with 290 apartment units. The development now proposed consists of 65 single-family units. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 25, 1993 - PAGE 4 Legal Counsel for the applicant (from Dunn, Carney ( et al) requested that the issue be confined to the materials presented. The applicant had complied with the rules applicable to this subdivision for the City of Tigard. Favorable consideration was requested. • Cal Woolery of NPO 7 referred to the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer, Page 8, Paragraph 6, where it states that the Beaverton School District #48 reviewed the proposal and offered no comments or objections. Mr. Woolery advised that the NPO discussed this issue at length. He reported that the NPO was in favor of an impact fee. f. Community Development Director advised that staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution. g. Public hearing was closed. h. RESOLUTION NO. 93-22 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (SUB 93-0001) PROPOSED BY. TONY BONFORTE. i. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Resolution No. 93-22. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hunt and Schwartz voted "yes.") 5. COUNCIL/PLhNNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Planning Commission Members Present: Ron Holland, Brian Moore, Harry Saporta, Joe Schweitz, Jack Schwab. • Update from Long-Range Planning Staff: Paz Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan: Associate Planner John Acker updated the Council and Commission on status of the Triangle Specific Area Plan. The City, with the help from a grant from DLCD, is testing several envisioned scenarios (refine the impacts and study the economics). The ' study will be based on the land use plan in conjunction with transportation planning, open space, parks and urban design standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 25, 1993 - PAGE 5 A draft product will be finished in about four { weeks. Staff recommends the Planning Commission and Council meet again to review the results in a workshop setting. Planning Commission and Council hearings will be scheduled the latter part of the summer or in the fall. Wetland Identification (Goal 51: Assistant Planner Duane Roberts reviewed the wetlands inventory (map) prepared for Tigard's active planning area. Mr. Roberts has been meeting with the NPO's and some areas have been added to the inventory. Wetlands are protected by State and Federal laws; Tigard's Code is not more restrictive. There was discussion on the State's Goal 5 which deals with natural resources. An inventory does not prohibit development if, for example, a treed area is identified. Rather, this gives the City an opportunity to review when development is proposed ` to prioritize the importance on the extent of tree removal. Goal 5 also covers historic areas. (A summary of Goal 5 was submitted to the Council.) Senior Planner Landsman noted that experts (scientists) determine whether or not an area is a wetland and subject to restrictions. Council's role is to determine City policy with regard to all areas of Goal 5. Transportation Planning Concepts (Department of Land Conservation and Development fDLCDI Transportation Planning Rule): Senior Planner Landsman outlined "Rule 12" which is comprised of two basic parts: 1) Provisions are to be made for a safe and efficient transportation system and, 2) Requires municipalities to review ordinances to address pedestrian and bicycle access. With respect to Item 2 above, this means a review of developments to provide for better street connections between neighborhoods, bike paths, sidewalks, and other regulations to facilitate pedestrian/bike friendly areas. The Planning commission will be reviewing material on transportation regulations on June 22 after which the information will be forwarded for council evaluation. CITY COUNCIL 'ru LT-- ?RTATTTTFS - MAY 25 , 1993 - PAGE 6 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Postponed to June 8, 1993) • Council Communications • Council Benefits 7. NON-AGENDA ITE14S • Walnut Island Annexation: Community Development Director Murphy distributed and reviewed a proposed agenda for the Walnut Island Annexation Meeting (June 2, at Fowler Middle School, 7 p.m.). Also distributed was a Walnut Island Sewer Report; and Estimated Revenues & Expenditures (for the) Walnut Annexation. After discussion council consensus on the Policy for Annexation is the Walnut Island area was as follows: If the City does not receive enough signatures for a double majority annexation of the entire island by January 1994, then the following may happen: • The island will be reduced in size as areas are annexed through the double majority process. • As areas annex and the island is reduced to one-half of its present size (acres), the current Council will recommend the balance of the Walnut Island be annexed {f by the City. Council will meet at 6 p.m on June 2, at the City Hall prior to the meeting at Fowler Middle School. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:00 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. L(/Tl At, t: Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der Mayor, City of Tigard Date: ccrn0525.93 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 25, 1993 - PAGE 7 COMMNI°TY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal 70 PHONE (503) 684-0360 r 7554 MAY: BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 PUBLIC HEARING `n r OF'IGARCLegal Notice Advertising; The following will be.considered by the Tigard Citg,'Cdlsq Tor May , ,3 , 1993,.at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall Room., 13125 • City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheef Nc S.W. Hall Blvd.; Tigard, Oregow-Further information may be obtained from the Community Development Director or City Recorder at the same aft: Terry location orb calling 639.4171. You are invited to submit written tes- • 13135 SW Hall Blvd. • ❑ Duplicate Aff Umony in advance of the public hearing; written and oral testimony will Tigard, or 97223 be considered at the hearing. The public htahig will be conducted in ac- o • cordance with the applicable Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall. - SUBDMSION SLiB 93 0001 9 000 SI?T3R1$ j Aj1DC SLR 9R_OpOj . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION VARIANCE VAR WOOASIDE VILLA , 1RONFORM STATE OF OREGON, ) An appeal of a Hearings Officer doasicd regarding ss. Subdivisiod~ approval COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )'a' to divide a 16.28-acre parcel into 651ws ranging m* size between 3,583 ' I, T" A4 t•I, Koehler square feet to 8,352 square feet. APPLICABLE P.EVIEW CRITERIA. hat 1 am the Adverti3ing Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.8.1; Community Dcvelopinent Chapters being first duly sworn, depose and as' iti roes 18.32 and 18.160. LOCATfO14:13824-14102 S.'%': Scholls Ferry Road; Director, or his principal clerk, of the and west of the Cotswald subdivisions. and Siinliower a ent compplex. ; a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 (WCTMISI33CC,taxloi600and1S133CD.taxlot2203j ZONE:R-25 and 193.020; published at Ti garA in the (Residential, 25 unitslacre). The R-25 zone allows single family at- aforesaid ount~ and ;=,,p tached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units. ^aring~ ct 93-(b01Village s residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions. public svpp- ua printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the port services, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and ac- entire issue of said newspaper for Qne successive and cessory strucumesa<nongothetuses. consecutive in the following issues: '177554 -Publish May 13,1993. - urovm May 13 1993 Subscribed and sw to before me thi 9 OFFICIAL SEAL JACQUELINE ARELLANO NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary Public for Oragon COMMISSION NO. 023140 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9. 1997 My Commission Expires: -j - AFFIDAVIT - > COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC' legal NotlceTT 7566 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising The following meeting highlights are published for your inforstatim. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125,S.W. l'iail • City of Tigard • ❑ Toarsheet Notice Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. att: Terry CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • ❑ Duplicate Affidao MAY 25, 1993 T7GARDCITYHALL -TOWN HALL Tigard, Or 97223 • 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON • Study Meeting (Town Hall Conference Room) (6:00 P M.) Council Discussion: Capital Improveme Fbhcy Meeting with Metro Councilors Richard Devlin and Jon Kvistad a) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION discuss reapportionment and issues of mutual interest and concern W STATE OF OREGON, )the City and Metro. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' Business Meeting (Town Hail) (7:30 P.M.) Public Hearing: Judith Koehler I, - • Appeal by Beaverton School District - Woodside Village (13824 - being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising 1d 102 S.W. Scholis Ferry Road, west of the Cotswald sub- Director, or his principal clerk, of the ggrr-1 ,=Advertising divisions and Sunflower apartment complex. a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the C ouncil/Planning Commission Discussion: aforesaid county[ and slate; that the Update from Long-Range Planning stall': C; ty C"M,_ Business bleet,ne - Tigard Triangle specific area plan a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the - Wetland identification (Goal 5) entire issue of said newspaper for Otve successive and - Transportation Planning Concepts (Department of Land Conser- consecutive in the following issues: vation and Development (DLCD1 Transportation Planning Rule) 20, 1993 • Council Discussion - Council Communications - Council Benefits Local Contract Review Board Meeting ' ' ~j ✓ Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the visions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to dis- cuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending Subscribed and sworn before me this -MaY 1 litigation issues. ' M566 -Publish May 20,1993. ' 01 Notary Public for Oregon s~omrv ~ MY COMMlS5if1GuMNEXtmsP IRES JIINE 7 19 MY Commission Expires: if AFFIDAVIT / 19 I ~ I ~ I - VISITOR'S AGENDA D TF~ (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED t uin o wsitors.s t I~ r-^ MEMORANDUM S-~-u ~ cJ. 52s5 i ar( CITY OF TIGARD 5/a 5'/ G 3 TO: Pat Reilly May 17, 1993 FROM: Randy Wooley SUBJECT: Purchase of right of way for future roads Here is material requested by the Council regarding future roads shown on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. A map showing the locations of the various roads will be available at the May 25 Council meeting. This discussion is limited to locations where new roadways or major changes to roadway alignment are shown on the Map. It does not address areas where future widening or minor alignment changes to existing roads may be needed. Locations involving existing developed property: Review of the Map shows five locations where it is likely that the City will eventually need to purchase existing developed property in order to complete the road system in accordance with the Map. These locations are: • Gaarde extension at its connection to Walnut Street (Link and Shrauger properties). • 132nd extension between Benchview and Bull Mountain Road. When this road is extended with future development, it will be necessary to cross the east edge of an existing developed parcel. The existing house can remain. • Hunziker/Ash Connection. When this connection is built, some existing apartments will need to be removed. • Lincoln Street connection to Oak. A parcel with an existing single-family home is needed to complete this connection on the east side of Lincoln Center. • 72nd/74th Connection in the area north of Locust Street. This plan, adopted by the County prior to annexation, would require the removal of one or two existing single-family homes. The precise route has not been determined. Until a route is determined, we do not know which homes would be removed. Locations involving undeveloped property: There are a number of locations where future roads will cross property that is currently undeveloped. Based on the size of the existing parcels and the current zoning, it is reasonable to assume that the right of way and the road construction will be provided by future developers as conditions of development approval. These locations include: • Gaarde extension • Extensions of 132nd and 135th south to Bull Mountain Road. • Extension of Benchview west to the future extension of 135th. • Murray/Walnut connection between Scholls Ferry Rd. and 135th. • Extensions of 133rd and Peachtree south to Beef Bend Rd. • Sattler extension (Lady Marion Drive) between 100th and 109th. • New road connection between Hunziker and Hall (Coefield Road) . • Commercial St. connection between 95th and 98th. • Circulation in the Tigard Triangle, when defined by adoption of a new Triangle plan. Options for right-of-wav purchase: Council asked us to suggest alternative policies for purchase of right of way for future roads shown on the Map. I think there are three basic options: • Option 1: Purchase the property when the City is ready to construct the road. • Option 2: Purchase the property in advance if the property owner has made a good-faith effort to sell the property and has been unable to sell for a reasonable price due to the proposed project. • Option 3: Purchase properties at the time that the new route is placed on the Map. The policies could be different for different types of properties. For example, see the attached memo from Councillor Hunt suggesting that owner-occupied residential property should be treated differently from income-producing property. All of the options are presumably subject to the City having adequate funding available to cover the costs of property purchase, appraisals, legal fees and relocation. Option 1 is the most common. The City is currently using this method on the Dartmouth project, the 109th extension to Royalty Parkway, and the 72nd/99W intersection project. Advantages: Detailed project design is available to assure that the City does not purchase more property than necessary. The need for the City to act as landlord is reduced or eliminated. Project funding is clearly identified. Disadvantages: Problems in right-of-way acquisition can delay a project. Uncertainty on timing of a future project makes it difficult for the owner of an impacted property to plan. Option 2 has also been used by the City. Examples are advance purchases of residential properties on the Gaarde Street/99W project, the McDonald Street widening project, and at Summerlake Park. Advantages: Allows the property owner to better control the timing of the sale of the property. Assures that right of way will be available when the project proceeds. If right of way is in place, the city may be able to require 1.1lprovertient of the right- of way as conditions of development on adjoining parcels. Sometimes makes projects go more smoothly at the time of construction, because property acquisition issues are already resolved; settlement has been reached in advance with the parties most impacted by the project. Disadvantages: City must act as landlord, possibly for an extended period. If existing buildings are not in good repair, the City may have to pay for repairs or bring the building up to current codes prior to renting the property. Project may be deleted in a future Map revision. Funds used for property purchase are not available for current project needs. Option 3 has not been used before by the City, to the best of my knowledge. Advantages and disadvantages are similar to Option 2. Property owner would be relieved of the process of attempting to sell the property. The time period when City would be the landlord would be more extensive than in Option 2. Due to the longer time period, the chance that the project would be revised is also greater. Discussion Among the projects identified from the Map, the Gaarde connection at Walnut is somewhat unique. It is the only one of the projects where the property to be acquired is an owner-occupied residential property and where the route is sufficiently determined to show which properties are required and where removal of the existing house is required. It is also the only project where property { owners are requesting an expedited process for City purchase of the property. The other projects have been on the Map for several years and property owners have not requested advance purchase of the property. Recommendation: Because the issues surrounding each project are somewhat different, I recommend that the Council consider each project as requests are submitted from property owners, rather than attempting to adopt a general policy. Unless a request is received from a property owner, Option 1 would then prevail. On the Link and Shrauger properties, I recommend that the Council consider either Option 2 or option 3, subject to sufficient funding being available in the 1993-94 CIP budget. The budget determination would be made when the Council reviews the CIP project list (probably in June). At the time of CIP budget determination, all citizens would have an opportunity to provide support for any projects they are proposing for funding. If the Council wishes, we could proceed now with appraisals on the Link and Shrauger properties. Funding for the appraisal work is available in the current budget for small contractual support for the Engineering Department projects. The appraisals would help to define the required budget for the property acquisition. Appraisal values might provide guidance to the property owners in considering ( other offers, if Option 2 is chosen. LIM To: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator / From: Paul Hunt, City Councilor Date: June 3, 1993 Subject: Capital Improvement Program - Link Shrauger At the April 27 council meeting you indicated you would welcome council member input concerning how tax payers should be treated if the value of their property be put in question bacause of the action the city council. I believe there should be a distinction between land on which a single residence, occupied by the owner, is located and all other property. My reason for this suggestion is that if a residence is occupied by the owner, in the great majority of cases, it was not purchased for speculation, as a business or income producing property. If the property is not a home occupied by the owner there is a good chance there is a profit motive connected in some way. Any ownership which foresees a profit must also realize there could be a loss. If the city council acts in a manner they feel will be to the good of the majority of the citizens but which may reduce the value of the property or alter its use the city has no obligation to see that the owner receives fair market value at the time the action is taken. It should be assumed the ownership is for profit, which is in itself a gamble. The city should feel no obligation to take part in this gamble or assure a profit to the owner. Their only obligation is to see that the owner receiver fair market value when ownership is transferred. A tax payer living in a home they own in an overwhelming majority of the cases did not buy the home to make a profit on it. In a great many cases it is the biggest investment they will ever make. Their entire life savings may be in their home. The city should not completely devastate any owners future. If the city is not in a position to purchase a home within a reasonable period of time (possibly not ov r one year) the action that would in affect "condemn" the property should not be taken. "Condemning" the property today and paying for it some date in distant years in not fair to the owner. It is impossible for them to plan for their future if the fair market value of their property can only be realized at a date where they have no control. GOAL 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic water that. although altered in character, is important resources, as habitats for plant, animal or marine life, for the study of its natural historical, scientific or programs shall be provided that will paleontological features, or for the appreciation of its natural features. (1) insure open space, Open Space consists of lands used for (2) protect scenic and historic areas and natural agricultural or forest uses, and any land area that resources for future generations, and would, if preserved and continued in its present use: (3) promote healthy and visually attractive (a) Conserve and enhance natural or scenic environments in harmony with the natural landscape resources; character. The locations, quality and quantity of the (b) Protect air or streams or water supply; following resources shall be inventoried: (c) Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, a. Land needed or desirable for open space; beaches or tidal marshes; b. Mineral and aggregate resources; (d) Conserve landscaped areas, such as public or c. Energy sources; private golf courses. that reduce air pollution d. Fish and wildlife areas and habitats; and enhance the value of abutting or e. Ecologically and scientifically significant natural neighboring property; areas, including desert areas; (e) Enhance the value to the public of abutting or f. Outstanding scenic views and sites; neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, g. Water areas, wetlands, watersheds and nature reservations or sanctuaries or other groundwater resources; open space; h. Wilderness areas; (f) Enhance recreation opportunities; i. Historic areas, sites, structures and objects; (g) Preserve historic sites; j. Cultural areas; (h) Promote orderly urban development k. Potential and approved Oregon recreation trails; 1. Potential and approved federal wild and scenic Scenic Areas - are lands that are valued for their waterways and state scenic waterways. aesthetic appearance Where no conflicting uses for such resources have Wilderness Areas - are areas where the earth and been identified, such resources shall be managed so as its community of life are untrammeled by man, where to preserve their original character. Where conflicting man himself is a visitor who does not remain. It is an uses have been identified the economic, social, envi- area of undeveloped land retaining its primeval ronmental and energy consequences of the conflicting character and influence, without permanent uses shall be determined and programs developed to improvement or human habitation, which is protected achieve the goal. and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected Cultural Area - refers to an area characterized be primarily by the f-ces of nature, with the imprint of evidence of an ethnic, religious or social group with man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has distinctive traits, beliefs and social forms. outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) may also Historic Areas are lands with sites, structures contain ecological, geological, or other features or and objects that have local, regional, statewide or scientific, educational, scenic or historic value. national historical significance. Natural Area includes land and water that has substantially retained its natural character and land and -s• %T LCDC GOAL 5 ADMINISTRATIVE RULE PROCESS •u..u..u..unu. u...uu.r. w.n. u... u.rnu.r.•u.un■ Collect Data Analyze Significance Step 1 Inventory and MIA 1 A I B Determine Not Important Delay Signifficance IC Significant Identify Conflicting Uses Step 2 ( Identify Conflicting uses No Conflicts: and Perform Protect Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis E S E E Analysis ......................r.............T......................... Develop Program Step 3 Develop Program to Protect Resource. Allow Development or rve Partial Development. LResource 3 C Limit 3 B Protection and Partially Allow Protect Development Resource. Taft V 1; V,) / CJiS~ri*bL't=eC S_IDs140 Proposed Metro FY 93-94 Budget Local Government Dues Assessment Proposed Budget Dues Dues (Council Share Approved) RLIS/Database Maintenance $84.9,500 $211,625 24.9% Technical Assistance Data Resource Center $68,600 $68,600 100% Travel Forecasts $13.8,600 $11,447 8% Travel Surveys/Model $966,000 $31,160 3.2% Refinement RTP Update $365,000 $61,166 $16.8% Transportation Demand $76,995 $3,063 4.0% Management Willamette Crossing Study $181,000 $10,500 5.8% Urban Arterial Fund $241,500 $12,401 5.1% Transportation $148,000 $4,000 2.7% Improvement Program Congestion Management $109,000 $1,000 0.9% Plan RTP Financial Plan $26,000 $500 1.9% TPAC/JPACT $125,000 $18,036 14.4% Coordination/Management Regional HCT Plan $262,630 $4,065 1.5% Region 2040 $986,000 $160,000 16.2% TOTAL DUES $597,563 ACC:lmk 5-24-93 LOCDUES.TAB OEM Y C ~ t3 AGENDA Walnut island Annexation Meeting Opening Remarks and Introductions Mayor Edwards Council initiated double majority annexation Want to enter into a dialogue with the residents ; This is the second community meeting Purpose of this meeting Try to answer key questions raised last meeting i j Listen to residents comments Who are we as a City...what do we do. (Councilor) Review the brochure that was mailed out earlier The bottom line Financial impact of annexation to the residents Financial impact to the City Providing sewer service to the island Matta the general plan? What are the City policies? What might it cost? Will the city help financially? ( Questions and answers Councilors start with three 1. What will the city do if they cannot get a double majority of the whole island this next fiscal year? a. 3. Next steps in the process... where do we go from here? Thanks and dismissal - Policy for annexation It the city does not receive enough signatures for a double majority annexation of the entire island by January 1994, then the following may happens 1. the ff dline" is nded. wit s 1y continue until ub3 - in s of =tire and ig ached; or 2.Othe island will be divided into smaller areas where there is more support. The top priority will be those residentially developed areas on 168B than one acre, and where septic problems exist or are expected to occur j c4tits'J", &Uv4< r L /a SAS ri ( MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly FROM: Ed Murphy DATE: May 25, 1993 SUBJECT: WALNUT ISLAND SEWER REPORT This report reviews sanitary and septic sewer conditions in the area of unincorporated Washington County known as the Walnut Island. Current financing methods for sewer improvements are described and city and United Sewerage Agency (USA) policies and procedures are outlined. AREA DESCRIPTION The Walnut Island is a 348 acre area of unincorporated Washington County northeast of Bull Mountain. The area is completely surrounded by the City of Tigard making it an ( island of unincorporated land (figure 1). This island was created in 1988 when several properties along S.W. 132nd Avenue were annexed at the request of those property owners. The area has 372 dwelling units and approximately 141 acres of vacant land. Presently, there are only 11 dwelling units in the island that are connected to the public sanitary sewer system, with the remainder on individual septic systems. ASSUMPTIONS IMPACTING SEWER Based on staff review, the following are city assumptions concerning sewers in the island area: • The area will continue to grow with single family development. The County currently zones the Island R-6 (six units per acre). Upon annexation, it is expected that the City would zone the Island area R-4.5 (4.5 units per acre). Based on zoning and vacant land, it is assumed that the area could add another 635 single family dwellings to the existing 372 homes for a total of 1,007 dwellings in the Island. • Most new housing units will connect to the public sewer system. i MEN" • Generally, except for certain circumstances, new septic systems will not be built in the area. • Existing septic systems will fail over time and will be replaced by public sewer. PRESENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES For property owners who need or want to connect to the public sewer system in the Island, present city policy requires a written agreement or contract be signed by the property owner granting the city permission to annex the property at any time. This contract is required in lieu of immediate annexation at this time. The rules concerning sewer connections are the same whether in the jurisdiction of the Unified Sewerage Agency or the City of Tigard. New Development For new development, the provision of sanitary sewer is the responsibility of the developer or builder. New development means any land division or new home construction and can be a large subdivision or just a single house on an existing lot. The developer pays the full cost of extending the public sewer that serves that development. Others who benefit may also help pay for this extension depending on the financing arrangements. Existing Development For an existing house on a septic system, connecting to the public sewer system depends on a variety of circumstances. If a septic system fails, either in the city or the county, it cannot be replaced without a permit from the Washington County Health Department. Permission to build a new septic system is based on available land area and soil characteristics of the parcel, as well as availability of public sewer. If a public sanitary sewer line is located within three hundred feet of any part of the parcel, and could physically serve the property, connection to that sewer line is mandatory. Existing buildings connected to a properly functioning septic system are not forced to connect to sewer based on its availability (within 300 feet of the parcel). In other words, even if public sewer is available to an existing residence, connection to that public sewer system is optional until the existing septic system fails. If public sewer is wanted or needed, and a sewer line must be extended, the persons benefiting from that sewer line extension are responsible for and must pay for the line extension. r" 2 Public Financing Methods Local Improvement District: A local improvement district, or LID, is a common method of financing the extension of a sewer line for existing homes or businesses. An LID is a specific area that benefits from building an additional sewer line. Formation of an LID can be initiated by either property owners, or by the Tigard City Council. Public hearings are held and typically, unless there is a public health hazard, the LID is not formed unless a majority of the property owners within the proposed district are in favor of forming the district. In forming the LID, a district is established which includes all properties that benefit from the extension of the sewer line. Each benefitting property is assessed a fair portion of the cost to construct the public sewer line. This assessment does not include the cost of individual hook-ups to the public sewer line. Property owners may pay the entire amount when due or make arrangements with the city to make installment payments twice a year for as long as 10 (ten) years. Note that in a LID property owners may be assessed even though they do not actually connect to the public sewer system. The benefit is that the sewer line is available to them if and when they choose to connect. The amount each property is assessed can be determined in a number of ways but should be equatable to all who participate. Individuals interested in more information regarding Local Improvement Districts may contact Tigard City Hall, Engineering Department. Advance Financing and Reimbursement: Another method of funding the construction of new public sewer lines is through an advance financing and reimbursement district. This method, enables individuals, developers or the City, who extend public sewer lines to recover their costs over a ten to twenty year span. Any person who pays for some or all of the cost of sewer improvements may ask the Tigard City Council to form a "zone of benefit". Within this zone will be properties that have not paid for the public sewer but may want to connect to it in the future. Properties within the zone of benefit will be charged a fee when they hook up to the public sewer. This fee will reimburse those who paid for construction of the public sewer line. In a reimbursement district, unlike a LID, the property owners who may eventually connect to sewer are not assessed until they connect to the sewer line. Also unlike an LID, city financing of the connection costs is usually not available. Details regarding advance financing and reimbursement is available through the City Engineer's office located at Tigard City Hall. y 3 SEWER COSTS Sewer costs fall into the categories of public sewer line construction, private sewer connection line construction, connection fees, and monthly fees. Public Sewer Lines Typically, to install a sanitary sewer system in a developed residential neighborhood costs in the range of $3,000 to $6,000 per lot. This includes the cost of installing a sewer main and stubbing a side sewer to the property line of each lot. Costs vary depending on the size of lots, conflicts with other utilities, and grading of lots. When a neighborhood within the City shows interest in having sewer service, more detailed cost estimates are prepared. Based on the cost estimates, property owners can then decide whether they want to support extension of the sewer to their neighborhood. If a property owner does not help pay for the extension of the public sewer line, either directly or by reimbursement, the City imposes a surcharge of $3,000 at the time of connection. This surcharge assures that everyone who benefits from the public sewer pays a share of the construction cost. Private Sewer Connection Lines r Private sewer connection lines are constructed on private property to connect a house to the public sewer line, usually from the street to the house plumbing system. These connection lines are the responsibility of individual property owners, or house builders. Construction cost of these lines varies greatly depending on where the house connection is located and the configuration of the house plumbing. Connection Fees There is a fee of $2,100 for single family residential buildings for connection to the public line. This fee includes a system development charge (SDC) to new connections to pay for a portion of the existing collection and treatment system. The SDC fee is a "buy-in" fee and is based on direct impacts of a new connection on the system. There is, however, a grandfather situation for older homes where sewer hasn't been available until recently. The connection fee is reduced to $300 if both of the following circumstances exists: 1) the connection is to a single-family house for which building permits were issued before July 1, 1970 and; 2) there has not been public sewer accessible within 300 feet for more than three years. A fee of $ 35 is charged for a mandatory inspection of all new connections to insure that the connection is made properly. 4 Monthly Fee Once sewer is connected there is a monthly fee of $ 20.50 for each residence for maintenance of the system and operation of the treatment facilities. This fee is imposed whether a residence is in the city or not. City Financing Available The city offers financing to participants in a Local Improvement District. The cost of the property owners' share of the public sewer line construction costs, and the connection fees can be financed at an attractive interest rate, typically for ten years. In some cases, such as when a connection to the public line is mandatory for public health reasons, even the private costs of connecting from the street to the house may be financed. In a reimbursement district, no fee is charged until a connection is actually made. Typically, the full cost of connection are due at the rime the connection is made. The city could consider offering financing on a limited basis to those who need or want it. In some cases the city may choose to financially participate in extending sewer lines through either an LID, reimbursement district, or by installing main public sewer lines. The city has not in the past typically done this. SEWER SYSTEM IN THE ISLAND The sewer system operates by gravity so the line locations are based on topography. A sewer system map shows approximate locations of public lines that are needed to serve the island area. Specific locations and connection points would be determined in the future by detailed engineering. 5 05/24193 City of Tigard Estimated Revenues & Expenditures Walnut Island Annexation General Fund Property Taxes 72,500 Police Officer 57,800 Franchise Fees 21,600 911 Cost 2,200 Cigarette Tax 1,300 Liquor Tax 3,000 Revenue Sharing 2,400 911 Tax 2,200 103,000 60,000 Street Funds State Gas Tax 37,200 Street Maintenance 26,500 County Gas Tax 3,800 Major repairs 23,000 41,000 Street Lighting 1,200 50,700 Other Funds Storm Sewer Funds 11,000 Storm Maintenance 47,000 Street Sweeping 2,200 Billing Costs _ 1,200 50,400 Total Revenues 155,000 Total Expenditures 161,100 Total Expenditures do not include operational overhead including Administration, Code Enforcement, Building and Planning, and Insurance. Prepared by Wayne Lowry NOTES Assumptions: Assessed Value of Island 1992/93 $39,580,980 Population 836 # Parcels 408 Miles of Streets 6.1 Revenues: 6 Property taxes were computed by applying the current years tax base rate to the areas assessed value and increasing the result by 6%. The amount shown also takes into account a 91.5% collection rate. • Franchise fees include phones, natural gas, electricity, cable TV and solid waste disposal. Estimated revenues were derived from $25.85 per capita applied to Island population of 836. • State shared revenues are estimated at 1992/93 per capita amounts applied to the Island population. Cigarette, liquor and revenue sharing are estimated at one half of normal receipts due to state efforts to reduce such funding to cities. • Storm sewer funds include monthly service charges of $2.24 per month per unit which is the City's share beginning 7/1/93. Revenue was estimated assuming all 408 parcels had impervious surface. Expenditures: t Police - Estimate includes one police officer at one step above entry level with associated benefits and materials. The officer requirement was computed using the current officer to population ratio of 1.2 per 1,000. Streets - Street maintenance costs were computed by using personnel and material costs budgeted in 1992/93 divided by 106 miles of streets currently in the City. This factor was then applied to 6.1 miles of street in the Island. Major repairs were computed the same way using $400,000 per year in overlay and slurry seal in the City. Storm - Storm maintenance includes up front work identified by visual inspections. The estimate of $47,000 includes TV inspection of all closed lines, cleaning of all lines, and ditching 1,000 feet of open ditches. Also included are materials for installation of replacement pipe and catch basins. It should be noted that the performance of street and storm maintenance activities in the Island area will require the addition of at least part of a position. Personnel costs are included in the cost estimates. It is also important to note that certain revenues are dedicated and can only be spent for certain activities. Although general fund revenues are not dedicated, the City has traditionally used them to support general fund activities such as Police, Library, Parks, and certain Planning functions and would not ordinarily use them to subsidize street and storm maintenance. OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATMRNEYS AT LAW BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 - TF.LEPHONE: (503) 222.4402 7.1 FAX: (503) 243-2941 PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE MA l 1 DATE: May 18, 1993 '~~-fi----- TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Michael C. Robinson, City Attorney's Office RE: Transfer of Property QUESTIONS: I 1. Can the Fire District transfer its building to the City for no consideration or nominal consideration? 2. Can the City then lease this building to another entity? If the City indeed leases this building to another entity, do they have to follow the Public Bidding Rules? 3. If the City contracts with an entity to operate the building as a community center for the City, does the City have.to follow the Public Bidding Rules? ANSWERS: 1. Yes, the Fire District can transfer its building to the City, for no consideration or nominal consideration. 2. Yes, the City can lease the building given to them by the Fire District to another entity. No, the City would not have to follow the Public Bidding Rules, in order to enter into a lease agreement. 3. No, the City would not have to follow the Public Bidding Rules if they were contracting with an entity to provide personal services. DISCUSSION: 1. The Fire District can transfer its building to the City as long as the building continues to be used for public purposes. This is pursuant to ORS 271.330 which states that: Memo re: Transfer of Property May 14, 1993 Page 2 "Any political subdivision is granted express power to relinquish the title to any of its property not needed for public use to any governmental body, providing such property shall be used and continue to be used, for a public purpose by the governmental body in the State of Oregon." In Opinion No. 7555, the Attorney General discusses the intent of ORS 271.330: "This statute clearly authorizes transfers of property by the state or a political subdivision thereof to either the federal government or to any other governmental body or political subdivision of the state. In several previous opinions we have stated that this statute allow transfers between public bodies for nominal or no consideration." (38 Or AG 1626, 1627). In this opinion the Attorney General also explains some of the conditions in order to comply with ORS 271.330(1) that the transfer of property must meet. "First, the property transferred must not be needed for public use by the transferring body. Second, the transferred property must be used and continue to be used for a public purpose by the transferee. Third, the transfer must be between public bodies." (38 Or AG 1626, 1628). Our opinion is that these three factors appear to be met in this case. 2. The City can lease this building pursuant to ORS 271.310(1) which states: "...whenever any political subdivision possesses or controls real property not needed for public use, or whenever the public interest may be furthered, a political subdivision may sell, exchange, convey or lease for any period not exceeding 99 years all or any part of their interest in the property to a governmental body or private individual or corporation." (Emphasis added). Because this would be a lease of real property, the City is exempt from following the Public Bidding Rules. Section 10.0!0 of the Memo re: Transfer of Property ORR May 14, 1993 Page 3 Tigard Purchasing Manual states that, "All public contracts shall be based upon competitive bidding ...00 ORS 279.011(5) defines "Public Contracts as: "...any purchase, lease or sale by a public agency of personal property, public improvements or services other than agreements which are for personal service." This definition does not include real property and therefore the City would not have to comply with the Public Bidding Rules. However, if upon receipt of the building from the Fire District the City decides to make improvements on it in order for it to be used as a community center a public contract would have to be established due to the public improvements made on the building. 3. The City does not have to follow the Public Bidding Rules to award a contract for operation of a community center. Section ( 10.010(b) of the Tigard Purchasing Manual exempts from competitive bidding all, "Contracts which are exclusively for personal services as defined in Section 70.000.11 ach\dgard\mcr\bldguzn.mem CC: Timothy V. Ramis i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM q CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: May 25, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: April 21, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: A eal of P VIOUS ACTION: Hearings Officer Approval Subdivision SUB 93-0001 Borforte side b the Beaverton School District PREPARED BY: Ron Pomeroy DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OXlk.Ml REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEF RE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the appeal of the Beaverton School District regarding SUB 93-0001 Bonforte/Woodside thereby denying this subdivision? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny this appeal by approving the attached Resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY The appeal requests denial of subdivision SUB 93-0001. This is a 65 lot subdivision to be located east of SW Scholls Ferry Road, west of SW 135th Avenue, and north of the proposed Murray Boulevard extension. Access to the site is gained from SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW Ashbury Lane and SW Morning Hill Drive. The oubdivision was approved with conditions by the Hearings Officer in a Final Order dated April 5, 1993. A copy of both the Final Order and preliminary plat have been provided. The subdivision proposal was found to satisfy and support the applicable City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Codes. Beaverton School District No. 48 has appealed this approval because the City's approval does not take into account the recommendation of the Beaverton School District to deny this subdivision based on projected enrollment figures concerning the affected schools. The Beaverton School District submitted comments dated February 4th, 8th, 9th and 18th which were received by the City on March 11. These comments state that the projected impact on enrollment resulting from this development, plus the projected enrollment of prior approved developments in Beaverton, Washington County and the City of Tigard, would cause Nancy Ryles Elementary School and Highland Park Intermediate School to exceed available capacity (See Attachment 1). Neither the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan nor its development codes give the City the discretion to deny a development based on school capacity. This is further detailed in a letter from Mr. Ed Murphy to Mr. Jerry Pflug dated May 10, 1993 (Attachment 2) and also in a memo from Mr. Jim Coleman of the City kttorney's office dated January 8, 1991 (Attachment 3). It is important to /f L note that the March 1993 LUBA decision concerning the proposed Triad i dievelopment project clearly states that a finding of adequate school capacity is not required by City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies (Attachment 4). Attachments: 1) Appeal form with attachments; 2) Letter from Mr. Ed Murphy; 3) Memo from Jim Coleman; 4) Excerpt from LUBA Triad decision; 5) Final Order SUB 93-0007. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal and direct staff to prepare and adopt a resolution upholding the Hearings Officer findings as stated in the Final Order dated April 5, 1993. 2. Approve the appeal thereby denying this subdivision and direct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the Council's findings. i FISCAL IMPACTS No direct impacts. 1 a t i LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM APR 2 0 1993 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to . participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code therefore sets out specific requirements for Y ` filing appeals on certain land use decisions. C I ~F 11111-4-4 AR' The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: Woodside Village SUB 93-0001/'VAR 93-00031~yg 93-0001 2. HOW DO YOU-QUALIFY AS A PARTY: Service F~-Quid r---Rp~~nar+nn Ce-jyx~l ~1Ct 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT r' 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: _ April' 71~ 144'2 5. DATE NOTICE OF FIN E ISION WAS GIVEN: April 5, 1993, by Hearirxgs Officer 6. SIGNATURE(S) : JERRY PFLUG EXECOVE DIREL`TDR FACIUTIES PLANNING AND CONmUGTION BFAVMTON SCHOOL OIST. A48 x-x~-x-xx~x-x-~x~xx-xx p~ • fl., ~-s;~ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: VEAT4j~tQR-9rTime: Ilj:~r~a•M. Approved As To Form By: Date: Time: Denied As To Form By: Date: Time: Receipt No. Amount: i 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397, Tigard Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 ATTACHMENT Attachment to Land Use Decision Appeal Filing Form - City of Tigard Woodside Village April 20, 1993 3. Cities and counties are required to adopt comprehensive plans complying with the LCDC ' goals. Among the goals established by LCDC is Goal 11 which provides that development shall be guided and supported by appropriate public facilities and services. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has held that the definition of public facilities and services required by Goal 11 includes schools. On February 3, 1993, the Beaverton School District received from the City of Tigard a request for Statement of Service Availability for schools for the Woodside Village (SUB 93-0001) Development. At that time, the School District informed the City of Tigard that it would take approximately 30 days to respond to the request (3 Local School Committees review the developmental requests and supply District staff input into the decision-making process). The response was subrrdtted to the City of Tigard on March 8, 1993, the day the staff report was distributed. The staff report makes no mention of the School District's statement of service availability for schools. The subsequent public hearing held on March 15, 1993, likewise made no mention of the School District's service provider letter. The significant factor precipitating the inadequate service provider letter from the School District is based on the major overcrowding that will occur at Nancy Ryles Elementary School (see Attachment A-impact statement submitted to the City on March 8, 1993). The =jested school enrollment equals n ray nice the capadMQf t_he school. The School District has extinguished all possible remedies except additional school construction which would require voter approval for a yet-to-be-determined bond measure (see Attachment B--School District Student Housing Capacity Position Statement and accompanying consideration of alternatives to provide adequate levels of service). Current capacity at Nancy Ryles is 432 students. The core facilities and classroom space of Nancy Ryles will be considerably over capacity when the existing enrollment and already approved residential projects within the attendance area are developed. Core facilities include library, cafeteria, gym, school office space, and special programs space, e.g., music, TAG. The School District has also reviewed the Nancy Ryles site for placement of portable classrooms. Because the site is a relatively small one (seven acres with extreme elevations), the District believes that there is sufficient space for placement of only one portable classroom. The actual enrollment (9/30/92) at Nancy Ryles is 398 students (with kindergarten calculated at _ one-half since those children attend school for only 1/2 day) with an additional 374 potential students from already approved developments. To house these additional students beyond the permanent capacity of the school would require 16 portables, an obvious impossibility. The Beaverton School Board has taken a firm position that additional students, beyond those accounted for above will compromise educational quality at this elementary school. } BECEIVEU PLAN ft I - E@@ FEB 0 8 199? sch®®Is . District 48 Jerry Pflug P.O. Box 200 Beaverton, Oregon 97075-0200 Executive Director 5031591-4303 Facilities Planning and Construction February 3, 1993 Ron Pomeroy City of Tigard Planning Department PO Boat 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 : Woodside Village SUB 93-0001 MMM Beaverton School District is in receipt of your Request for Statement of Service Availability for schools. The School District has revised the process for responding to these requests. Your application for a proposed development of 65 dwellings will be forwarded to the three principals and Local School Committees which serve the specific area of your proposal. The District's review process will take approximately 30 days. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Jerry Pflug PAR l.psrf 5f of ewnfs forms \ Rcprv fS"rArARrgApr RECEIVED PLANNING VEST FOR COMMENTS MAR 11 1993 TO: 4~e~v ielb . DATE: January 29, 1993 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SUBD 3gom mm 93-0001 VAR:rAXcS VAR 93-0003 SENSITIVE LANDS 93-0001 WOODSIDE VILLAGE BCNF+ORTS (NPO #7) A request for approval of the following development applications: 1) Subdivision approval to divide a 16.28 acre parcel into 65 lots ranging in size between 3,583 square feet to 8,352 squaare feet; 2) Variance approval for the following: a) to allow local streets in the development to be 20 or 23 feet wide within 32 to 42 foot right-of-ways whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (R) requires local streets to be constructed with 34 feet of pavement within a 50 foot right-Of-way; b) to allow a cul-de-sac bulb t with a 30 foot curb radius and a 35 foot right-of-way radius whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (K) requires cul-de-sacs to be constructed with 42 foot curb radius roadways with 50 foot radius right-of-ways; c) to allow a 90 foot centerline radius for one road curve whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (K) requires a m;nitmm 100 foot centerline radii for local streets; and d) to allow termination of the existing stub-of SW Horninghill Drive on the eastern edge of the site without a turnaround whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (K) requires dead end streets to terminate in a circular turnaround? 3) Sensitive Lands..RevieK approval to allow grading and filling for construction of stream' imp-oveeents on land designated as a wetland. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Compsehenaive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3; Community Development chapters 18.56, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13824-14102 SW Scholls Ferry Road; west of the Cotswald subdivisions and Sunflower apartment complex. (WCTH iSl 33CC, tax lot 600 and 1S1 33CD, tax lot 203) ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) The R-25 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support services, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. Attached Is the Site Plan and rpplicant•s statement for your review. From l information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Feb. 8, 1993. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. i If you are unable to re%mnd by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: 1 We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. / Please contact of our office. V Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: a Name of Person Commentang: C' i Phone Number: ^7 1~,~ 9 t~cz c.:.c L t~ f~ t S C~ 75 Z.c c S BEAVERTON SCf JL DISTRICT CITY/COUNTY RESIDENTIAL IMPACT STATEMENT Name of Development or Developer Woodside village Number of Units: Single-family 65 Date Feb. 4, 1993 ' Multi-family (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Enrollment Enrollment Potential Available September Impact of Impact of School School . 30th Prior Approved this Enrollment Capacity Enrollment Developments Development (sum of columns 2,3,4) Elementary Nancy Ryles 432 398 374 24 796 Intermediate Highland Park 1000 1069 ill 9 1189 High School Beaverton 2000 1740 81 5 1826 Status of School Impact (For explanation of column 1 though 5, see code on reverse side) Adequate - school(s) available capacity is adequate. (For additional information, see Schedule A and Status of Educational'Standards and Quality Indicators for Core 1 Facility Capacity.) Inadequate - School(s) available capacity is inadequate. (For additional information, see Schedule A and Status of Educational Standards and Quality Indicators for Core Facility Capacity.) 1. The core facilities (restrooms, cafeteria, library, etc.) are inadequate to support additional students. 2. Classroom capacity is inadequate to support additional students. 3. The Beaverton School District does not believe that it has sufficient annual operating income to educate additional students, without downgrading the education received by existing students. Revised: 05/19/92 10/12/92 Signed Jerry Pflug, P11.3 ctor facilities Planning Construction This school it pact statement is for the above indicated developmentand 120 days. % IMPACT STATEMENT CODE ' Column 1 - Available school capacity reflects the available capacity after adjustments for Special Education program accommodations. Available capacity does not include current or potential portables. Column 2 - September 30th enrollment does not include students housed in special programs. At the elementary level, kindergarten has been computed at one-half. Column 3 - Enrollment Impact of previously approved developments--determined by School District housing formula. (See School District housing formula below.) The number is multiplied by a factor of .8 because experience (r indicates only 80% of all approved developments are actually constructed. Column 4 - Enrollment Impact of requested development--determined by school District housing formula. Column 5 - Potential School Enrollment--determined by the sum of columns 2, 3, and 4--and is utilized in conjunction with Status of Educational Standards and Quality Indicators for Core Facility Capacity in order to place a request for development in "adequate" or "inadequate" category. SCHOOL DISTRICT HOUSING FORMULA Single-Family Dwellings .46 pre-first grade children per dwelling .37 elementary students per dwelling .13 intermediate students per dwelling .08 high school students per dwelling .57 total school-age students per dwelling Multiple-Family Dwellings .08 elementary students per dwelling .03 intermediate students per dwelling .02 high school students per dwelling .13 total school-age students per dwelling Schedule A BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LEVELS OF SERVICE 1. Amount of bonded indebtedness - Beaverton School District has authorized but unissued bonded indebtedness. The authorized bond measure commits these funds to construction of facilities which will not provide additional capacity in all areas. In the judgement of the District's School Board, an attempt to obtain voter approval to incur additional bonded indebtedness for the foreseeable future would be unsuccessful. 2. Use of double shifting, extended school periods, or year-round school - The report of the District's Student Housing and Facilities Utilization Task Force to the Superintendent dated January 17, 1991, and the subsequent Superintendent's recommendation approved by the Board on February 25, 1991, proposed further investigation of double or triple shifting, extended school periods, and year-round school. Such options would involve major policy, program, and fiscal changes for the District. The District does not believe that at present the non-bond alternatives are viable responses to the need for additional school capacity generated by individual residential development applications. The initiatives of House Bill 3565 (the Katz Bill) move in the direction of a longer school day and/or year for students, which double shifting or year round school would make very difficult, if not impossible. 3. Busing to underutilized facilities - The District presently has no underutilized facilities, either nearby or throughout the District, to serve the additional enrollment projected by the proposed development. Extensive busing of students is also contrary to the District's policy of providing neighborhood schools. 4. Construction of new facilities - Beaverton School District will open a new elementary school and 24 additional permanent classrooms in September of 1992. It will also open a new middle school and a new high school in September of 1994. These schools will provide permanent new capacity at those levels. This capacity is necessary to serve students projected to be in Beaverton schools by the time those facilities open. In September of 1994, the District will move sixth graders to middle schools and ninth _ graders to high school. This will reduce available capacity at high schools and increase capacity at elementary schools. By that time, the District will have reviewed all attendance boundaries for possible adjustments. The District does not have funds to construct new facilities to serve students from additional developments. Further, the limitations imposed by Measure 5 mean that the Beaverton School District will not have sufficient funds to operate (heat, light, custodial services, principal, secretary, etc.) additional facilities. 5. Portable classrooms - The District Board of Directors has adopted a new policy which states that portable classrooms may in some circumstances be used for an extended period of time. However, they are not to be utilized as a permanent solution to school housing needs. There is no prospect that any new portables would be replaced by permanent capacity in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the { purchase and siting of additional portable classrooms is neither educationally or fiscally appropriate. 6. Impact fees - In the opinion of the District's legal counsel, the District does not have statutory authority to impose impact fees. 7. Combination of alternatives - The District does not consider combination of the above A1tPrnntivPC nsz nrnviriinor Adnn„ntn aA,i:t;r..,.+~ ~~s•~~~ IFA(..tional Standards and Quality Indicat~ for J Core Facility Capacity ( Safety/'Secwity Standard I The principal will organize, direct and maintain the safety and security of the school environment for students, staff and parents. Status ofAccentAnce_ 1. Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Quality Indicators: Status of Acceptance Comments Ll Core facilities, i.e., hallways, media centers, 2 5A%WJ cafeteria, gyms, school office areas adequately accommodate staff, student and parent passage with a minimum of congestion, special scheduling. lea" -VdMZ_"'W 1.2 Traffic and parking at peak periods, i.e., arrival, LI1 2 departure, and programs are manageable. r 1.3 Student use of playgrounds and covered play areas for 1 2 instruction or recess allows equal access to a variety of j athletic fields activities. t ~ 1.4 Playgrounds can be supervised economically without an 1 2 excessive drain of staff resources away from instructional activities. 1.5 The deployment of portables allows the principal and bi 2 staff the ability to employ adequate surveillance and supervision. Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Definitions 1. j nacceptable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Acceptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of 1 regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. t May 19, 1992 - YaAPahWnWaa Statuncnu\EdStandrdrQuallylndk-Chrt 0%_ ational Standards and Quality Indices for Core Facility Capacity I ~ f Health Standard 2 The principal provides for a healthy and personalized environment. 9tatus ofAcceptance L Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Quality Indi .a tors: Status of Apeeptance Comments 2.1 Restroom facilities for students and adults are 1 2 accessible during passing time, recess, and lunch. 2.2 Access to drinking fountains and sinks for drinking 0,1 2 and washing is adequate. 2.3 Cohesiveness and personalization of the school 2 community is maintained, i.e. students know the adults 1 and adults know all of the children. 2.4 Health rooms have sufficient space to serve student C1 2 needs during peak periods. 2.5 Students have adequate space in which to store personal 2 belongings. Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Definitions 1. Unacceptable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Acceptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. May 19, 1992 _ M=\P*MVmpoa statement.\EdStand diQuWtytndie-ehn t 1 C Ea-..ational Standards and Quality IndicatD for Core Facility Capacity special Services Standard 3 ! ! The principal provides an appropriate environment which respects confidentiality and privacy for special student services, i.e. speecb/language, psychologist, volunteers. Status of A=zitan L Unacceptable 2. Acceptable s Qu ali Indicaters• Status of Acceptance Comments 3.1 Volunteers have appropriate space to work with students 1 and staff. 3.2 Service providers, both within the School District and 2 outside the District, have appropriate space to meet with 01 students and/or parents and staff. 3.3 Confidentiality and privacy are provided where needed 1 l./ for consultation and conferences Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Aaeevtance Code Definitions 1. Unacceptable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level autherity. 2. Accgptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. May 19, 1992 Mac\Pahl\Impaa Statements\EdStandrdsQualtylndic-Chri _ i E itional Standards and Quality Indical, _ for Core Facility Capacity Instructional Program Standard 4 The principal develops and implements school-level and District programs which maintain both instructional integrity and accessibility in accordance with District regulations and policies. 1. Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Quality Indicators: Status of Acceptance Comments 4.1 All students receive a comparable access to instruction O 2 regardless of the facility in which the instruction is delivered. 4.2 Teachers, instructional assistants and specialists spend 1 C2 as much of their time as possible instructing children. 4.3 The staff is utilized effectively in the implementation of 1 (2 ) all curricular programs. 4.4 Facilities are adequate to support expected outcomes / 1) 2 within speciality areas and regular classrooms. 4.5 Equipment and materials are adequate to support 12 expected outcomes within speciality areas and regular classrooms. 4.6 All students in a given class, regardless of number, 1 (2 } have the optimum opportunities for learning. 4.7 Speciality areas are utilized for the purpose for which 2 they were intended. 4.8 Teachers move minimally from room to room during 102 the day so that the instruction program is comparable, i.e., materials, equipment and technology are near at hand. Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Definitions 1. Unacceptable-: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Acceptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. May 19, 1992 Mac\PahIVmpaa Statemenls%,Ed tardndsQuoltylndw-Mrt Ecb=^ational Standards and Quality Indicato for • ' Core Facility Capacity 1 Nlaintenanm and Use of Facilities and Grounds Standard 5 3 The principal provides for the effective use and maintenance of buildings, grounds or equipment. Statm of Aceeo an e L Unacceptable 2. Acceptable j QnajitX Indicators- Status of Acceptance Comments 5.1 School facilities are scheduled in a-manner that 1 } maximizes their utilization while providing for regular cleaning and maintenance. 5.2 School grounds are scheduled and maintained in a 10 J manner that maximizes their seasonal use while maintaining their usability during rainy weather. 5.3 Open space (not dedicated classrooms or core facilities) 1 C2 is used to facilitate movement, engage students in active learning, and provide for an extension of learning which emerges from the classroom. l ' Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Defini ions 1. Unacceptable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Ar&gpj&bjg: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvemen . Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in th mment 'o . Z "(fl - 3 Pnr P Date i Local School Committee Chair Date May 19, 1992 p MacV'ahlVmpod Statements\EdStandndcQuaUyladicChn s zj Schedule A C . BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LEVELS OF SERVICE 1. Amount of bonded indebtedness - Beaverton School District has authorized but unissued bonded indebtedness. The authorized bond measure commits these funds to construction of facilities which will not provide additional capacity in all areas. In the judgement of the District's School Board, an attempt to obtain voter approval to incur additional bonded indebtedness for the foreseeable future would be unsuccessful. 2. Use of double shifting, extended school periods, or year-round school - The report of the District's Student Housing and Facilities Utilization Task Force to the Superintendent dated January 17, 1991, and the subsequent Superintendent's recommendation approved by the Board on February 25, 1991, proposed further investigation of double or triple shifting, extended school periods, and year-round school. Such options would involve major policy, program, and fiscal changes for the District. The District does not believe that at present the non-bond alternatives are viable responses to the need for additional school capacity generated by individual residential development applications. The initiatives of House Bill 3565 (the Katz Bill) move in the direction of a longer school day and/or year for students, which double shifting or year round school would make very difficult, if not impossible. 3. Busing to underutilized facilities - The District presently. has no underutilized facilities, either nearby or throughout the District, to serve the additional enrollment projected by the proposed development. Extensive busing of students is also contrary to the District's policy of providing neighborhood schools. 4. Construction of new facilities - Beaverton School District will open a new _ elementary school and 24 additional permanent classrooms in September of 1992. It will also open a new middle school and a new high school in September of 1994. These schools will provide permanent new capacity at those levels. This capacity is necessary to serve students projected to be in Beaverton schools by the time those facilities open. In September of 1994, the District will move sixth graders to middle schools and ninth graders to high school. This will reduce available capacity at high schools and increase capacity at elementary schools. By that time, the District will have reviewed all attendance boundaries for possible adjustments. The District does not have funds to construct new facilities to serve students from additional developments. Further, the limitations imposed by Measure 5 mean that the Beaverton School District will not have sufficient funds to operate (heat, light, custodial services, principal, secretary, etc.) additional facilities. 5. Portable classrooms - The District Board of Directors has adopted a new policy which states that portable classrooms may in some circumstances be used for an extended period of time. However, they are not to be utilized as a permanent solution to school housing needs. There is no prospect that any new portables would be replaced by permanent capacity in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the purchase and siting of additional portable classrooms is neither educationally or fiscally appropriate. 6. Impact fees - In the opinion of the District's legal counsel, the District does not have statutory authority to impose impact fees. 7. Combination of alternatives - The District does not consider combination of Educational Standards and Quality Indicators for Core Facility Capacity Sa&tyr_-4cuAt5r Standard I The principal will organize, direct and maintain the safety and security of the school environment for students, staff and parents. S ilus of ACcelltanct, 1. Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Quality Indicators, Status of Acceptance Comments Very congested; passing L1 Core facilities, i.e., hallways, media centers. V 2 time had to be increased cafeteria, gyms, school office areas adequately which cakes away from accommodate staff, student and parent passage with a instructional time. minimum of congestion, special scheduling. 1.2 'T'raffic and parking at peak periods, i.e., arrival, ~ 2 Necessary to park on departure, and programs are manageable. street during events. 1.3 Student use of playgrounds and covered play areas for 1 l instruction or recess allows equal access to a variety of athletic fields activities. 1.4 Playgrounds can be supervised economically without an © 2 All available staff, excessive drain of staff resources away from counselors, instructional instructional activities. aides, etc. used daily. 1.5 The deployment of portables allows the principal and 1 staff the ability to employ adequate surveillance and supervision. Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Definitions 1. Unacceptable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Acceptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. May 19, 1992 yac%PaAfVmpact Srotenwnts\EdSfandrdsQualtylndicCArt I Educational Standards and Quality Indicators for i Core Facility Capacity Elealth Stn and 2 The principal provides for a healthy and personalized environment. Status of Acco an 1. Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Quali g, Indicators: Status of Acceptance Comments roo 2.1 Restroom facilities for students and adults are 2 inmany students, too few utes, no water in accessible during passing time, recess, and lunch, portables. 2.2 Access to drinking fountains and sinks for drinking 0 2 oo many students, too few and washing is adequate. inutes, no water in portables. *l.3 Cohesiveness and personalization of the school 0 2 It is impossible for the community is maintained, i.e. students know the adults adults at Highland Park to and adults know all of the children. know all students. When 2.4 Health rooms have sufficient space to serve student O 2 there are 1189 enrolled. (c nt . ) Currently inadequate at all needs during peak periods. times during the day. 2.5 Students have adequate space in which to store personal 2 Some students will need to belongings. be assigned-three to a locker. *2.3 Continued Personalization is lost past 1000. Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Definitions, 1. anacc_ nth able: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment j without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Acceptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. May 19. 1992 ltac%PW%Jmpact Statenwnk%ZdSmndrdiQuoltylndic-G1rt Educational Standards and Quality Indicators for j Core Facility Capacity 4 S1 Services 1 antlartl R The principal provides an appropriate environment which respects confidentiality and privacy for special student services, i.e. speech/language, psychologist. volunteers. i Status of Acceptance 1. Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Q aeli IndicatoT,~ Status of Acceptance Comments 3.1 Volunteers have appropriate space to work with students 1 70"~ and staff. V 3.2 Service providers, both within the School District and V 2 No extra space available outside the District, have appropriate space to meet with students and/or parents and staff: Conferences are held in 3.3 Confidentiality and privacy are provided where needed 0 2 available office space. for consultation and conferences They move to open location and often are held in classrooms a ter sc oo . Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Definitions 1. Unaccentable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay. or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Acceptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling. additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. 1V 9, 1992 Mae%PWVmpoet staremena%EdStandrdsQualtylndi -CAK Et onal St. )nd Quality Indicate 1 Core Facility Capacity ' Instructional Program Standard 4 f The principal develops and implements school-level and District programs which maintain both instructional integrity and accessibility in accordance with District regulations and policies. 1. Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Quality Inds Status of Acceptance Comments 4.1 All students receive a comparable access to instruction G 2 Portables don't have regardless of the facility in which the instruction is plumbing, fire alarms, easy access to audio delivered. _ visual equipment, etc. 4.2 Teachers, instructional assistants and specialists spend 1 as much of their time as possible instructing children. 4.3 The staff is utilized effectively in the implementation of 1 O all curricular programs. 4.4 Facilities are adequate to support expected outcomes 2 Expected outcomes have within speciality areas and regular classrooms. been modified. 4.5 Equipment and materials are adequate to support 2 Need a second facility for expected outcomes within speciality areas and regular art; no water in classrooms. portables. 4.6 All students in a given class, regardless of number, 2 See 4.1 have the optimum opportunities for learning. 4.7 Speciality areas are utilized for the purpose for which 2 See 4.5 they were intended. 4.8 Teachers move minimally from room to room during - 2 Seven teachers move i the day so that the instruction program is comparable, classrooms twice each i.e., materials, equipment and technology are near at day. i hand. Standards for Educational Capacity Status of Acceptance Code Definitions 1. Unacceptable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or school-level authority. 2. Acce~ptable: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in the comment section. May 19, 1992 Blac\PahlVmpaa Statemenu\EdStandridsQuattylndkChrt ~ i Eddsmational St-- ' lity Indicato< . ✓1 Cot ~J tpacity ALdntezanoe and Use of Fd dfities and Gm ands Standard 5 i The principal provides for the effective use and maintenance of buildings, grounds or equipment. Sta_tua of Acceptance 1. Unacceptable 2. Acceptable Qnali Indicators: z Status of Acceptance Comments 5.1 School facilities are scheduled in a manner that 1 maximizes their utilization while providing for regular cleaning and maintenance. 5.2 School grounds are scheduled and maintained in a 1 manner that maximizes their seasonal use while maintaining their usability during rainy weather. 5.3 Open space (not dedicated classrooms or core facilities) 1 This does not speak to is used to facilitate movement, engage students in active l/ numbers. learning, and provide for an extension of learning which emerges from the classroom. C Standards for Educational Capacity - Status of Acceptance Code Definitions 1. UnacceRtable: The principal and staff are unable to solve extraordinary problems created by overenrollment without invoking assistance for housing, capital outlay, or boundary relief outside of school resources or _ school-level authority. 2. gcg sties: The principal and staff are able to solve program and use issues within routine parameters of regular staffing allocations and planned capital improvements. Special attention to scheduling, additional staffing, materials or capital investment are explained in mment section. -~'-9 -1-A P Principal Date Local School Com ittee Chair Date May 19, 1992 _ Mor\Aah[Vmpoa Statement,\EdStm,drdeQuauylndw-Chrt i i IBM May 10, 1993 CITY OF TIG D Mr. Jerry Pflug, Executive Director OREGON Facilities Planning and Construction Beaverton Schools, District #48 Beaverton, OR 97075-0200 Dear Mr. Pflug: Thank you for meeting with Mr. Bonforte and myself regarding the Woodside Village development. Let me first say that -I an sure that I can speak for the City Council of Tigard when I say that the City is concerned about school capacity and the quality of the educational system. The City also is running to keep up with growth, and is facing declining revenues, although our problems are not as severe as school district's at this time. This letter is not to suggest that we are unsympathetic to the plight of the Beaverton School District. As I pointed out to you at our meeting and earlier on tha telephone, I do not believe that an appeal of the Woodside Subdivion is an appropriate or effective way to address school capacity issues. I would suggest that the school district withdraw the appeal for the following reasons. 1. Neither the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan nor its development codes give the city the discretion to deny a development based on school capacity. It is simply not one of the criteria upon which a decision is made. (The City of Tigard's Plan is different than Washington County's and Beaverton's in that regard). Under the existing city policies and regulations, the City of Tigard cannot deny the subdivision. This issue has already been argued at the Land Use Board of Appeals, which upheld the City's case by agreeing that Policy 7.8.1, Implementation strategy 1 does not require a finding of adequate school facilities. 2. The effect of development within the City limits of Tigard on the Beaverton School District are very limited, in any case. Only a very few parcels of undeveloped residentially zoned land are available within this area. Much of the new growth is will occur outside the city limits, in unincorporated Washington County or in Beaverton. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ATTACHMENT 2 V Mr. Jerry Pflug Beaverton Schools May 10, 1993 Page 2 3. This particular subdivision that is being proposed is far less density than that which the Comprehensive Plan allows. In fact, the City has previously reviewed multifamily developments for this particular property which would have generated significantly more school age population. 4. This issue could better be addressed as a legislative issue. I am sure that the City Council, Planning Commission and staff would be willing to review the City's Comprehensive Plan and Codes with the school district to see if any changes should be made that would better address school capacity. Again, the City of Tigard understands the situation the school district is in. Perhaps there are better methods for managing growth in ways that are more sensitive to school capacity issues, and working together, maybe we can find those. In the meantime, however, we would suggest that the appeal of Woodside Village be withdrawn. ; Thank you for your attention to this letter. I look forward to your { response. Sincerely, / Ed Murphy Community Development Director ejm/Bevvtcn.Ltr t MEMORANDIIM DATE: January 8, 1991 TO: TVR FROM: JMC RE: Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity As a follow-up to our lunch meeting with Pat Riley on December 14, 1990, you asked that I review the City of Tigard comp plan and development code provisions relating to schools. The review is a preliminary step in the formulation of a strategy for dealing with the necessity for consideration of school capacity as a criteria in decision making an quasi judicial land use applications in the City of Tigard. I had Will review the plan and code and pull out for me all references to school capacity in the context of decision making criteria. In the process of that review, he also found an April 25, 1990 memo concerning school service requirements for subdivision approvals. I have attached a cop2 of that memo and 1 think its conclusions are accurate, but do not provide a complete answer to the questions which you have raised. When looking at the-approval criteria within the development code, one finds a requirement that there be adequate public facilities for the different types of approvals, but that requirement is phrased in a slightly different manner for each type of approval. For a phased development, the requirement is that public facilities be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase. TMC 18.120.050, p. 301. The code does not define the scope of the term "Public Facilities." For conditional uses, it is necessary that "required" public facilities have adequate capacity to serve proposal. The term "required" is not defined. TMC 18.130.040, p. 318. For planned developments, there is a reference to the approval criteria for land divisions found in TMC 18.162. TMC 18.80.120 A.1., p. 160. TMC 18.162 is in fact the approval criteria for partitions and it requires that there be adequate public facilities to serve the proposal. TMC 18.162.040 A.3., p. 402. The April 25 memo discusses the requirements for subdivisions which are found in TMC 18.160.020 and it specifies that certain enumerated facilities are required, but does not include school facilities in that list. There is a requirement at TMC 18.160.060 that a preliminary plat must comply with a comp plan, zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and { regulations. That requirement is general and does not reference ATTACHMENT 3 1 Memorandum to TVR Re Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity January 8, 1991 Page 2 any specific facilities requirements. The final plat approval criteria adds no additional requirements for public facilities. TMC 18.160.150. ' For annexations, it is required that all services and facilities are available and have sufficient capacity. TMC 18.136.030, p. 352. There is no specific mention of school facilities in that section. i In looking at the comp plan requirements, the public facilities section is found at Chapter 7 on p. II-41. The most directly related policies are found at Policy 7.1.1(b) which requires the City to work with service districts to provide a coordinated system for providing services, Policy (c) which requires the City to provide urban services in accordance with the comp plan to the extent of the City's financial resources, subsection (d) which requires the City to use the capital improvements program as a -cans for providing orderly growth and efficient use of land, and Effm Subsection (e) which requires the development of the comp plan with consideration being given to the level of capacity of existing services. Policy 7.1.2 states the City shall require as a precondition to development approval that development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including water, sewer, and storm drainage. Schools are omitted from this policy. ! In the implementation strategies for these policies, there is nothing that specifically links school capacity to development approvals. Policy 7.8 deals specifically with schools and the only requirement on the City is that it shall "work closely with school districts to assure maximum community use of the school facilities for Tigard residents through locational criteria and provisions of urban services." Implementation strategy 1 for that policy requires that the City monitor school capacity by requiring requests for development proposals and permits to be reviewed by the applicable school district for affects on school capacity. Neither the implementation strategies nor the policies themselves take the next step of requiring that adequate capacity be available at the time of the development approval or at the time that the developments are completed. These policies make a differentiation between the services directly provided by the City and services provided by a separate district. i Memorandum to TVR Re Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity i January 8, 1991 Page 3 It would be difficult to argue that Policy 7.1.1 clearly requires the City to insure that adequate school capacity is a precondition to approval in the development process. Reading the comp plan and policies together, a good argument can be made that there is no requirement in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for the actual availability of school capacity at the time of the development approval. However, if this is-the policy position of the City, it could .unquestionably be made more clear. Amendments to the plan could'be drafted to clearly state the + apparent policy on school capacity which is a requirement for coordination between the City and school districts. The only direct requirement in the comp plan related to the provision of public facilities and services at the time of the development approval, is found at Plan Policy 7.1.2 on p. II-42, which does not include school capacity. Regardless of the school district capacity question, it would probably be advisable to unify and standardize the approval criteria related to public facilities and services for each of the different types of developments and actions addressed by the development code. I suggest that one way of doing this, mould he to, through definitions in the development code, identify public facilities and services which are required to be available at the time of the development approval, and through separate definition; other public flaci Aties and services. once those definitions were developed, the approval criteria in the development code for the various types of decisions could be amended through the use of these new definitions to clarify what types of public facilities and services need to be considered within the context of each quasi judicial application hearing. The Findings which accompany these code changes would need to contain an interpretation of the plan policies which supported the conclusion that school capacity is not a precondition to a development approval. That discussion would follow the lead from DLCD in categorizing some services as necessarily responsive to development pressure. JMC:dd 1/8/91 imews=~.Plan.c.~ Memorandum to TVR Re Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity January 8, 1991 Page 3 It would be difficult to argue that Policy 7.1.1 clearly requires the City to insure that adequate school capacity is a precondition to approval in the development process. Reading the comp plan and policies together, a good argument can be made that there is no requirement in the Tigard ctymprehensive Plzm for the actatal a ' ty of school capacity at the *Sme of the development approval. aawever, if this is the po3Acy position of the city, it. could, unquestiona iy be made more clear. Amendments to the plan could be drafted to clearly state the apparent policy on school capacity which is a requirement for coordination between the City and school districts. The only direct requirement in the comp plan related to the provision of public facilities and services at the time of the development approval, is found at Plan Policy 7.1.2 on p. II-42, which does not include school capacity. Regardless of the school district capacity question, it would probably be advisable to unify and standardize the approval I criteria related to public facilities and services for each of the different types of developments and actions addressed by the development code. I suggest that one way of doing this would be to, through definitions in the development code, identify public- facilities and services which are required to be available at the time of the development approval, and through separate definition, other public facilities and services. Once those definitions were developed, the approval criteria in the development code for the ..various types of decisions could be amended through the use of these new definitions to clarify what types of public facilities and services need to be considered within the context of each quasi judicial application hearing- The Findings which accompany these code changes would need to contain an interpretation of the plan policies which supported the conclusion that school capacity is not a precondition to a development approval. That discussion would follow the lead from DLCD in categorizing some services as necessarily responsive to development pressure. ( JMC:dd 1/8/91 AMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Mar 16.93 14:24 No.007 P.13/23 th • e;tn standards limit ing:developmenti of fenaitive Yaad~:' . ~V Although the finditigg could' be &tategi mor®' ®l arly, w'e 'agree ;3 : witk~ .~®spond®nte'that, the city' found the siijo -does' not' include .4f Watlands:' We also agree Vith respondents that the evidence s COACerning the possible existence of Wetlands on the 'bite is 6• sufficiently vague and speculative that the city's finding that 7 wetlands do not exist on the subject property is supported by 8 substantial evidence. 5= nnualhs Y- klul nowt b County, 18,or 9 LUSA 607, 617 (1990)(and cases cited therein). 10 This subassignment of error is denied. 11 The second assignment of error is denied. 12 TBZRD ASSZGNM NT Or ERROR 13' Petitioner contends under this assignment of error that the 14 challenged decision fails to demonstrate compliance with TCP 15 provisions designed to assure the availability of adequate 16 school facility capacity. 17 Petitioner first cites TCP Policy 7.8.1, Implementation IS Strategy t, which provides as follows: 19 "The city shall monitor school capacity by requiring 20 requests for development proposals and permits to be 21 previewed by (the] applicable school district for 22 effects on school capacity as a pre-condition to 23 development.119 9TCP Policy 7.8.1 provides as follows: "The city shall work closely with the school districts to assures tho maximum community use of the school facilities for Tigard residents through locational criteria and the provisions of urban services." Page 12 ATTACHMENT OM IS ET AL 503-243-2944 Mar 16,93 14 24 No.007 P.144//2_3 1 Realiondents, contend TCP,," Policy,.; 7.,8.1, ~Is►plo~t®ntation Strategy, 1 does„ Pot x®quige a finding,. of: ndequate_ • school 3 ,facilities. i Rsthe.o it aimp~y :requires that, development Q. t; f:.'. 3. . 4 proposals be reviewed by the school district for- impacts on ..school capacity. The required review occurred in this case, the f•6• school district provided comments and respondents contend that 7 is all TCP Policy 7.8.11 implementation Strategy 1 requires. We 8 agree with respondents. 9 Petitioner also cites TCP Policy-12.1.1 and two locational 10 criteria under that policy as applying to the challenged 11 decision. As respondents correctly note, that policy and the 22 cited locational criteria govern the establishment of 13 residential densities through zoning and do not apply to ~i 14 development permit decisions such as the decision challenged in 15 this proceeding. :srs-m, St2ttpr v_ City of Eugene, 18 Or LUBA 16 135, 148-49 (1989); Rest;.._rt 3e. City of Dallas, acv 17 Or LUBA 450, 17 456-57, aff Id, 96 Or App 645 (1989). 18 The third assignment of error is denied;. 19 FOURTH ASSIGNMENT or ERROR 20 Under this assignment of error, petitioner argues the 21 city's decision is improperly based on the September 12, 1991 t 22 amendments to the acknowledged TCP Transportation Map. I - 23 Petitioner contends those September 12, 1991 amendments were not 24 in effect at the time the application was first submitted to the . Page 13 ' BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the matter of an application by Anthony Bonforte for ) FINAL. ORDER approval of a preliminary plat for a 65-lot land division, ) SUB 93-0001 variance and sensitive lands review for land east of ) VAR 93-0003 Scholls Ferry Road in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village) FINDINGS 1. The hearings officer hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings of the Tigard Community Development Department Staff Report dated March 8, 1993 (the "Staff Report"), including the summary, findings about the site and surroundings, applicable approval standards, NPO and agency comments, and evaluation of the request, except to the extent expressly modified herein. The hearings officer also acknowledges receipt of a letter dated March 15, 1993 from Jim and Marilyn Rider. 2. The hearings officer conducted a duly notice public hearing regarding the application on March 15, 1993. At that hearing, the following testimony was offered. a. City Planner Ron Pomeroy summarized the staff report and recommendation with revisions. b. Anthony Bonforte testified on his own behalf. He summarized the proposal and surrounding land uses. He submitted a revised preliminary plat that provides a cul de sac at the end of Morning Hill Drive and a slight curve at the south stub of the principal north-south street on the site. He argued in favor of the proposed variances, and submitted written comments and pictures in support of the variances. He described the i wetlands on the site and the lengthy process involved in addressing agency and homeowner conerns about those wetlands. He described the proposed storm water detention facility at the east edge of the site. The facility will have a gravel base through which water will flow i into a perforated pipeline beneath the gravel and hence into the wetland to the west. ! c. Scott Russell testified on his own behalf. He owns property south of the site. He testified in favor of the revised plat, which includes the slight curve in the principal north-south street. If the street is extended south onto his property, then the curve makes it possible to develop a row of 90-foot deep lots east of the road. d. Marlin Hopfer owns an adult care facility on an oversized parcel southwest of the site. He testified in favor of the proposal. e. Cal Woolery testified for NPO #7 in favor of the proposal, including the street width variances. f. John Broome testified for the Wetlands Conservacy in favor of the proposal, noting that he and a volunteer biologist inspected the wetlands on the site and the plan and concluded it protects the wetland and forest values of the site. He suggested how misquito problems could be addressed using natural predators. g. Mark Lowman owns a home east of the site and testified on behalf of his j family and other residents of the Coswald Meadows subdivision to the east. He introduced two oversized sheets of photographs and a copy of his testimony. The photographs show a drainage pond in the Teton Road area. The majority of his testimony was against Page I Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0OI (Woodside 'tillage) ATTACHMENT approval of the storm water detention facility at the east edge of the site. He expressed concerns about the proximity of the facility to his property; the lack of protection against the "attractive nuisance" aspects of the facility; the potential for the facility to provide a breeding place for misquitos, odors and algae; and the lack of assurance that the facility will work as represented or be maintained over time. He also argued the facility will be upgradient from the existing stub of SW Ashbury Lane, from which water would be directed to the facility, and questioned how that could be. h. Dan Hitt owns a home east of the site and north of SW Ashbury Lane. He disputed the need for Ashbury Lane to extend across the wetland and connect with streets providing access to Scholls Ferry Road. He argued against the connection in the interests of reducing the potential for through-neighborhood traffic. He also disputed the proposed wetland enhancement features of the project, arguing the existing wetlands are relatively inaccessible due to vegetation and do not include standing water. If the project is developed, then there will be standing water in the wetlands, access to the wetlands will be possible, and potential hazards they contain could attract children and others. i i. City Engineer Chris Davies argued the Ashbury Lane connection across the wetland is needed to provide for a local street system that does not require excessive out-of-direction travel and use of arterials to drive from one portion of the neighborhood to an adjoining portion. He also noted the connection would enhance accessibility for the existing neighborhood generally and for emergency vehicles. j. The applicant's engineer, Greg Kurahashi, testified regarding the proposed storm water detention facility at the east edge of the site. (1) He said that water from the stub of Ashbury Lane will be piped to the facility, and excavation will be necessary to accommodate grades, conceding the natural elevation of the facility site is higher than the inlet in Ashbury Lane. (2) He said that additional grading will be necessary to create the facility basin and that the walls of the basin may have to extend into the wetland buffer. The floor of the pond would about 6 feet below grade at its west edge and 12 feet below grade at its east edge. It will have a 3:1 slope and will be planted in bunchgrass to facilitate maintenance. He argued the pond walls are not hazardous and a fence is not warranted because of their shallow slope. He said the pond will not detain water that is more than 3 feet; a weir will release flows in excess of that amount directly into the wetland. _ (3) He characterized the facility as a "dry" pond, because the gravel bed and underlying perforated pipeline will allow water to move relatively quickly from the pond to the wetland. That distinguishes it from the pond illustrated in Mr. Lowman's photographs. (4) He conceded that lack of maintenance of the facility could result in siltation of the gravel or pipeline, but that the facility was inherently simple to maintain or to repair, in contrast to a "wet" popd. He described several methods to prevent adverse effects if maintenance is deferred including: installing duplicate discharge lines from the pond and capping one until it is needed to replace the other line; installing a head structure that can be raised or lowered to adjust to changing conditions; or installing an outlet to another drainage facility. He noted that the City will be responsible for maintenance of the facility. Page 2 Hearings Officer F&W Order SUB 93-OWIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village) (5) He noted that a biofiltration swale could be used instead of a 4 pond, but that would affect a much larger area and would require more difficult or costly f maintenance and repairs. (6) He noted that all of the water going into the pond is from the existing developed area to the east; that water now simply discharges onto the site. i (7) On behalf of the applicant, he agreed to move the pond further ! west and/or to plant conifer trees along the east edge of the pond if permitted by permits issued by the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) and Corps of Engineers (COE). 3. The first principal issue concerns the three variances requested by the applicant. One would allow a 42-foot right of way and as little as a 24- to 28-foot paved section for local streets on the site. A second would allow a 35-foot radius cul de sac right of way and 30-foot paved radius cul de sac bulb. A third would allow a 90-foot centerline radius where the extension of Ashbury Lane crosses the northeast edge of the wetland buffer. 1 a. In its evaluation, City staff recommend approval of the variance to the centerline radius standard for the extension of Ashbury Lane, the variance to the cul de sac standards for SW Morning Hill Drive and the cul de sac at the northeast corner of the site, and deletion of a sidewalk on the west side of the Ashbury Lane extension where it crosses the wedand buffer. The staff also recommend approval of a variance for a 28-foot paved section in a 42-foot right of way for the local st=t east of u~Z west edbe of the wetland. The hearings officer adopts the findings at pages 12 through 15 of the Staff Report in support of approval of those variances. ( b. City staff effectively recommend denial of a variance for a 28-foot paved section in a 42-foot right of way for the local streets west of the wetland. The staff agree that the site is subject to special circumstances, (i.e., the wetland and buffer), and that the variances would not be detrimental to public health or safety. In fact, by reducing impervious area, the variance reduces the needed size of storm water features; however, positive impacts of a variance are-not relevant. Staff concluded that the variance is not "necessary for the proper design and function of the subdivision" or "neceesarv for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right" (Sections 18.160.120B and D, emphasis added), because the lots west of the wetland will be large enough to be developed, and the number of lots will not be reduced if the applicant dedicates and improves full-width streets there. c. The crux of the dispute is what is "necessary" for the proper design and function of the subdivision and the preservation of the applicant's property rights. Variances typically are subject to a standard like that in Section 18.160.120B and D. When faced with the issue, Oregon courts generally construe the term "necessary" in variance provisions rather strictly. The staff recommendation is consistent with how that and similar terms have been applied in other cases in the City and elsewhere generally. However, the hearings officer notes that a common axiom of land use law is that every case is unique, and the City has not had an opportunity to construe the word "necessary" under the specific fact circumstances presented here. d. The disputed variance would be convenient and may enhance the value, marketability or flexibility of development of lots. However, the hearings officer construes the term "necessary" to require more than that A variance must be necessary to allow the proper functioning of the site. If by dedicating the full right of way, the building envelopes on lots are reduced to the extent that they cannot be developed practicably, then the hearings officer believes the variance would be necessary. Pgge 3 Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 93-00011VAR 93-00031SLR 93-0007 (Woodside Village) I e. In this case, if a full right of way is dedicated from the proposed centerline of the street, building envelopes on the lots affected would continue to be generally in excess of 50 feet deep and 30 to 35 feet wide. Lot 24 would have a building envelope about 46 feet deep and 48 feet wide. Lots 15, 25, 26, and 35 would have building envelopes less than 40 feet deep, although they would be wider than deep; their width provides more flexibility in siting a home on those lots than on other lots. f. The hearings officer finds it is possible to site a single family home in a 45- to 55-foot deep building envelope. There is no evidence in the record illustrating proposed home sizes and showing that the proposed homes cannot be situated within a 45- to 55-foot deep building envelope or that the ability to site such homes is necessary to function of the subdivision. (1) The minimum lot size in the zone is 3050 square feet. Given standard setbacks and a rectangular lot 45 feet x 67 feet, such a lot would have a buildable area about 35 feet wide and 37 feet deep. Other configurations are possible, but all would have less buildable area than the proposed lots even if the disputed variance is denied. (2) The hearings officer assumes the buildable area provided by City Code for a permitted size lot can in fact be developed for a permitted use. Therefore, the applicant's proposed lots, which provide more buildable area than a minimum size lot in the 05 zone, should be readily developable. g. However, the fact that a lot can be developed does not mean that a variance to allow the lot to be developed more flexibly is not necessary to allow for the proper function of the subdivision. (1) The hearings officer finds that smaller buildable areas could adversely affect the function of the subdivision. Only smaller homes could be built. Less flexibility and variety in home size, setbacks and architectural style and features are possible in a smaller building envelope. - (2) Also, if the disputed variance is denied and lots east of the street are smaller, it will increase the potential for residents of those units to resort to the wetland for passive and active recreation, because there will be less area on which to undertake those uses on each lot. This would be contrary to the City's interests in preserving and protecting the wetland and buffer. (3) The hearings officer also finds that the significant area of the site devoted to open space should be considered in determining what is necessary for the proper functioning of the remainder of the subdivision. That area prevents the applicant from modifying the lots to provide the requisite right of way and improved width. Therefore, the open space makes it necessary to modify development regulations that otherwise apply to enable the developable area to be as large as possible given the remaining developable area of the site, provided it does not otherwise conflict with the public health or safety. h. It is a close call. Whether the variance is "necessary" is arguable. Reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue can be raised. None is totally persuasive nor supported by legislative history from which the hearings officer can infer the intent of the City Council when it adopted or applied that term. However, given the findings above, the hearings officer concludes the variance to the street standards is marginally "necessary" to the proper function of the subdivision and to the preservation of the applicant's property rights. Therefore, the variance should be approved for the local street west of the wetland. Page 4 Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93.0001 (Woodside Village) 4. The second principal issue is the stormwater facility at the east edge of the site. a. The facility is needed to address existing stormwater runoff from land to the east. That water now flows onto the site without water quality treatment or detention. The proposed facility will provide those features. b. The hearings officer is convinced by the testimony of Mr. Kurahashi and the exhibits illustrating the facility that the facility will not be inherently hazardous due to steep slopes, high water levels, or misquito infestation. Because of its design, it will not be prone to the sorts of problems illustrated in the photographs presented by Mr. Lowman, provided it is maintained. c. The City is responsible for maintenance and is prepared to accept that responsibility- The hearings officer cannot assume the City will not fulfill its responsibility. However, the hearings officer finds that all reasonable steps should be taken to minimize maintenance needs of the facility due to its design and construction and to provide back-up measures such as those suggested by Mr. Kurahashi to the extent deemed warranted by the City Engineer. d. Notwithstanding the lack of inherently hazardous conditions created by the facility, its proximity to single family homes to the east :varrants mitigation, because the facility should be protected against trespass and residents of the surrounding area should be protected from visual, maintenance and other potential nuisance effects of the facility. Mitigation could take one or more of three forms. (1) The applicant could fence the east edge of the site to prevent access to the facility from that direction; or (2) The applicant could physically move the facility as far west as possible, increasing the setback between the facility and adjoining homes; however, this would require concurrence of ODSL and COE; and/or - (3) The applicant could plant a substantial vegetative barrier (i.e., hedge and/or trees) between the facility and the east edge of the site. This may require concurrence of ODSL and COE. The applicant should provide one or more of these mitigation measures, subject to review and approval of the planning director. - 5. The third principal issue is whether SW Ashbury should extend across the wetland to provide access ultimately to Scholls Ferry Road. The hearings officer agrees with the testimony of Mr. Davies in finding U J that the extension of the road is warranted in the public interest to reduce out-of-direction travel and to enhance emergency and intra- neighborhood access. 6. That development will facilitate access to the site and its natural features is inevitable given the zoning and plan designation of the site. The amount of development proposed is much less than that permitted, so the effect is less than it might be. But in either event, the fact that development increases access does not violate any City standard or policy. Open space dedication and mitigation measures are recommended to minimize the impact of increased site activity and development on the health of the wetland and its habitat. Page S Hearings Offices Final Oder SUB 93-000I1VAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village) 7. The issue of prior LID's and the completion of the Murray Road extension (raised in the Riders' letter) is not relevant to the review of the subdivision. CONCLUSION Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Report, the proposed subdivision, variance, and landform alteration do or can comply with the applicable provisions'of the City Code, and the applicant's request should be approved, subject to conditions and restrictions consistent with the Code and this Final Order. ORDER The applicant's requests, SUB 93-0001, VAR 93-0003, and SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village) and VAR 929, are hereby approved, subject to the conditions in Section VI of the Staff Report, with the following amendments: 1. Conditions of approval 5 and 25 are amended to read as follows: Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities shall be installed within die subdivision. I -rovernentc shall be designed and constructed to local street standards for the street fronting lots 26 through 35. Throughout the balance of the subdivision, improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards, with the following exceptions: a. The right of way shall be reduced to 42 feet and the pavement width shall be reduced to 28 feet with appropriate transitions. b. The right of way for a cul de sac shall have a 35-foot radius and a cul de- sac shall have a 30-foot paved radius. c. No sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of Ashbury Lane along the wetland between Lots 1 and 63, and that street section can have a 90-foot radius centerline curve. 2. Conditions of approval 12 and 30 are amended to read as follows: The applicant shall provide on-site storm water quality facilities as established under the guidelines of Unwed Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order 91-47. The storm water facility near the east edge of the site south of lot 63 shall be designed and operated substantially as described by Mr. Kurahashi in finding 3.j, including mitigation and back-up measures listed in finding 3J(4) deemed warranted by the City Engineer. The applicant shall mitigate the potential impacts of the facility to the extent deemed appropriate by the planning director by doing one or more of the following: a. Fence the east edge of the site to prevent access to the facility from that direction; b. Relocating the facility as far west as possible with the j concurrence of ODSL and COE; and/or Page 6 Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 93-000/NAR 93-00031' SLR 93.0001 (Woodside Village) A c. Planting a substantial, dense vegetative barrier (i.e., hedge and/or trees) between the facility and the east edge of the site with whatever concurrence of ODSL and COE is necessary. 3. A new condition is added to read as follows: 43. The applicant may develop the subdivision in up to three phases as shown on the amended preliminary plat dated March 15, 1993, subject to the requirements of the City Code and this decision that are applicable to the phase of the subdivision in question or that the City planning director finds must be fulfilled to address the phase of the subdivision in question. 4. A new condition is added to read as follows: 44. The alignment of the street fronting lots 16 and 17 shall be changed to provide for a curve to the west with a lOD-foot centerline radius beginning at the north line of lot 16 and extending to the south line of lot 16. A 5th da Aril, 193. Siam * F.ps C City of Tiga&J?(eigs 0fiicer l I Page 7 Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 93-OOOINRR 93-00031SLR 93-4001 (Woodside Village) i AGENDA ITEM 2.1 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Tony Bonforte on STAFF REPORT behalf of Woodside Village Partnership Limited SUB 93-0001 for Subdivision, Variance and Sensitive Lands VAR 93-0003 Review approval. SLR 93-0001 1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: Subdivision SUB 93-0001 / Variance VAR 93-0003 / VAR 93-0001 SUMMARY: The applicant requests: 1) Subdivision approval to divide two parcels consisting of approximately 16.28 acres into 65 lots ranging between 3,583 and 8,352 square feet in size; and 2) Sensitive Lands approval to allow the crossing and modification of an existing wetland. The following Variance requests are also a part of this application: 1) to allow narrower street widths than required by current standards for local streets; 2) to allow a cul-de-sac bulb with a smaller radius than current code standards allow; and 3) to allow a 90 foot centerline radii whereas the code requires a minimum 100 foot centerline radii. APPLICANT: Tony Bonforte -14675 SW Osprey Drive #413 Beaverton, OR 97007 OWNER: Woodside Village Limited Partnership 11440 W. Bernardo Court #265 San Diego, CA 92127 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 33CC, tax lot 600 and 1S1 33CD, tax lot 203) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102, 18,108, 18,150, 18.160 and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Background Information: An application by XYZ corporation for the construction of a 290 unit apartment complex (SDR 89-0007) was approved by the City in 1989. This approval expired after 18 months and the apartment complex was never built. HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 1 t B. Vicinity Information: -0 The site is located east of SW Scholls Ferry Road, west of SW 135th i Avenue, and north of the proposed Murray Boulevard extension. Access to the site is gained from SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW Ashbury Lane and SW Morning Hill Drive. C. Site Description: The subject parcel is undeveloped. As stated in the applicant's narrative, the site is relatively flat with the topography ranging from a high point of approximately 220 feet to a low point of 184 feet. A wetland area of approximately 3.9 acres exists within the center of the site running from the north edge to near the southern boundary. The wetland divides the property into three areas for potential development; the northeast, southeast and west portions of the site. Vegetation is limited primarily to the wetland area and consists primarily of 6 to 12 inch Alders. The balance of the site largely consists of indigenous grasses. D. Surrounding land uses: Properties on all sides of this site are zoned R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre); except for that area to the -west across Scholls Ferry Road: The immediate area is substantially developed with si,-,gle-family homes and apartments. Most of the property which is located across Scholls is currently undeveloped. The Reflections Apartment complex is northwest of the site. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS A. Community Development Code. 1. Chapter 18.56.050 contains standards for the R-25 zone. A single- family detached residential unit is a permitted use in this zone. Detached single-family residential lots in this zone must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 3,050 square feet Front setback 15 feet Garage setback 20 feet Interior sideyard setback 5 feet Corner sideyard setback 10 feet Rear setback 15 feet Maximum building height 45 feet 2. Chapter 18.84.015;C) states that landform alterations within wetland areas must meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the Division of State Lands (DSL), US Army Corps of Engineers, Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) and/or other federal, state or regional agencies. Therefore, a City of Tigard Sensitive Lands Permit for this purpose is not required. However, all other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive lands permits.for areas meeting non-wetland sensitive HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 2 land criteria. Since the drainageway on the southern end of the wetland is to be modified for the purposes of as part of the proposed development, a sensitive lands permit shall be required as per Section 18.84.015(D). This section states that such a permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within a drainageway. The approval criteria for modifications to drainageways are listed in Section 18.84.040(C). These applicable criteria ara: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; = 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the area not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will by replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; - S. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; and 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. The drainageway will be replaced by a storm drain of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow from the proposed development. Additionally, all public improvement plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineering Department prior to the recording of the plat with Washington County. ~ 3. Chapter 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created lots meet or exceed this standard. 4. Chapter 18.92.020 contains standards for density. The number of dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive land areas and land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. This land area is then divided HEARINGS OFFICER - `irOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 3 by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. 5. Chapter 18.102.030 specifies vision clearance triangles adjacent to intersections in which the height of plantings, signs, etc. are limited to three feet in height to-assure safe and adequate sight distance at intersections to reduce potential hazards from vehicular turning movements. Alternatively, trees may be limbed up to eight feet in height. i 6. Chapter 18.108.070 contains standards for single-family residential vehicular access. Additionally, a driveway which serves two residences must be a minimum of 25 feet wide with a minimum pavement width of at least 20 feet. 7. Chapter 18.150.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees having a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground on undeveloped residential land. A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria as specified in Chapter 18.150.030(A): a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere with utility service or traffic safety; b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner; C. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems; " d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a desirable balance between shade and open space; e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value of trees to be cut. 8. Chapter 18.160.060(A) contains standards for the subdividing of parcels into 4 or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: a. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; b. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; C. The streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 4 subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and d. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. 9. Chapter 18.160.120 contains standards for the approval of a subdivision variance. These criteria are: s a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; b. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; C. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and d. The variance is necessary for the preservation and i enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship 1hich would result from strict / compliance with the regulations of this title. i 1 10. Chapter 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities. a. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. b. Section 18.164.030(L)(1)(a) requires local streets to be constructed with 34 feet of pavement within a 50 foot right-of-way. This section also requires turn-arounds for cul-de-sacs to be constructed with 42 foot radius roadways with 50 foot radius right-of-ways. _ C. Section 18.164.030(?i) requires that the centerline radii of curves to be at least a minimum of 100 feet for local streets. d. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 21 times the lot width and requires at that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. e. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. f. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 5 -M 11 IN 1 111 g. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. i B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. 1. Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be i provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. 2. Policy 4.2.1 provides that all development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. 3. Policy 7.1.2 provides the City will require as a condition of development approval that public water, sewer, and storm drainage will be provided and designed to City standards and utilities placed underground. 4. Policy 7.3.1 provides the City will coordinate water services with water districts. 5. Policy 7.4.4 requires all new development to be connected to an approved sanitary sewer system. 6. Policy 7.6.1 requires that the development be served by a water system having adequate water pressure for fire protection purposes and that the Fire District review all such applications. 6. Policy 8.1.1 provides the City will plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. 7. Policy 8.1.3 provides the City will require as a precondition of approval that: j a. Development abut a dedicated street or have other adequate i access; b. Street right-of-way shall be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; C. The developer shall commit to construction of the streets, curbs, sidewalks to City standards within the development. d. The developer shall participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs, and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. l HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 6 IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS / 1. Tigard Water District states that, although they have no objections to Elm i the proposal, the District will require the extension of the existing 1 12 inch D.I. water line along SW Scholls Ferry Road as shown on the plans. The District will also require that a connection be made to an existing 8 inch D.Z. water line stubbed from the Sunflower Apartments. i As with all water line projects, approval must be gained through the Water District. 2. Tualatin.Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal. The Fire Code requires that not less than a 45 foot turning radius be provided. This is to be an unobstructed driving surface. Hydrant spacing and locations shall be approved in cooperation with the Tigard Water District. Additionally, it is requested that temporary turn-arounds be provided on long dead-ends until the street if extended. 3. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has commented: a. Each lot should have a means of discharging storm water to a public conveyance, by gravity. Untreated water from roof and foundation drains should not be discharged directly into the wetlands. b. Detailed design of the water quality facility'should be approved prior to recording of the final plat to ensure that lot configuration will not change as a result of the facility. The proposed design does not appear to provide water quality for any of the new construction west of the waterway. C. _The 25 foot buffer should be dedicated to the City of Tigard. d. Plans, as submitted, do not show wetland mitigation for road crossing and road construction impacts. [USA has not reviewed the DSL wetland mitigation permit application.] e. Detailed hydrolic and hydrological analysis of the drainageway is necessary to evaluate the impact of the road crossing as well as the backwater from the Scholls Perry-Crossing. f. Is the site a designated 100 year plain? If so, the appropriate mitigation is necessary. If not, the above noted backwater analysis should be used to protect the future dwellings from inundation in the event of a 100 year flood. g- Are any improvements to SW Scholls Ferry Road anticipated which will effect the proposed stormwater system? [Additional 8-foot right-of-way dedication and improvement.] h. Lots which abut the buffer should be fenced to prevent impact to the buffer. The Agency recommends chain li-ik fencing to allow the owner to enjoy the visual aspects of the watland. HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 7 4. GTE has reviewed this proposal and has requested that the developer/builder contact GTE at least 30 days prior to trench opening. 5. The City of Beaverton has reviewed this proposal and stated: Provide circulation plan for adjacent undeveloped parcels to assure there is an adequate number of, and location of, stub streets. 6. The City of Tigard Building Division and Operations Department, Portland General Electric, and Beaverton School District #48 have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. 7. The City received a letter from Mr. Marlin Hopfer on March 4, 1993 in opposition to this development. Mr. Hopfer•s property is located at the southern end of the development site, west of tax lot 203 and adjacent to SW Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Hopfer states that he is opposed to the downgrading of street widths and the small lot sizes proposed for this development. Reference was also made to an easement granted on June 29, 1989 for the purposes of obtaining access to sanitary and storm sewers and public water. Mr. Hopfer requests: 1) Sanitary and storm sewer lines be extended to his east property line at the lowest point of elevation; 2) Public water be extended to his property line; and 3) a fence be constructed to extend the entire length of his property line to protect him from possible liabilities. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Compliance with Community Development Code. 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the use standards of the R-25 zoning district (Section 18.56.050) because the lots are intended to be developed as single-family detached dwelling units; a permitted use in this zone. The sixty-five lots ranging from 3,583 to 8,352 square feet are all larger than the minimum 3,050 square foot minimum lot size requirement of this zone. All such lots are subject to the setback standards of the R-25 zone. Compliance with these standards will-be reviewed as part of the building permit application process for single-family homes constructed on individual lots. 2. Wetlands have been determined to exist in a basin associated with a tributary to Summer Creek. Summer Creek is located on the eastern half of the site. Both the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Oregon Department of Fish and wildlife have walked the site with OTAK and have reviewed the preliminary plans. Their suggested modifications have been incorporated into the design. The wetlands application to Oregon Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers is being made concurrent with the submittal for Preliminary Plat Approval. The required 25 foot buffer (Section 18.84.028) will be maintained along the boundary of the wetland. HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 8 The approval criteria for modifications in sensitive lands areas have been satisfied as noted below% a. The proposed land form alterations/development are the result of the minimum applied standards required in order to provide adequate access to the proposed lots on this site. variances have been requested to further reduce this impact. The applicant's development plans have attempted to avoid the wetland and drainage area other than as required to tie the development together. The number of lots proposed is considerably less that permitted. b. The proposed land form alterations/development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site or off-site effects or hazards as approved by the City Engineering Department. Erosion control measures and approved engineering designs shall be used for all such modifications. C. The water flow capacity of the drainageway will not be decreased. Plans verifying this shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Engineering Department. d. The area where vegetation is to be removed for such modifications will be replanted according to an approved on-site mitigation plan ae accepted by DSL. e. The drainageway will be replaced by a storm drain of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow as approved the City of Tigard Engineering Department. f. Required State of Oregon permits have been applied for regarding the proposed land form modification/development plans. 3. Lots 24 - 36, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 and 65 meet the basic solar access requirements as specified in Code Section 18.88.040(C)(1) _ (Solar). The front lot line orientation of these lots is within 30 degrees of true east-west. These lots also provide a minimum north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. The balance of the lots do not meet the requirements. Thirteen of the lots can be counted as the standard 20% exemption from these solar lot requirements. The balance of these lots are accepted by staff as exceptions to these standards as per Sections 18.88.040(E)(1)(a)(ii) and (iii). There is wetland area on this site which the applicant is proposing to traverse at the site's northern boundary. This wetland will remain in existence after this development is completed. In order to utilize the buildable portions of this site and to continue the established road patterns in this area, the applicant is limited in ability to create fully solar lots without significantly reducing the number of lots. Therefore, is it recommended that 33 of these 65 lots HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 9 be exempted from the solar access requirements according to the above referenced adjustments to design standards. 4. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92.020 (Density). The net developable area of the site (after deduction of the public right-of-way. and the undevelopable portions of this site) is approximately 447,361.2 square feet (10.27 acres). With a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet per dwelling unit, this site yields an opportunity for 146.7 dwelling units under the R-25 zoning designation. The applicant has proposed the creation of 65 single-family lots and therefore, complies with this standard. 5. Chapter 18.102 (visual Clearance) requires that adequate vision be provided at all road intersections. This standard shall be satisfied by adherence to the requirements regarding the height and placement of any future possible obstructions including a subdivision identification sign. Prior to. the installation of any such sign, a sign permit from the Planning Department must be obtained. The sign permit review and approval process will require a finding that the sign will be consistent with the requirements of Chapters 18.102 (Vision Clearance) and 18.114 (Signs). 6. Chapter 18.108 (Access) and Section 18.164.060(8) (Lot Frontage) are satisfied in that at least 25 feet of frontage is provided for all lots, except for lbt 36. Lot 36 is a flag lot and fronts the t public street for a distance of 20 feet whereas the cods requires only a 15 foot frontage for such lots (Section 18.162.050(C1). Therefore, all proposed lots meet the required lot frontage widths as specified by the applicable code standards. 7. The applicant has not yet applied a tree removal permit for this site as required by Section 18.150.020(E) (Tree Removal). Therefore, prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, the applicant will need to supply details identifying the type and size of trees on this site which are greater than six inches in diameter. This survey shall also indicate those trees which are proposed for removal. 8. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision approval standards of Chapter 18.160.060(A) (Subdivisions) because: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Medium-High Density Residential density opportunity for the site as well as with the applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R-25 zone, and other applicable regulations; b. The proposed name of the subdivision (Woodside) is not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County; HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 10 i C. The proposed public streets provide for adequate and safe access to the lots in this proposed subdivision. This preliminary plat also provides for an extension of an existing street stub, the termination of another, and provides two additional street stubs abutting adjacent properties. 9. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following analysis with regard to streets, sanitary sewers and storm drainage: A. Streets: The site is located west of SW Scholls Ferry Road, east of SW 135th Avenue, and north of the proposed Murray Boulevard i extension. Access to the site is gained from SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW Ashbury Lane and SW Morning Hill Drive. Southwest Scholls Ferry Road, adjacent to the site is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and is classified as a Major Collector; the City of Tigard classifies Scholls Ferry Road as an Arterial. The minimum standards for a Washington Country Major WSW Collector are as follows (all distances are from centerline: 33 feet of right-of-way, 21 feet of pavement, curb and sidewalk. Currently, along the frontage of the site, there is: 25 feet of right-of-way, approximately 14 feet of pavement, no curb and an open ditch for drainage. I Washington County was contacted about this development and has recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 33 feet from centerline of SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage, including adequate corner radius. 2. Sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve the base facility of SW scholls•Ferry Road between the two intersections with SW Old Scholls Ferry Road. 3. Establish a one-foot non-access reserve strip along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage except at the approved access location. 4. Assure that the access to SW Scholls Ferry Road will be adequately illuminated through the formation of a street lighting service district, or other measures, as approved by the County Engineering Division. 5. Assure that the sight distance is adequate at the proposed access to SW Scholls Ferry Road. 6. Obtain a facility permit for the following public improvements: HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 11 a) Concrete curb and sidewalk to county standard along the SW Scholls Ferry frontage; i b) Adequate roadway drainage along all SW Scholls Ferry frontage; C) Street intersection to County standards at the sites' access to SW Scholls Ferry Road; and d) Any traffic improvements which are required as a result of the County Traffic Analyst's review for compliance with R&O 86-95. i The City of Tigard Engineering Department concurs with most of the recommendations regarding the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage. Based on both the development size and the length of frontage on Scholls Ferry Road, the applicant should install half-street improvements rather than signing a non-remonstrance agreement. The applicant is proposing an internal local street pattern to serve this design. As part of the local- street pattern, SW Ashbury Lane will be extended to the west. It will then turn and continue north. A new street will access the site from SW Scholls Ferry Road and will head east. It will then split and continue both north and south. The extension to -the north will connect with SW Ashbury after crossing the wetland. The southern / extension will dead-end at the southern site boundary for further - extension when the adjacent property develops. The applicant is requesting for approval for several variances to the City's local .street standards for all of the internal local streets; except for the main portion of the road which has direct access to SW Scholls Ferry Road. Based on the applicant's statement, variances are being requested for the following standards: 1. Section 18. 164.030 (E) (1) (a) which requires local streets to be constructed with 34 feet of pavement within a 50 foot right-of-way. This section also requires turn-arounds for cul-de-sacs to be constructed with 42 foot radius roadways with 50 foot radius right-of-ways. 2. Section 18.164.030(M) which requires centerline radii of curves to be minimum of 100 feet for local streets. The applicant seeks approval for variances based upon the following reasons. The applicant's reasons are numbered below. The City's comment directly follows each item: 1. The westerly developable area is approximately 200 feet deep for the majority of the site. Reasonable utilization of this land area cannot occur without a reduction in the street standards. The adjacent lots would need to be made HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 12 that this is a very difficult area to access, due to previous adjacent development, and that the impacts to the wetlands should be reduced. However, a safe traffic system must also be maintained. Since a portion of this site (the wetland) is non- accessible and the size and configuration of this site is problematic for development, it is determined that a reduction in street widths is appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that all local streets within this proposal area provide a winimum of a 28 foot wide pavement section within a 42 foot wide right-of- way. By requiring this width, the depth of lots 49, 50, 55 and 56 would be affected, however they will still be able to maintain a minimum depth of approximately 85 feet- The applicant also proposes to provide access to two lots (lots 64 and 65) located in the southeast corner of the development. Currently, SW Morning Hill Drive terminates at the east property line of this site. The applicant is proposing to serve these two lots with private drives directly off the terminus of SW Morning Hill Drive. In review of the plans, the Engineering Department does not oppose the development of this portion of the site. However, there is concern with having private drives accessing directly off the terminus of a local street. The major concern is with the maintenance of the public road. If a smaller cul-de-sac were to be required, the City could maintain the road in its entirety and make the two new lots more a part of the existing development. The proposed stub street causes difficulties for street sweepers and provides no turnaround opportunity for service vehicles. In conclusion, the City Engineering Department supports portions of the variances which have been requested under Section 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) and fully supports the variance requested pertaining to Section 18.164.030(M1 (Grades and Curves). It is recommended that the applicant provide the following: 1. The local streets serving lots 1 - 42 should be built to current standards. If, at the time of approval of the construction plans, the City of Tigard has adopted new street standards, the applicant may construct the roads to the new standard. This option DOES NOT apply to that portion of the road which fronts lot 26 through lot 35. 2. The local streets to the north and east which would serve lots 43 through 62 should meet local street standards with the following exceptions: right-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of 42 feet, and the pavement width to a minimum of 28 feet. For that portion of the SW Ashbury Lane which abuts lots 57 through 61 the sidewalk on the west side may be omitted. The cul-de-sacs as shown on the preliminary plans are acceptable. 3. SW Morning Hill Drive shall terminate in a cul-de-sac with a minimum right-of-way radius of 35 feet and a pavement HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 14 J SEEM l more shallow by eight feet in order to meet the 50 foot ! right-of-way standard. The conceptual plan submitted by the applicant indicates a 25 foot right-of-way dedication along SW Scholls Ferry Road. However, Washington County is only requiring an additional 8 foot right-of- way dedication. The unnecessary 7 feet of dedication shot-m on the plat can be added directly to the proposed right-of-way width for the portion of the street adjacent to, and north of, lot seven. Therefore, the property lines of lots 1-7, 26, and 35-42 would only need to be shifted a maximum of 1 foot -in order to obtain the minimum design standards for a local street: Lots 8 through 15 could be reduced by 8 feet which would bring the street into compliance with code standards while continuing to maintain an adequate building area. 2. In order to provide a 50 foot right-of-way within the westerly portion of the site, the lots would need to be 8 feet less in depth. This would result in a majority of the lots being less the 85 feet deep which does not provide sufficient depth for reasonable house design. As stated above, lots 8 through 15 would need only be reduced by 8 feet to meet the required standards. Lois 8 through 14 have a minimum depth of 93 feet, with lot 15 being an irregular shape. By reducing the lots by 8 feet, there would still be a lot depth of at least 85 feet. This adjustment would bring that portion of the road into compliance with the code standards. The applicant would not lose any lots. 3. Approval of the variances will actually help in slowing down the local traffic. This is accomplished by the restricted pavement width and tighter curves. The Engineering Division contends that the restricted pavement width and tighter curves may, or may not, slow down the traffic. -As people in an area become accustomed to the street patterns and widths of a neighborhood, it is the Engineering Departments, i opinion that traffic will not necessarily continue to slow down. 4_ Failure to obtain the requested variances would result in greater impact on the wetlands as well as the creation of lots with less than desirable depths and building envelopes. The decreased lot depth could result in the need to request variances for individual lots for a reduction in building setbacks. Alternatively, lots may be made wider than they normally would be which would both lower the number of potential lots and result in a lower utilization of the property. The northeast portion of the development, as proposed by the applicant, shows a road pattern which crosses the wetlands to serve 20 lots. Several different road sections are proposed in this area. The Engineering Department agrees with the applicant HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 13 radius of 30 feet. All other local street standards apply. The Variance criteria of Section 18.160.120(8) (Subdivision Variance Criteria) are satisfied as recommended by the City's Engineering Department as follows: 1. These circumstances affecting this proposal are unusual and peculiar to this site as compared to other lands similarly situated. Due to the size and shape of the existing wetland, the location of the developable portions of the site and the location of existing streets, the applicant has requested variances which are largely acceptable in order to fully develop this site. 2. The smaller cul-de-sac bulb serving lots 64 and 65 is appropriate due to the present termination of SW Morning Sill Drive and the small amount of developable land beyond this point. Additionally, the 90 foot curve radius is necessary to allow adequate crossing of the wetland and proper street alignment on either side of the wetland. The construction of a 28 foot wide street within a 42 foot wide right-of-way is necessary for reasons stated by the applicant concerning probable inadequate lot depths, as well as the expected traffic impact and projected travel patterns through this subdivision. The portion of this / subdivision which would be approved for the construction of S 42 foot wide streets would still be served by two 11-foot wide travel lanes, one 6-foot wide parking lane, and two sidewalks with curbs (except that no sidewalk would be required on-the west side of SW Ashbury Lane along the wetland between lot 63 and lot 1). 3. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. 4. These variance requests are necessary for the retention of substantial property rights because of an extraordinary hardship (probable loss of lots) which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. Therefore, it is recommended that the variance requests be approved subject to the above noted modifications. B. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW Scholls Ferry Road. The applicant proposes to connect to this line and extend this sewer line to serve the proposed development. The existing line crosses Scholls Ferry Road and enters into the City of Beaverton. The applicant shall show evidence that the City of Beaverton has reviewed and accepted this proposal. In HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 15 'Tr addition, the applicant should meet any special requirements as conditioned by the City of Beaverton. C. Storm Drainage: i The applicant is proposing to collect the storm water at various points within the subdivision and direct it towards the wetlands. In addition,'a portion of the storm water from this and adjacent developments will be directed through an on-site water quality facility prior to discharging to the wetlands. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47), Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing to construct on-site water quality facilities. These facilities are proposed south of lot 63 and, if necessary, west of lot 43. 1 The applicant should be required to meet the requirements of the Oregon Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers as they pertain to the wetlands and their mitigation. Therefore, the preliminary subdivision plat is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards), or can be modified to be consistent with these requirements, because: 1. The applicant will be required to extend a westerly ( continuation of SW Ashbury Lane. Southwest Morning Hill - Drive will terminate on-site with a reduced sized cul-de- sac bulb. The improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards or as modified by variance approvals. An appropriate street connection is proposed to SW Scholls Ferry Road. A new street stub will be provided to the property to the south of the site. i 2. The proposed buildable lots 'are consistent with code standards for maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum street frontage (as previously addressed), and other applicable lot dimensional standards as required by the R-25 zoning district. 3. The existing utility lines and the applicant's preliminary plans for developing the sanitary sewer as well as public water lines will provide for adequate necessary public facilities. The applicant will also either demonstrate that the existing storm sewer system does not need to be extended to accommodate this development or, alternatively, extend the storm sewer to serve this development. B. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 16 i i 1. The subdivision is consistent with Policy 2.1.1 because notice of the application and the public hearing on this item was provided to the neighborhood planning organization (NPO #7) and to owners of property within the notification area of the site. An ad has been placed in Tigard Times which has advertised the time and place of the public hearing to be held on this application. 2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to require the developer to prepare an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River Basin as part of the grading permit application. The developer shall also construct an on-site water quality facility as required by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission and USA regulations or pay a fee-in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quality facility. The City's Engineering Department recommends the construction of such a facility as indicated on the utility plan. 3. This subdivision proposal complies with Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 because the applicant will extend public sewer and water systems to this site and will provide for underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television lines. 4. The subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 because the proposed extension and improvements to the street within and adjacent to the subdivision should contribute to a safe and efficient street system in this area. The extension of SW / - Ashbury Lane will be required to be improved consistent with these 1 adjusted City of Tigard standards for public local streets. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - The Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision, will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable local state and federal laws. -In recognition of the findings staff recommends APPROVAL of Subdivision proposal SUB 93-0001, Variance VAR 93-0003 and Sensitive Lands Review SLR 93-0001 for the proposed Woodside subdivision subject to the conditions which follow. ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IS CHRIS DAVIES IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 639-4171. 1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 33 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of- way centerline. For additional information contact Washington County / Survey Division. HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 17 NOME 2. Establish a one-foot non-access reserve strip along SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage except at the approved access location. For additional information contact Washington County Survey Division. 3. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. For additional information contact Washington County Engineering Department. 4. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington County, to-perform work within the right-of-way of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a i Public Improvement Permit. 5. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision. 1 Improvements shall be -designed and constructed to local street standards. That portion of the local streets which are east of the { western boundary of the wetlands shall install full street improvements except that the right-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of 42 feet and the pavement width to a minimum of 28 feet along with appropriate transitions. 6. For Lots 64 and 65, as shown of the preliminary plat, full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed: Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards for a cul-de-sac except that. the right-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of a 35 feet radius and the pavement width to a minimum of a 30 feet radius, with appropriate transitions. 7. If the City of Tigard has approved and adopted a new standards for local streets at the time of plan review for the construction of the public improvements, including the local streets, the applicant may utilize the new standards. 8. Lots 30/31 and 32/33, as shown on the preliminary plat, shall have a common driveway along the common property line. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms, or one approved by the Engineering Department for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 18 9. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. 10. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989. 11. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to the City of Beaverton for their approval. A copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the City of Tigard prior to the construction of any public improvements. 12. The applicant shall be required to provide an on-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. 14. Storm drainage details shall be provided as part o.Z the public I improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin service area shall be provided as a-supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 15. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of curb elevations as shown on the public improvement plans. i 16. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the public improvement plans but before starting work on the site. The applicant, the applicant's engineer and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and permits. 17. Construction of the proposed public improvements and issuance of Building Permits shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvements plans, a street opening permit or construction compliance agreements has been executed, execution of a developer-engineer agreement and the payment of all permit fees. IE. Prior to the plat being recorded with Washington County, the applicant shall provide a 100 percent performance assurance or a letter of commitment. As an alternative, the applicant may record the plat after the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 19 Oregon Department of Transportation and the appropriate Maintenance Bond has been posted. 19. A Sensitive Lands Permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the US. Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands, (Authority: Section 404, Clean Water Act, and ORS 541.605 and 641.695). A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department by the 1 applicant. i 20. The applicant shall provide, as a minimum, a 25 foot buffer along the drainageways and along the boundary of the wetland areas which meets the requirements of Section 6.08, of R&O No. 91-47. 21. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit^ from the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. i 22. Prior to the recording of the Plat with Washington County, the City of Tigard will ensure the "street plugs" are dedicated to the public. The "street plugs" are shown as Tracts "D" and "E" on tax map 1S1 33CD. 23. A tree survey identifying the type and size of all trees on the site which are over 6 inches in diameter shall be submitted. This survey shall also specify those trees which are proposed for removal in connection with the construction of public improvements. A tree removal permit shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior _ to the removal of any such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Victor Adonri, Planning Division. THE APPLICANT-SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 24. A tree survey identifying the type and size of all trees on the site which are•over 6 inches in diameter shall be submitted. This survey shall specify those trees which are proposed for removal in connection with the construction of residences. A tree removal permit shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to the removal of any such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT. Victor Adonri, Planning Division. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. 2r,-( '1-," -3-T-S Prepared By: Ron Pomeroy Date Assistant Plainer Approve S Dick Bewe s orff Date Senior P anner HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 20 . coo ~ s~ rn I Im ' I~ S.W. { Iz WILTON (o Iz TBURY TERR ~ r, cT. I I N Ilk. x -'-8'W..- \ 13811 AVE. loo &%V 1341h .11 . 13 1h PL Ave. 0 :014 C) z m~ o 4) sty a r '3Pd P 4 1 ~ . O ~ 0 y 13~*sd gy'p` C S,Av133rd s -ca r 'y . ~ ~ , '.3 11 lu N . u 1l. e. r , • " , ? ~ i,i . ' ~ r ~ ~ j 1 r N 1 I ~ //yrlj \ i 1V A c R 1 t{ , j N 1~ S` O~ ~ L14ILIp~1 ~ t ; ~ r 1 111111 flf(~ i N • , ,b t 1 w 1 4 l1 I J ~ ca 0 t.- 8 \ i a 1 m ~I WOODSIDE ~ fill ►Ifill 1, C/ 0- Beaverton :!5/aslg3 Schools District 48 Jerry Pflug P.O. Box 200 Beaverton, Oregon 97075-0200 Executive Director 503/591-4303 Facilities Planning and Construction May 25, 1993 TO. Members of the Tigard City Council FROM: Jerry Pflug, Executive Director Facilities Planning and Construction RE: Woodside Village (SUB 93-0001) Beaverton School District is not trying to slow or stop growth. The District is only attempting to meet the responsibility to provide a quality education-in an adequate school facility-for every young person who shows up on the District's doorstep. Over the past five years, District-wide enrollment has increased by 24%, an increase of over 5,000 students. The majority of this growth (73%) has occurred at the elementary level-enough students to fill eight elementary schools. In addition to the students already in the system, the District has on record over 8,000 dwellings which have been approved by jurisdictions within the District. These are approved dwellings which are not occupied at this time. Metro projects 28,000 single-family and multi-family residential units will be built in the Beaverton School District in the next 20 years. The District estimates that the additional student enrollment generated by this new development will require $100 million worth of new school facilities. In 1990 a citizens task force determined that projected enrollment by 1999/2000 would require two new elementary schools, a new middle school, a new high school, and substantial additions to several existing schools. The task force recommended a $98.3 million bond measure. After three attempts, Beaverton voters approved a bond measure totaling $54.9 million. As a result, a single new elementary school was built which was nearly filled to capacity the day it opened last fall. That school is Nancy Ryles Elementary, the elementary school which serves the proposed Woodside Village development. A new middle school and high school are also under construction on two of the last pieces of land which the District had banked for future use. When these schools open, they are also projected to be filled to capacity. Beaverton's current three high schools-Beaverton, Sunset, and Aloha-are among the five largest H the state. With the opening of the new middle school and high school in September 1994, all boundaries will be realigned to maximize the available capacity at each school. In conjunction with the boundary changes, the District will also reconfigure the grade levels to K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. You have before you this evening a revised statement based on the proposed new boundaries, grade reconfiguration, and the impact of those developments already approved. I would like to spend a few minutes walking you through the revised statement so that you can appreciate the impact new development is having on Beaverton School District. It is also important for you to know that even after reconfiguration, elementary schools will be at an average 110% of capacity across the District. Elementary schools serving the southwest portion of the District will continue to be significantly over capacity and are also very close to receiving "inadequate" ratings. In order to evaluate proposals for new developments, the District goes through a detailed analysis. If you refer to the top sheet of your packet, I will walk you through that evaluation. • Available School Capacity Number of classrooms times 24 students per classroom at the elementary level. Nancy Ryles is an 18 classroom school, thus the figure 432. • P Qr jected Enrollment - September 1994 Enrollment projections were provided by the Center for Population Research and Census at Portland State University. Kindergarten has been calculated at one-half as only half of the kindergarten students are at the school at any one time. You see the figure 423. • Enrollment Impact of Prior Approved Developments In this case, the District projects an additional 279 elementary students from developments which have been approved--by Washington County, the City of Beaverton, or the City of Tigard--within the Nancy Ryles boundary. You can see the detail for this calculation on the following page. I think you will agree, recent approvals have a very significant impact on Nancy Ryles school. • Enrollment Impact of this Development This proposal is projected to generate 40 school-age students; 23 at the K-5 level, 10 at grades 6-8, and 7 at grades 9-12. Factors used to make these projections are based on actual door-to-door surveys conducted in new developments throughout the District. • Potential School Enrollment Column 5 reflects the potential school enrollment. As you can see, the potential at Nancy Ryles is 725 students. That is 293 students over capacity. This would require 12 portables-an impossibility for that school's core facility and site. This we project will occur within five years. The District understands the Tigard Comprehensive Plan does not require the approval of development plans based upon the overloading of local school capacities. However, the District believes it would be irresponsible if we did not bring this issue to the attention of the City Council. PJI.SV. V-o Sft r-,aAW-d i* V1rT.prd Cq Ca• 0123/93 I BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIS"I121C1- CI'!l'/Ct.)UN I'1' Sl:RYICI: NROVIDl:R STA'rE.%1EN r FOR RE•.SIDENIIAL D1iVEL01'N41iNr l~ Naau of Dcvelo mein or Dc clo scr 1d00DS I DE VILLAGE { f Date MAY 21. 1993 Numixr of Units- Single-fanny 65 \lulti-familN n ill 1:1 ltl I.1f IS) Avatl:ddc Ronznd Fnnrllatcnt InyaiI'll Pilot lilrollowill Potential School lhm'hl St. IIIM,I Seviefnlx71 111• VP)4 Aplnnsrd I1111mo of III]% [Atli ('a ,.w tIS I nl,dlun•nf Ikvclo nncuts lkvett vnCnt lunn of n+lumns :,t•4 farnicilLU) Nancy Rvles 432 423 279 23 725 %I 1,111C Sc11„td Iiew Middle S. 111100 938 146 10 1094 High S,h(Klt• Aloha 2000 2208 176 7 2391 (For explanation of columns 1 Ihmugh S, see code on Icverse ude) r U;~non pn,~rJnt..r.J ofr•n mollrnent v ill xuhxten4JJly rrJtar prufr, ted enmlhnent Sy11y~1~i Bch:~,tltvP:f~1 'Vitplalc %Ol-lis):oa1l.Iblr tala,ny ls;Idrylmlc. Will addumnal lnt(Knlauon we Schedule A. Maws of Educational Stan ardi and Quality' Indicators for Cone Few dlty Capacity, and Schtall Stiles :md Portable Classroom Analysis.) _ ! _ ltc~lequue Schad(s) asadahlc c:qr:icily is inaikyuate. (For additional information) we Schedule A. Status of Educational Stanttuds and Quality lndlcalm% for C%KC Facility Capacity, and School Sitcs and Portable Classroom Analvsis.) 1 1 he , , rr Jd; tLt,rt /mtn,mm~. , afrtertd. hhtdr ri hire tnadryuale to support ,41da-nal sludrNs Claw'-, ; ,>l,d, 0n t, -t,lrnptdtr L. Cupp, +t uJ.Lt,„n.t! tluJ,•nt. 1 he Hod, rrn,n 1, 1l„lru I J,vt n,a N-he r rh.n a Juffi, teal an-al ,gvvdnng tm,wnr t„ rdurdle addtttttn,d rluJrrtls. with-a .1-nt•raJtng thr eJu,dlt(,n rr:rn hv it tludentt. ~1{'f1etl l _ - hrr~Palt :x. )it-. F,Icilitic_. IlLiniinq I. Coristxuct.ion kes Iced t! 1. .,•,..t tmr.,I ,t.tamm~t i, h,r Ihr •,.,tr nd., .4•d d, u•i,~pmrnt. m,l I, uhd 1 r 120 d r. 5,19/91 10112/9: 41X/9) " 5/20/9) '('OI)E Column Available school capacity reflects the available c;tp;rrrty after adjustments fur Special I'ducauon pnlgram accununoxiatioIts. Available capacity does not include current or potential portables. ('o t 1 binrollntent doc\ not Include students housed in special programs. At the element<en level, kindergarten has been computed at one-half. I'roleLted enrollment 1\ baud on 1994 attendance boundaries and K-5. o-S, 9-12 grade configuration. Cohmn. t ; Enrollment impact of previously approved developments--determined by School District housing formula. (See School Disvirt hmoing Jor•nu lti below.) Calculations are based on approved developments and an estimate of unoccupied dwellings as of September 1994. "lltc number of approved dwellings is multiplied by a factor of .8 as experience indicates only 80% of all approved developments are actually constructed. Column •1 Enrollment unpact of reque\ted devclopvnent - dcteminned by School UI\tnct hoosutg formula. Colunin 5 Potential school enrollment--determined by the sum of columns 2, 3. and 4. Column 5 is evaluated in conjunction with available capacity, Status of Educational Stand;irds and QualuN lndicators for Core Facility Capacity, and the number of pwrt ibles which could to sited to acconunMate overcapacity. -Ilii\ evaluation will place the request for development in "adequate" or "inadequate" category. j,S (()I_I)IS-IKI('1IIf)l'SIN(iF(>K\111 \FOR NEW IIEVELC)1'S1EN-J Sj111~1e-Family D++ellmb\ .36 elementary student%perdwelling (K-5) .10 in tennediate students per dwelling (6-8) .11 high ahool studenv, per eh+elhng (9.12) ~tulUplc t antlly Dssrllntcs .08 elenentan students pcr ds+elling (K-5) .O3 rntcmtcdrate students per dwelling (6-8) 113 high sch0xil students per ds+elhng (9.12) 0 BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT School: Nancy Ryles (New MS/AHS) Date Updated: May 20, 1993 --I_ - - I LESS ESTIMATE OF I I I OCCUPIED UNITS I NET I I APPROVED I AS OF SEPT. 1994 I APPROVED ] I I I ( DATE I APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS I SF I MF I SF I MF I SF I MF I TOTAL I I I I I I i 01 I I I I I i 01 I I I I I I I I i 5/86 IMurrayhill (692 lots through Murrayhill No.24) I 585 1312 ] 385 I 312 I 200 i 0 I I MF - 312 (Meridian) I I I I I I I I SF - 585 (within Nancy Ryles) I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 0I I 4/90 ITimberline 1 15 I I 15 I 1 0 1 1 1 i I I I 01 I 01 6/90 (Castle Hill (10/91 - approval extended) I 190 1 I 50 I I 140 I I 1 (additional 12 acres--possibly 250 MY not app.) 1 1 I I I I 1 5/91 IMorning Hill No. 8- Phase I=42 I 84 1 I 58 i 1 26 1 0 1 IFieldcrest Court (approval expired) 266 MF I I ] 1 I I i I I 10/91 ]Rose Meadows i 28 0 28 6/92 (Bull Mt. Meadows I 443 I I 93 I ] 350 I I '2 ISunwood Farm 1 153 1 ] 43 1 1 110 1 1 l ._/92 (Windsor Park ( 76 1 1 16 ( I 60 1 1 1/93 (Country Gables II I 1248 I I 0 I I 248 I I I f I I I I I I { I I 1 i I I I I i i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 f 1 I I i I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I i I ] I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I i I 1 1 I { TOTAL I 11574 1560 I 660 I 312 I 914 I 248 { 1 Total Dwellings x .8 ] 731 ] 198 ] 1 Projected Elementary Students (SF =.36, MF =.08) 1 263 1 16 1 279 I Projected Middle School Students (HP) (SF =.16, MF =.03) I 117 I 6 ( 123 Projected High School Students (BHS) (SF =.11, MF =.03) I 80 I 6 I 86 (Corrected by Board Action on April 12, 1993; replaces document distributed on April 8, 1993) i STATEMENT TO THE CITY AND COUNTY REGARDING BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT'S HOUSING CAPACITY The growth of the Beaverton School District in the 1980's and early 1999s is well documented. This growth, plus the projected growth to the year 2010 has prompted the School District to update its position on accommodating this increase in student enrollment. It has come to the District's attention that there is some confusion at both Washington County and the City of Beaverton as to the School District's ability to handle this growth. The following statement has been prepared to explain the School District's current position regarding student housing capacity. ht order to generate the funds necessary to construct new schools to accommodate its unprecedented student growth, the Beaverton School District conducted three capital construction bond elections between June of 1990 and June of 1991. Ultimately, in June of 1991, a bond issue for $54.9 million was approved by the community. To determine facility needs contained in the bond, the District utilized student enrollment projections which were provided by Portland State Center for Population Research and Census in December 1989. Based on those projections, the District believed a bond would provide adequate capacity through 199912000. Per the past three years however enrollment has grown at a higher rate than forecasted b3 these projections particularly at the elementary level. In conjunction with the boundary study that the School District currently has underway, the Population Center updated the short tent enrollment projections. For this study, the population center was also able to access 1990 census data which provided numbers of pre-school age children. in addition, the Population Center prepared long-range projections in five year increments to 2010. The following is a comparison of the two projections for 1994 and projections for 2010: Projections provided by Projections provided by Projections provided by PSU. Dec. 1989 PSU, Oct. 1992 PSU, Jan. 1993 1994-95 1994-95 Year 2010 K-5 12,478 14.200 16.657 f 6-S 6.935 6,880 8.546 ( 9-12 8.312 8.058 11,469 TOTA1, 27,725 29,138 36,672 Current Building Capacity Funded Capacity Available 1992-93 19194-95 Elementary Level *12,936 * 12,936 Middle School Level 6,000 7,000 High School Level" 6,600 9,600 UiS'rRICT TOTAL, 25,536 29,536 • Adjusted for Special Education uses; does not include portable classrooms lrucludes CE Mason in 1992 and Aferlo Station in 1991 Capacity figures are batted on 24:1 student/teacher ratio at the elementary level, and on the standards, established by the School Board at the secondary level (1.000 middle. 2,000 high school). School ft school individual student capacities arc crtrr nt,y "rider reriew. You will be notified if significant changes are made. It is clear that the School District is currently unable to horse children in conic of the schools. particularly in Cite southwest quadrant of the School District Even with the new facilities provided by the .$54.9 million bond measure. boundary adiusiments and reconfiguration of the grades which will take Vkce in 1994, there will not be enough additional student housing capacity to correct the problem_i_n came arras of the School District. As a result i2f this updated information it is apparent that the facility needs the District have changed and adequate capacity will not be available through 199912000 as originally projected in 1989. Over the past three years the School District has studied other student housing alternatives. The one document which supplied the most direction on this topic was written by James Redden, then Attorney General, who rendered an opinion on June 11. 1979, which clarified the intent of the LCDC requirements relating to the approval of subdivisions and the "burden of proof of the adequacy of existing or planned school facilities to accommodate anticipated increases in school enrollment." Based on the nine alternatives that Attorney General James Redden identified in his 1979 ruling, the School District developed a response to each of those alternatives. (Sec attached document: School District Consideration 0f blousing Alternatives to Provide Adequate Levels of Service.) Aderle by t++un A Ii m+rN~r+rrv.ur d+IM AenIA. !W: h Schedule A BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LEVELS OF SERVICE 1. AMOUNT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS - Beaverton School District has authorized but unissued bonded indebtedness. The authorized bond measure commits these funds to construction of facilities which will not provide additional capacity in all areas. In the judgement of the District's School Board, an attempt to obtain voter approval to incur additional bonded indebtedness for the foreseeable future would be unsuccessful. Given the impact of the property tax limitation and the District's current financial situation there is no plan to ask the voters for additional capital construction funds at this time. 2. USE OF DOUBLE SHIFTING, EXTENDED SCHOOL PERIODS, OR MULTI- TRACK PEAR-ROUND SCHOOL - The report of the District's Student Housing and Facilities Utilization Task Force to the Superintendent dated January 17, 1991, and the subsequent Superintendent's recommendation approved by the Board on February 25, 1991, proposed further investigation of double or triple shifting, extended school periods, and multi-track year-round school. Such options would involve major policy, program, and fiscal changes for the District. The District does not believe that at present the non-bond alternatives are viable rg~ponses to the need for additional school capacity generated by individual residential development applications. The initiatives of House Bill 3565 (the Katz Bill) move in the direction of a longer school day and/or year for students, which double shifting or multi-track year-round school would make very difficult, if not impossible. 3. BUSING TO UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES - The District presently has no underutilized facilities, either nearby or throughout the District, to serve the additional enrollment projected by the proposed development. Extensive busing of students is also contrary to the District's { policy of providing neighborhood schools. + 4. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES - Beaverton School District opened a new elementary school and 24 additional permanent classrooms in September of 1992. It will also open Merlo Station, a technical high school in 1993, and a new middle school and a new high school in September of 1994. These schools will provide permanent new capacity at those levels. This capacity is necessary to serve students projected to be in Beaverton schools by the time those facilities open. In September of 1994, the District will move sixth graders to middle schools and ninth graders to high school. This will reduce available capacity at high schools and increase capacity at elementary schools. By that time, the District will have reviewed all attendance boundaries for possible adjustments. The District does not have funds to construct new facilities to serve students from additional developments. Further, the limitations imposed by Measure 5 mean that the Beaverton School District may not have sufficient funds to operate (heat, light, custodial services, principal, secretary, etc.) additional facilities. 5. PORTABLE CLASSROOMS - The District Board of Directors has adopted a new policy which states that portable classrooms may in some circumstances be used for an extended period of time. However, they are not to be utilized as a permanent solution to school housing needs. There is no prospect that any new portables would be replaced by permanent capacity in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the purchase and siting of additional portable classrooms is neither educationally or fiscally appropriale. 6. IMPACT FEES - In the opinion of the District's legal counsel, the District does not have statutory authority to impose impactl'ees. 7. COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVES - The District does not consider combination of the above alternatives as providing adequate additional school capacity. 4/12193 BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT September 30, 1992 SCHOOL SITES AND PORTABLE CLASSROOMS The Beaverton School District has a School Board policy on the use of portable classrooms. Policy 3562.1 is as follows: Assignment of portable classrooms to a school will depend upon the number of students enrolled over the permanent capacity of the school, projections for continued growth in enrollment, and availability of portable classrooms. Portable classrooms may also be assigned for special needs such as remodeling or new construction in progress, and pilot programs. Enrollment needs will be given first priority. Portable classrooms may in some circumstances be used for an extended period of time. However, they are not to be utilized as a permanent solution to school housing needs. There are numerous considerations for the placement of a portable at any school. The number of portables to be sited and exact location(s) cannot be ascertained until a formal application for Development Review is submitted to Washington County or the City of Beaverton. However, the evaluation of each school site for portable placement by the School District must first take into account the ability of the core facilities (i.e., cafeteria, library, gym, restrooms) to house additional students. Secondly, the following technical criteria must also be addressed: A. Overall size of site B. Contours of ground C. Relationship to main facility D. Interference to athletic/play areas E Locations of easements, utility lines F. Fire hydrant and access availability G Zoning and setback requirements H. Parking stalls available Utilizing this criteria the District has placed all schools into one of four categories. With all the many variables present at each site, it is impossible to break them out equally. At some schools one standard may be given more relative importance than at another. GOOD - Site is of desirable size (10-12 acres elementary, 20-25 acres middle school, 40- 45 acres high school) and is basically flat. There are existing fire hydrants within 150 feet, and hard surface access roads within 150 feet of possible portable locations. The location does not encroach upon play areas, both hard or soft, nor interfere with athletic/play fields. The site offers locations not already encumbered with easement and utility lines, yet still allows for relatively easy student access into the main building. FAIR - Site meets most of the above standards, except the locations are farther from the main building with less than easy access for students. The sites do not offer level areas, but are usually workable in some manner. The locations are fringing along play areas and athletic fields. POOR - Site meets few of the necessary standards. Available workable locations would need additional fire hydrants and access roads installed, and/or encroach upon athletic/play field areas. EXTREME - Site is already small and space filled up with the building. leaving little play or athletic areas. Contours are extreme with little or no level area available. Hydrants and access roads are not available. Parking spaces would be compromised. 3 BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT { NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PORTABLES BY SCHOOL SITE'S i Good 0- 7 Fair 0- 5 Poor 0- 3 Extreme 0- 1 i Beaver Acres Aloha Park Chehalem Cedar Mill Elmonica Barnes Errol Hassell Ridgewood i Hiteon Bethany Kinnaman West TV Oak Hills Cooper Mt. McKay Rock Creek Fir Grove Nancy Ryles Greenway Raleigh Hills Hazeldale Five Oaks McKinley Highland Park Montclair Aloha High Meadow Park Raleigh Park Mt. View Sexton Mt." Terra Linda Vose Wm. Walker Cedar Park Whitford Beaverton High C.E. Mason Sunset High See School Sites and Portable Classroom explanation dated 9/30/92 Had 7 portables on site by special agreement with the City of Beaverton. The sixth and seventh were only allowed with provision that they had to be removed when Nancy Ryles opened PrluglPorrableslSchool Sites 6 Porrible Clsrms