Loading...
City Council Packet - 07/27/1993 2` W CITY OF TICARD '•4~• w•»,.r. ,Kr•• OREGON ' : ' art..:. ~ , AGENDA f K < x . , PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up t . t . x 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. • STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Library Board Appointments - Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin - Resolution No. 93-.::~3 3.2 Authorize Acquisition of asements for Industrial Area Sewer Capital Improvement Project - Resolution No. 93-,LY 3.3 Approve the Formation of a Reimbursement District for a Sanitary Sewer Line for Randy and Janette Wilder - Resolution No. 93-25 3.4 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign - Resolution No. 93-3LP 3.5 Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met to Allow for Construction of a Bus Turnout in Conjunction with the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Consent Agenda Continued on the Next Page..... If COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 1 i S6 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award the Contract for Construction of the 93-94 Pavement Major Maintenance Program and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder b. Award the Contract for Construction of the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder C. Award the Contract for Construction of the 96th Avenue Sidewalk Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with All Concrete Specialties, Inc. ' d. Award the Contract for Construction of the Bonita Road East Railroad Approach Improvement Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder. e. Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the 100th/McDonald Storm Drainage Project 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF: GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EVALUATION • Report from Community Development Department `RPS at~ Gt 3 - 7 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93- 0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of "Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 10BB, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Appeal) Opponents (Oppose the Appeal) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Motion for Final Order COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 2 i 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0005 - A request by the City of Tigard to amendment Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters 18.30, 18.32, end 18.142 of the City of Tigard Community Development regarding the establishment of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to broaden citizen participation and replace the existing Neighborhood Planning Organization structure. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - City Administration Department • Public Testimony Proponent (Supports Amendments) Opponent (Opposes Amendments) • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing G • Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 93- 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATE A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION - Consideration of the vacation of the southerly five feet of the 15-foot wide storm drainage easement which crosses the northern lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of the Jubilee Place Subdivision. The request was initiated by the City Council on June 22, 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller, President of New Castle Homes, Inc. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by July 27, 1993, by 7:30 p.m. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Vacation) Opponents (Oppose the Vacation) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 93t; u 8. UPDATE: HART LAKE ISSUE • Community Development Department 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10 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. 11. ADJOURNMENT cca0727.93 COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 3 Council Agenda Item , 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Nels Mickaelson, Assistant Planner/GIS `r Specialist; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Agenda Review: Council briefly reviewed business agenda and discussed process on how the meeting would be conducted. Mayor announced that Council agenda items for the Gage and Hart properties (Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 8 respectively) were not public hearings; therefore, no public testimony would be taken during the business meeting. Miscellaneous Items for Revi w: A. Councilor Fessler noted she was helping to coordinate the Tigard Country Daze Parade. She advised she would like to know, as soon as possible, how many Councilors plan to ride in the parade. B. Letter concerning billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. Ed Murphy responded to a Councilor question, advising he had received a letter questioning the legality of a billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. Community Development Director Murphy advised he will be asking for a formal legal opinion on this sign. C. Solid Waste Transfer Station at Wilsonville. Councilor Hunt reported that Rena Cusma of Metro has formally announced her opposition to a transfer station at Wilsonville. There will be a meeting on i August 7, 1993 to consider an appeal of this decision. Metro Councilors Kvistad and Devlin have been attending the meetings where this issue has been discussed. They have recommended the Wilsonville Transfer Station be built. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 1 Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:55 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h), & (1) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current & pending litigation issues, and performance evaluation of a public officer. Meeting recessed at 7:15 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Business Meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Note: Several persons signed on Visitor's Agenda reference the Gage property issue - Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Edwards announced again that public testimony on this issue would not be received at this meeting. Mayor Edwards also advised the Hart property issue would be heard at the beginning of the agenda, instead of towards the end of the agenda, where it had been originally scheduled.) • Mr. Jack Polans noted he would be writing a letter requesting financial impact information with the recent appointment of King City Administrator John Buol to serve, approximately 16 hours per week, as interim Administrator to the S.E. Washington County Joint Water Agency. • Vlasta Bevcar Barber and Pat Anderson Keerins submitted a letter to the Council which thanked the City for their efforts in the Class of 1943 High School Reunion. Ms. Barber and Ms. Keerins reported on the reunion; it was a great success! • Mary Tobias, President of the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC) presented to the Council a copy of the book, DQina Business in Washington County, 1993-94, which was compiled by TVEDC. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda items 3.1 through 3.5 as presented. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes".) 3.1 Approve Library Board Appointments - Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin - Resolution No. 93-33 3.2 Authorize Acquisition of Easements for Industrial Area Sewer Capital Improvement Project - Resolution No. 93-34 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 2 3.3 Approve the Formation of a Reimbursement District for a Sanitary Sewer i Line for Randy and Janette Wilder - Resolution No. 93-25 3.4 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign - Resolution No. 93-3B 3.5 Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met to Allow for Construction of a Bus Turnout in Conjunction with the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda items 3.6(a) through (e) as amended by the addendum as outlined in the July 22, 1993 Memorandum from Gary Alfson to Randy Wooley. (This memo is filed with the Council packet materials). The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") (Update on the Hart property issue was heard at this time - see Agenda Item No. 8 for a summary of this issue). 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF: GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EVALUATION • Community Development Director Ed Murphy summarized this issue for the City Council. He overviewed the process followed to date. Mr. Nels Mickaelson, Assistant Planner/GIS Specialist, presented the Council with slides illustrating several angles and views of the subject property. • Mr. Murphy reviewed the LID process, which looked as follows: - Petition by at least 50% of affected property owners who have signed. - Neighborhood meeting. - Report to Council. - Council calls for an Engineering report. - Engineering report to Council. - Council calls for a hearing. - Notices sent. - Remonstrances tallied. - Public Hearing. - LID is formed. - Improvements completed. - Notices sent. - Public Hearing for setting of LID assessment. - Ordinance adopted. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 3 Financing made available. 1 ( - Bills mailed out. (Community Development Director noted he made the initial decision of the boundaries of the possible LID area). 1 Lengthy Council discussion followed. Community Development Director Murphy answered questions and advised the process was at the stage where staff was reporting to Council and Council, by the proposed resolution, could call for the Engineering report. Community Development Director Murphy, in response to Council questions, advised he thought there was barely over 50% who were in favor of proceeding with the LID process. Mr. Murphy advised that the Police Chief reported there were no unusual problems which would be represented by the formation of a natural area LID. There was a review and discussion of a concern expressed regarding whether the I Engineering study costs should be borne by the general public or whether the funds should come from the petitioners. Councilor Hunt noted his preference was that the general public should not pay for an Engineering study. The remaining Councilors, after discussion, concurred that since it appeared that approximately 50°1 of the people wanted to explore this issue further, they would be willing to approve the resolution. Other concerns included the fact that Council would want to revisit the boundaries to determine if those benefitted were, in fact, included in the boundary, and to determine where the support was for the LID. Mayor Edwards expressed some hesitancy, and asked specifically if there was some certainty that over 50% of the affected property owners were in favor of proceeding with the LID. Community Development Director Murphy responded that it looked as if there were 50%, noting that additional names were submitted to staff just prior to the meeting. Staff would need to check the names to make sure they were valid. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 93-37. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 4 RESOLUTION NO. 93-37 - A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO HAVE PREPARED A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING A NATURE PRESERVE AND MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY SW HALL BLVD., SW DURHAM ROAD, SW 79TH AVENUE AND SW ASHFORD STREET. Resolution No. 93-37 was adopted by a majority of Council present. (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") Councilor Schwartz clarified that final boundaries were not yet determined and would be set at a later date. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93-0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of "Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 10BB, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. A. Public Hearing was opened. B. Declarations or challenges. Councilor Fessler advised she had visited the site today. C. Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff gave the staff report which included a synopsis of the proposal as presented to the Planning Commission. Since that hearing, the applicant, along with the neighborhood, has worked on an alternative proposal. Staff believes this development would be acceptable, with certain conditions. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 5 D. Public Testimony: Legal Counsel Coleman advised that for a person to appeal at a later date, he or she must raise their issues at this meeting, or they may not be able to appeal the issue beyond the City Council level. He noted that a continuance on the issues, if requested, would be dealt with at the time such a request was made. • Mr. Robert Ames, 12500 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, advised Council he wanted to develop a high quality subdivision, with a broad base of neighborhood support. The applicant reviewed the process followed. He advised he agreed to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. • Mr. Gary Katsion of Kittleson and Associates, 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, Oregon, 97205, advised the property was designed to mesh with the area. He noted that with regard to transportation, the design of the Ames Orchard subdivision would ultimately comply with the safety and operational standards set for the area. • Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, advised that he represented those individuals for the Matrix Development in a nearby area. He advised he was in support of the Ames Orchard No. 2 subdivision, providing that the applicants participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism for the construction of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer cited Code Section 18.164.030(a) as the basis for his argument that the applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan B" was acceptable to them. • Mr. James Welch, 14340, SW Hazelhill Drive, Tigard, Oregon, President of the Ames Orchard Homeowner's Association, submitted written testimony which noted the Ames Orchard Homeowner's Association was in unanimous support of the modified loop street plan submitted by Ames/Rockwell, which provides a second access to the proposed development through the northwest portion (Plan B). AOHA finds this proposal consistent with the written and oral testimony presented by members of the Planning Commission meetings of April 5 and June 7, 1993. (Please see written testimony on file with the Council packet material.) This recommendation that the Council approve Plan B was contingent upon the northwestern access being partially improved as indicated on the submitted plate. AOHA requested that full improvement of the remaining access route CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 6 k not be required unless and until the property to the west (Tax Lot 200) applies for development. • Steve Reinhart, 14035 SW 125th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, advised he was the owner of Tax Lot 200. He noted he was in support of Plan B, but requested that the northwestern access not be completed until such time as future development is requested. He asked if conditions he requested were not met by the City Council, that the record remain open for seven days. • Mark Rockwell, 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, noted he supported the new proposal. He added that as a representative for Mr. Ames, he believed the new proposal provided some solutions to the issue of the zone of benefit for pro-rating the cost of the improvements to Gaarde Street. e. Public hearing closed. f. Staff Recommendation: Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that given the testimony and the modifications as presented in Plan B, staff recommended that the City Council approve Plan B. Mr. Bewersdorff requested that Council direct staff to prepare a final order with findings outlining the conditions including reimbursement district criteria for the Gaarde Street extension improvements. Councilor Fessler suggested it may be appropriate to send the issue, with the changes, back to the Planning Commission for their review. Senior Planner Bewersdorff responded that staff did not recommend that this issue go back through the Planning Commission process. Staff would prepare a detailed explanation to the Planning Commission, outlining the changes made and noting areas where conditions had been filled by the developer. Councilor Hawley questioned whether future Councils could be bound by the connection adjacent to Tax Lot 200. Legal Counsel Coleman noted that the findings could include a condition that the extension would be completed at the time of development approval for this area. Any change to these conditions would mean that the issue would have to go back through the Planning process. There was brief discussion on notification to the Planning Commission, outlining the changes made. There was also a question on the wording for the reimbursement district on Gaarde Street. Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted the condition of the reimbursement district could be written to specify CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 7 that details forming the district would be prepared at a later date. It was noted that the Vista Point (Matrix) subdivision may not be done as quickly as this one; therefore, there is a timing element which will also need to be addressed. There was Council discussion on the change in the new proposal. Of special concern to Councilor Fessler was the Transportation Plan. She suggested it may be better planning to condition the development to reserve the prospect of a future connection between 121st and Bull Mountain Road. g. After discussion on the traffic configuration, a motion was made by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to direct staff to prepare a final order, with findings and conclusions which would approve the development as proposed in "Plan B." h. The motion was approved by a majority of Council present. (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes;" Councilor Fessler voted "no".) The meeting recessed at 9:34 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0005 - A request by the City of Tigard to amendment Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters 18.30,18.32, and 18.142 of the City of Tigard Community Development regarding the establishment of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to broaden citizen participation and replace the existing Neighborhood Planning Organization structure. A. Public Hearing Opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Involvement Coordinator Newton reviewed the staff report. She advised that the historical references to the neighborhood planning organizations would not be deleted. Ms. Newton referred to the Planning Commission review and their vote to modify the appeal fee waiver section to allow Council to waive the fee for any party as appropriate. A resolution setting forth the guidelines for fee waivers would be prepared for Council review and approval. _ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 8 There was review of the staff report and proposed ordinance. It was noted that on the exhibit for Chapter 18.30, on Page 57, a letter (e) would be inserted which would say "the individual recognized by the effective CIT as contact person." This would be consistent with the provisions as noted on page 59, letter (d). D. Public Testimony: Mr. Jack Polans signed in to testify. He advised he wanted to speak to the topic of CIT facilitator training. Mayor Edwards advised Mr. Polans this was not a subject of the public hearing. Mr. Polaris responded that he would send a letter to the Council outlining his concerns on the training. E. Public Hearing closed. F. ORDINANCE 93-19: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 18.30, 18.32, AND 18.142 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.2 AND THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOLLOWING POLICY 2.1.3 AND 11.5.1, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 82-13 AND 82-14. G. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Ordinance 93-19, with the change as previously noted on Page 57 to reflect consistency with similar wording on Page 59. H. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote p, y s e of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATE A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION - Consideration of the vacation of the southerly five feet of the 15-foot wide storm drainage easement which crosses the northern lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of the Jubilee Place Subdivision. The request was initiated by the City Council on June 22, 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller, President of New Castle Homes, Inc. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by July 27, 1993, by 7:30 p.m. A. Public Hearing Opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff report was summarized by Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 9 D. Public Testimony: Jay Miller, PO Box 23291, Tigard, Oregon, 97281, advised he was the applicant and was present to answer any questions. E. Councilor Schwartz asked a question and received clarification of the location of the storm drain. F. Public Hearing Closed. G. ORDINANCE NO. 93-20: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE 15 FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH LIES ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. H. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 93-20. 1. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") 8. UPDATE: HART PROPERTY ISSUE • Community Development Department - Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff advised that activity on the property was suspended until an engineering study is completed and determination made as to whether the property is in a floodplain. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. 10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:07 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h), & (i) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current & pending litigation issues, and performance evaluation of a public officer 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. 4~~VV. u 1,0h ta2y Attest ~atherine Wheatley, City Recor r =Mayor, City of Tigard Date: <S~ -/Xi3 h:\recorder\ocm\ccm0727.93 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 10 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Lisa IT 7624 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6S4•0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 it"9l[t Legal Notice Advertising The following will W coaWsred by the Tk"d City Cmwn bias • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheetf1493 a21:30P.MoRtThWdCivicCenter. Town 25 W. 13125 SW tia 11 Blvd. HAU Boulevard, Tigptd, Oregon. Further Information may be Obtained from the Community Developamt Dimcior or City Record" at the same • Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate A location or by calUag 639-4171. You sro invited to submit written ten•. ' tlmony in advance o; the public, hearing; writen and ord testimony will • o be consii!=A at the herring. The public b=Lqg will be conducted m ac• r cordanr-e with the apolic6le Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Coda and any rules of ptocedwc a.dopted by the Council and avallsbfe at City Ilan. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION - VAS 23 EN At -AMPS STATE OF OREGON, ) 1 UCAT1ON. North of "Antes OChard° subdivis?on (r4wlhxm terminus of COUNTY OF WASMNGTON, S.W. NAzeihill Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. l Judith Koehler 121st Avenue and S.W. Gantde. Street (WCTM 2Si 1008, tax lot f100). r ' AfB= of s Planning Commission decision to deny Apraval of a being first duly sworn, depose and Say th t 1 aa~a Shp Advertisin0 preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 Dots ranging ~in Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigarc! Times size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. 5JyliiQn; a newspaper of general circulftlon ap defined in ORS 193.010 Adam requests for public suret improvement standards have been and 193.020; published at gar in the withdrawn. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRrMRIA jyJjXL W: Code See• at Basil co panda t a the don 18.160,060.A,. Code Chapters 18.48,18.88,18.92, 18.114 18.150, fpar? n ' P@a 1u~ilvsion 93-0002 and 111.164; Con tan primed Comprehensive PPolicies 3.1.1, 7.1.2.7.4A. 7A.1, s copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-1.5 (Residendal.3.5 twits/acm). The R-3.5 tone al- entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and lows single-family detached residential units, public support iscilides, farming, manufactured homes, residential trc ucat homes, hone occupa. consecutive in the following Issues: tions, temporary LIM. end accomy structum among other uses. July 15, 1993 CO pjtfiliENSIVEPI.ANp-) -M A request by o City o T gar to Amc ComprcPha It)licies - 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2. and 2.1.3. Also. Chapters 18.30, j 18.32, end 18.142 of the City of TlRard Community Develeyment Code regarding rho establishment of Citizen Involvement Teems (CITs)) to 6K broaden citizat pankipadost aid replace the existing Neighborhood Pisn- Subscribed and sworn to bgDgre me this 15th day of Jul. 19 Laing Organization strixtum Tr7624 - Publish Iuly,13,1993. ~ COMMiSSIJN NO, 0 S 2 Notary ubt or Oregon MY COt1Mt5SION EWNRES WAY al).1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT vEC®MMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 7633 Jv~? G 1993 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97076 $ uL Legal Notice Advertising Thotoilowingmeedn h1shliyiuiiMpublishedf1W-ypagrjd0MTgM frail s$tdoule$varil TigaritOre i OM3,or by a:ft'6 9-4171125 S.4d►.,IWt ° City of Tigard • ❑ Tearshoet Noticr 13125 SW f to L 1 Blvd. C1TV COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING ° Tigard, OR 97223-8199 ° 13 Duplicate A1ndai TIGARDCrrf HH~-TOWN HALL 13123 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, 770AIM OREGON • o Council Meeting (Tbwn Hall Confermica R4=) (6:30 PAL) Study Session: . • Agenda Review AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Business Meetin;: STATE OF OREGON, )se • Council DiscuscionMepoat from Slaff COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, l l' - Gage Natural Area Local improvement DisttktEvaluation i, Judith ---__l--- boing first duly sworn, depose and say "Ti I am Of. Advertising • Public lieerinyA Director, or his principal clerk, of the gard ifi6s _ Aggp~f of Subdivision Planningg Commissimi Denial SUB s newspaper of general circul von a defined In OAS 193.010 93 0002/VARIANCB. VAR 93.OW8 Ames. L.ocafion: Forth and 193.020; published at_ Li a> In the of "Ames Orchard subdivision" (northern terminus of S.W. ate said ounty ndd e1 to; that tthhe Haxelhill Drive) south and southwest of ft 0 intersection of S.W. ~~ty Cfouclci~-E3us ness tteeting V 121stAvenuesidS.W.GaardeSum • printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published In the - Ordinance Consideration - Comprehensive Plan and Code Ameardments Rernovill References to NPO% entire issue of said newspaper for__Qna _-__succssslve and - Vacallon of 5 fact of a 15-foot wide storm d2aioaye Casemeal- consecutive in the following issues: Jubilee Place Subdivision • Updaw out Han Lake Imm July--zz,- 1993 Loral Contract Review Board Meeting Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Ses- sion under the provWAms of ORS 192.660 (1) d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations. real property trawsactions, current and pi;K "'S litigation . ' Subscribed and sworn to ~s ma this 22nd _ da _y of July, 199 Issues' M633 Publish July 22,1993. s loN NO. 024552 Notary tic for Oregon MY COI,IMASiON (XPtPES MAY 16, t997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT -1 li COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.U. BOX 370 PHONE (W3) (S:A-0360 HoflceTT 7619 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising EtR' [i3Q3 • City of Tigard • Q Toarshest Noll ~t;rTlt()RPttAL[GRltiHT WAY att: Terry CEa'~QPT.§t&L~_E, ' 13135 SW Hull Blvd. ° Duplicate Affld rA6 1'. Tigard, Or 97223 s nm Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on Tt4etda ,'Julyy 27, 1993. at 7:M P.M., at the Tigard City HAD. Town Hart Room,1 125 S.W. Hall Boulamd.'Tignrd. Oregon, to consider the proposed vacation of s AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION portion (southerly 3 (eet) of the 15•foot wide awrm drainage easement STATE OF OREGON, ) which crosses the northern let line of Lots 4 and 5 Of the Jubilee Placa COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. Subdivision. The request waa initiated by the City Council on June 22. 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller. President of Ncvw Caste Romez. Inc., I, 1UAttL Kvehi C Any interested person m appear and be heard tot or against the being first duly sworn, depose and say thatj~m t vsrtising proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written ob)atioaso Director, or his principal clerk, of the__ 1 ~arcJ t"utles__ ramonstntacas shall be Bled with the City Recorder by July 27,',1993, b a newspaper of general cir,,~~yyletlo~~ as defined In ORS 193.010 7:30 P.M. and 193.020. published at_L].C~sJ-_ In the aforepaid county a etote: that th M619--Publish July 8.15,1993, .~tiCe~f _Bi)Zlis<Writ-4~-WaY a printed copy of which Is hereto annexed, was published In the entire issue of said newspaper for u,a+-__auccsaelve and consecutive In the following issues: July 8. 15. 1883 Subscribed and sworn to tr?lore me thial.Sth-An- of_July-1993 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. @URGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary Ic for Oregon 011,I V,011 NO. 024552 MY COfAfAI,,o~ON CYPIRESMAY18, f997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington )SS. City of Tigard ) begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) qi 3 - t 01 3 - aO which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached a by reference made a part hereof, on the -2) day of V K , 19 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. West One Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 13 OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Pu f for Oregon M.JOANNHAYES NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: 5 ~ ~ 95 Y ^h' COMMISSION NO. 006513 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 login\io\affpost CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 93- lq AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 18.30, 18.32, AND 18.142 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.2 AND THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOLLOWING POLICY 2.1.3 AND 11.5.1, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 82-13 AND 82-14. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council set as a priority broadening citizen involvement; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard reviewed the Board and Committee structure for citizen involvement; and WHEREAS, The Tigard City Council has determined that citizen involvement will be better served with modifications to the Board and Committee structure; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPOs) will be succeeded by citizen Involvement Teams (CITs); and WHEREAS, references to the NPOs in the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan are no longer applicable; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff ( recommendations at a public hearing on July 12,1993 and voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the amendments are in compliance with the State Planning Goals and City Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 27, 1993 to consider the amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A". Language to be added is underlined. Language to be deleted is shown in (brackets]. SECTION 2: Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "B". Language to be added is underlined. Language to be deleted is shown in brackets. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 93- Page A-1 PASSED: By L)I)(tj1I, (n 01.4-S vote of all Council members present after being reA,d by number and title only, this day of 1993. Catherine Wheatley, Cit Record APPROVED: This day of 1993. a Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: VCit Att rney 2 Jib Date ORDINANCE No. 93- Page A' 2 EXHIBIT A The Gity shall e to Inferm, in-a-t#anely manner, all land use plann-ing--matters. t~3- The City shall continue to assist and support any City Council recognized citizen group in providing adequate meeting places, distribution of materials, policy direction and staff involvement. w4- Additional citizen task forces shall be appointed by the City Council, as the need arises, to advise the City with regard to Comprehensive Plan issues. POLICY 2.1.2 THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROVIDED BY THE CITY SHALL BE APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF THE PLANNING EFFORT AND SHALL INVOLVE A BROAD CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY: a. ,L nwnrw n GUT THE ronnnwu.~siar3 MEANS ~ -~sracTl~~~ ~ 3 'tN s: ifvtii~i::rs:t~~ .,,,.y,:...•n.....•.....`:..2:~'::::,..::Y :.::..•,....:.::....n... ....v,............::.:..:....:.w^r....s..p'.._i.::!:.:__.:::_.,:..n..::.t a~;ir,'. %:Ln{A:tV.J}:vn\CittJM'JCL.xK:%KA`OnAV:wr..rvm.A:AW.fnv:n<.S..v:i+n<vh.AKAO:.KxNv:M..n..{iA%.ki>,3KKC$dJR<L<Mit<WC?%LgM bRAhn<52.:K<M<L9d<K«v'ist<L<iK{K~4::<t<L!Ki:<!.:AwKiv%i~i• b. WHERE APPROPRIATE, OTHER INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES WILL BE USED; AND w. C HE z::~ <~:T s~N~'~~I!#~;s.,- : N~3>;.';~~~:w ~,T:S~ ~~z~~a~i~ ::m4~.>:.~~.,Jk:.:..4,..i;.>n~,>~m,:~ ..,.~:~K.~,>a4:::;..i.»:,v~%,.~~ ,,:.~,;.~;:>c;,:4,,::4>;~::4>~;.>~:r4-,,.~>,.:.;:>:::»~% FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT#`+HALL BE RESPONSIBLE F OR G THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT'OGRAM AND FOR WORKING MSNRM5MEx!0iMNG WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS IN RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN THE PROGRAM. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Committee for Citizen Involvement and t o GEganizatlens shall conduct their citizen involvement programs in accordance with the needs of the Tigard community and LCDC Goal #1 requirements. A review and evaluation of each group's programs and processes shall be reported to the Planning Commission and City Council on a yearly basis. The City Council, the Planning Commission, T'lc the Committee for Citizen Involvement shall recommend, as needed, additional methods for involving citizens in the planning process. II-10 EXHIBIT A OLICY 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall continue to publish information on land use planning issues in a form accessible to all citizens `al use the ^e-mit °e e--janleatlens as the II-10 -s EXHIBIT "A" r i Chapter 18.30 j PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: LEGISLATIVE i Sections: i I 18.30.010 Purpose 18.30.020 The Application Process { 18.30.030 Time Periods: Submission/Hearings 18.30.040 Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report Required 18.30.050 Duties of the Director 18.30.060 Recommendation and Alternative Recommendation by the Director 18.30.070 Consolidation of Proceedings } 18.30.080 Public Hearing: Notice Requirements 18.30.090 Mechanics of Giving Notice and Failure to Give Notice 18.30.100 Hearings Procedure 18.30.110 Continuation of the Public Hearing 18.30.120 The Standards for the Decision 18.30.130 Approval Process and Authority 18.30.140 Vote Required for a Legislative change 18.30.150 The Final Decision y 18.30.160 The Record of the Public Hearing 18.30.170 Reapplication i 18.30.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures applicable to the community development code for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the comprehensive plan, implementing ordinances and maps. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.020 The Application Process A. A request for a legislative change may be initiated by: 1. order of the Council; 2. Resolution of a majority of the Commission; 3. The Director; 4. A neighbeL-heed planning erganizatlen--er Gity--of Tigard advieery 3 Any persons or the person's agent authorized in writing to make the application. B. The applicant shall be required to meet with the Director for a preapplication conference. Revised 02/27/89 Page 35 Map EXHIBIT "A" C. As a result of the public hearing on the proposed change, the Commission may on its own motion recommend to the Council an alternative recommendation, however, in addition, the Commission must take action on the specific application before it. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part), 1983.) 18 30 070 Consolidation of Proceedings A. In the event there is an application for a legislative change to the plan text or map, and an application for a legislative change to an implementing ordinance text or map, both of which involve either the same geographic area or the same subject matter, the hearings may be consolidated, however: 1. The decision on the proposed plan change shall precede the decision on the proposed change to the implementation ordinance; 2. Separate actions shall be taken on each application; and 3. The change to the implementing ordinance shall implement the change to the plan. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part), 1983.) 18 30 080 Public Hearing: Notice Requirements A. The Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on each application request. B. The Council shall hold at least one public hearing on each application request. C. Notice of the public hearings on the proposed change and alternatives, if any, shall be given by the Director in the following manner: 1. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, notice shall be sent to: a. The applicant; b. Any affected governmental agency; r•.cc•.M'{. `C...<, m4 K{. »S {Pn C. iE rf•.~.:: K{C K ,aec1 *t3?.z i ~g# . . 'ww£ bm.!•at.G{za~»afG~~r~~{~:.LUr:x~'«'A:. "!LY Lx a'Y'YG u*~~, m: s• '.,,e,.>:woHa~w>;unad:~kaa,:x:nw,:cl~:>i ii:.'~~,{~..:•ir.:.w~t s`;,,c• d. Any person who requests notice in writing and pays a fee established by council resolution; and 2. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing date, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. r Revised 02/27/89 Page 40 EXHIBIT "A" t 18.32.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures under this title for the consideration of development applications, for the consideration of quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments and for appeal or review of decisions. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.020 The Application Process A. Applications for approval required under this chapter may be initiated by: 1. Order of Council; 2. Resolution of a majority of the Commission; 3. The Director; 4-- A melghaerbeed planning erganisatlen eE City eff m: ^a-a advisery } Application of a recorded owner of property or contract purchasers. B. Any persons authorized by this title to submit an application for approval may be represented by an agent authorized in writing to make the application. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.030 Time Period for Decision Making A. The City shall take final action on an application for a permit or a zone change, including the resolution of all appeals within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, except: 1. The 120-day period may be extended for a reasonable period of time at the request of the applicant; 2. The 120-day period applies only to a decision wholly within the authority and control of the City; and 3. The 120-day period does not apply to an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.040 Preapplication Conference Required A. The applicant shall be required to meet with the Director for a preapplication conference. B. At such conference, the Director shall: Revised 1/17/91 Page 47 ~ Eli~i EXHIBIT "A" b. All surrounding property owners of record of property within 250 feet of the property for the following types of Director's decisions: (i) Minor Land Partitions; (ii) Site Development Reviews; and (iii) Sensitive Lands (steep slope, drainageway); (iv) Type II Rome Occupations (Chapter 18.142.060.8.3) C. All owners of record of property immediately abutting a site subject to the following types of director's decisions: (i) Temporary Uses; (ii) Flexible Setback Variances; (iii) Lot Line Adjustments, and (iv) Administrative Variances. d. The applicant for a Director's Interpretation or a Director's Decision regarding an extension of approval; The af-f64A:h.44 RV0ARJ0R*AMA if e. y.;.;.v: :;.w.:nv : ..v.4~n:•.v:..,.v.m.. nii\-.-1`~..•.::v:M. 21ai:..Giv:J%<,L{K:: 4hV~2 Q:O:f i~inQ27r:<Qvn' `x' i f. Any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice; and g. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays the required fee established by the Council. 2. Within 10 days of signing the decision, the Director shall post a copy of each notice of decision at City Hall; and 3. Notice shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation for site design review, major land partitions, and minor land partitions a minimum of 10 days prior to the date the decision becomes final. Newspaper notice is not required for other decisions by the Director. B. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing, posting and publication of notice where newspaper publication was required in Subsection A.1 of this section to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. C. Notice of a decision by the Director shall contain: 1. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the applicant's proposal and of the decision; Revised 10/28/91 Page 57 EXHIBIT "A" (vii) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (viii) Zone Changes; (ix) Zone Ordinance Amendments; C. Any affected governmental agency which has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the City which includes provision for such notice; k, t -6 NVAJ x > _i•,•:.r. i,';..::. .wMM ft KW.- i,YA:+W.a,v.Wn v-in cax~a~~>~erin,t e. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays a fee established by the Council; and f. The appellant and all parties to an appeal or petition for review; and 2. Notice of a hearing on a proposed zone change for a mobile home park shall be given to tenants of that mobile home park at least 20 days but no more than 40 days prior to the hearing; and 3. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing of notice to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. B. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. An affidavit of publication shall be made part of the administrative record. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 90-24; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.140 Contents of the Notice for Public Hearings A. Notice given to persons entitled to mailed or published notice pursuant to Section 18.32.130 shall include the following information: 1. The number and title of the file containing the application and the address and phone number of the Director's office where additional information can be obtained; 2. A description of the subject property, reasonably calculated to give notice as to its actual location which shall include, but not be limited to, the metes and bounds description or the tax map designations of the County assessor's office; 3. Except for notice published in the newspaper, a map showing the location of the property; 4. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the application's proposal; and 5. The time, place and date of the public hearing, a statement that both public oral and written testimony is invited, and a statement that the hearing will be held under this chapter and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall. B. When the proceeding is an initial evidentiary hearing before the Hearings Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council the following information shall be included in the mailed notice, in addition to the Revised 1/17/91 Page 59 f EXHIBIT "A" C information required pursuant to Subsection A, above: i i i i i 9 s S 3 i 9 t i r i Revised 1/17/91 Page 59 I EXHIBIT "A" C 3. Formally adopted by the Council, and signed by the Mayor and filed with the Director and the City Recorder within 10 calendar days of the formal adoption of the decision. B. The final decision shall be filed in the records of the Director within 10 } calendar days after the decision is signed, and notice thereof shall be ! mailed to the applicant and all parties to the action, and shall be i available to members of the Council. i C. Notice of a final decision shall contain: 1. A statement that all required notices under Section 18.32.130 have been met; 2. A statement of where the adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained; 3. The date the final decision was filed; and 4. A statement of whether a party to the proceeding may seek review of the decision, as appropriate, to wit: a. In the case of a final decision by the Council, the statement shall explain that this decision is final and how review may be heard by a higher authority; or b. In the case of a final decision by the Hearings officer or Commission, the statement shall explain briefly how a review can be taken to the Council pursuant to Subsection 18.32.310.B, the deadlines, and where information can be obtained. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) l 18.32.270 Notice of Final Decision A. Notice of the final decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all the parties to the decision, and shall be made available to the members of the Council. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.275 Amended Decision Process A. The Director may issue an amended decision after the notice of final decision has been issued and prior to the end of the 10-day appeal period. B. A request for an amended decision shall be in writing, accompanied with the appropriate fee and filed with the Director not more than eight days after the notice of final decision has been filed. C. A request for an amended decision may be filed by: l~ - The lghbe hoed planning or-ganizatien--ion by dee~eei ( Revised 1/17/91 Page 69 EXHIBIT "A" i 18.32.330 Transcripts \r i A. If a transcript is requested by any party, the City shall provide each Council member, the applicant and the neighborhood planning organization (if requested), a copy of the complete transcript of the hearing and a copy of the minutes. B. The appellant or any party who is the first to request a transcript shall be responsible to satisfy all costs incurred for preparation of the transcript at a rate of actual costs up to $500 and one-half costs for any amount incurred over $500. Payment shall be made in full at least five days prior to the hearing. C. Any party other than the appellant or the first party to request a transcript shall be charged the actual copy costs. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 84-09; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.340 Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review A. The notice of appeal or petition for review shall contain: 1. A reference to the application sought to be appealed or reviewed; r 2. A statement as to how the petitioner qualifies as a party; { 3. The specific grounds for the appeal or review; and 4. The date of the filing of the final decision on the action or, in the case of a decision by the Director, the date the decision was filed and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was given. B. The appeal or review application shall be accompanied by the required fee i except as allowed under Section 18.32.345. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.345 Fee Waiver for Appeals land use deelelen shall be waived fer app-l"Lleatlene filed by a neighberheed iT !The appeal Gr land ase -'t.._tle "____e a queLeum of use ...it...tie it a a t ht'►-n~sht\iaa~a with the appeal land use applioationp t Revised 1/71/91 Page 73 1 E%HIBIT "A° 3. The appeal or appl&eatieft wil! be -eeffff"areel Valid when Gend&t&ene (1) and (2) ef this seetlen are met and all ether #!I+" e filed. T Geenell meetln,g after the applieatlen 1:9 - .s.,.. du e the item i r i three p m. on the third day Tlc+~. Council may, on its own motion and by voice vote, waive the appeal fee for ese~ part""';#ea, when appropriate. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45) 18.32.350 Persons Entitled to Notice on Appeal or Review: Tyne of Notice A. Upon appeal or review,' notice shall be given to parties entitled to notice under Sections 18.32.130 and 18.32.290. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-71; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or Review A. Notice shall include those matters provided by Section 18.32.140. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.370 Action on Appeal or Review: Time Limit and Authority to Change the Decision A. The approval authority shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision which is the subject of the appeal; however, the decision shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.32.250; or B. Upon the written consent of all parties to extend the 120-day limit, the approval authority may remand the matter if it is satisfied that testimony or other evidence could not have been presented or was not available at the time of the hearing. In deciding to remand the matter, the approval authority shall consider and make findings and conclusions regarding: 1. The prejudice to parties; 2. The convenience or availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing; 3. The surprise to opposing parties; 4. The date notice was given to other parties as to an attempt to admit; or 5. The competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed testimony or other evidence. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) Revised 1/17/91 Page 74 EXHIBIT "A" 18.142.060 Permit Procedures for Type I and Type 11 Home Occu ations A. Type I and II Home Occupations: A person wishing to engage in a Type I or Type II home occupation must be a principal occupant of the property, pay a one-time review fee to the City, agree to abide by the provisions of this chapter, and acquire an annual Business Tax Certificate. B. Additional Permit Procedures for wishing to engage in a Tie II Home Occupations: A person Ty application conference withl Chome ity ostaff ti in i accordance t with have Section 18.32.040 and is also required to submit an application and a fee. 1. The decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a Type II home occupation permit shall be made by the Community Development Director upon findings of whether or not the proposed use: a. Is in conformance with the standards contained in this chapter; b. Will be subordinate to the residential use of the property; C. Is undertaken in a manner that is not detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. 2. The Director's decision to deny an application or approve it with conditions may be appealed to the Hearings Officer. 3. Upon approval of a Type II home occupation application, the Community Development Director shall issue a preliminary notice of approval and provide notice of the same to the _ Nwn k -..e.........xv..... :Mr ,fix f.. :F::. >'.cdzY# .....:p'^t:^.. wre.::..~^.x~w::;:r.:~i....:.,.: ..r,..xw.,,.wV, , nr nyx `Sh$c:IIi25OM~f lye >;»>.>a. s K:. gEtr fta anC`1 prope owners within ee£'~ofe property line of the proposed use. The decision shall be final within twenty days following the day of mailing of notice unless appealed to the Hearings Officer. C. Appeals shall be made in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.A at a cost equal to sixty (60) percent of the City's standard appeal fee. (Ord. 91- 32; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-20; Ord 83-52) 18.142.070 Submission Re irements for II Home occupation Applications A. An application for a Type II home occupation shall be made on forms provided by the Community Development Director and shall be accompanied by: 1. One copy of the applicant's statement or narrative which explains how the proposal conforms to the approval criteria in sections 18.142.040 and 18.142.050; 2. The required fee; 3. A site plan of the property drawn to scale with a north arrow indicated. The site plan shall show all major features of the property including buildings, major vegetation, access for public streets, sidewalks, etc. Revised 10/28/91 Page 369/370 i 7 . i i 1 1 EXHIBIT "A" i i 4. One floor plan of all structures on the property which. are to be used for the home occupation(s); i 5. One title transfer instrument; s 6. One assessor's map; t 3 7. Property owner's signature(s) or written authorization. (Ord. 91-32; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-20; Ord. 86-23; Ord. 83-52) Revised 10/28/91 Page 369/371 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 93 - o?O AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE 15 FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH LIES ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. i WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on June 22, 1993; and WHEREAS, This easement is a dedicated public easement, giving the public rights over the land for utility improvements; and WHEREAS, the purpose for this vacation is to vacate the southerly five feet of this easement which is not needed for the current development; and WHEREAS, the vestees of the adjacent properties support this vacation; and WHEREAS, the vacation has been initiated by the City Council and approval has been recommended by the Community Development Division; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have reviewed this vacation proposal and have raised no objections in relation to this request; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as described by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with TMC 15.08.040, the Recorder posted notice in the area to be vacated and published notice of the public hearing; the owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the Council having considered the request on July 27, 1993, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate that certain portion of public utility easement because the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation as provided by ORS 271.120 and TMC Section 15.08.130. ORDINANCE NO. 93-c~(D Page 1 i ( THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of that certain portion of the public storm drainage easement as described on the attached Exhibit A (map of area to be vacated) and by this reference made part hereof. SECTION 2: In no situation shall this ordinance be effective until the 31st day after its enactment by the City Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. -4 PASSED: By (~(r1f~ f'1 i rY1~L+S vote of the Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 27th day of July, 1993. Catherine Wheatley, City J corder r ~'-H1 , 1993. APPROVED: This a of 5 i, _ C Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: Ci y torney Date ORDINANCE NO. 93-0?0 Page 2 Centerline c:®nct-_pts, Inc- 64o 82nd odd CW mm Oregon 97027 503 650-0188 fax 503 6304189 CLIENT ICI ME_' JAY MILLER BUILDER INC. ®RAWN:BTA . ADDRESS: 9567 S.W. JUBILEE PLACE SCALE:i0=207 LOT: 4 JUBILEE PLACE DAM4-8-93 S 89'57'l3" W 93.54' ~ STORM ORM EASEME 4T ~ lot a \-N L 51.0' 4 tJi AREA To IRE t,j a VAcA TE U ( r9' 4 a 20.00' a a,J, 20 .S - CS oS 89-54!39- a ~ ~ O ' 4r N Orsg. - o° fit! 15.00' S 89.54'39" --SIX FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG FRONT LOT UNES. EXHIBIT : A . AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: uly 27. 1993 (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 rACY J 2 L', T if) u og 50 v s toms t t. AGENDA ITEM NO. a : ' PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name 7 Name r - Addtess Cese I ~U Gfi , fl, /r~1 S7?O _ ame ame ~i Wcz c l~ Address Address -Na-me Name J r©~ X4835Sw 12--S- Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address dress Name me Address Address ame Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name dress Address Name Name Address Address i Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount 4 of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. S -,4 DATE. July 27, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0005 - A request by the City of Tigard to amendment Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters 18.30, 18.32, and 18.142 of the City of Tigard Community Development regarding the establishment of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to broaden citizen participation and replace the existing Neighborhood Planning Organization structure. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 ( PLEASE PRIM Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name J Address Address Name ame dross ress Tame ame ress Address Name Name Address Address Name Name dress ress ame lNire L Address Address Name Name Tess ress Name Name Address Address Name Name Address ress Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.' 7 DATE: July 27, 1993.. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATE A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT W141CH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION - Consideration of the vacation of the southerly five feet of the 15-foot wide storm drainage easement which crosses the northern lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of the Jubilee Place Subdivision. The request was initiated by the City Council on June 22, 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller, President of New Castle Homes, Inc. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by July 27, 1993, by 7:30 p.m. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS AGENDA ITEM NO. Y PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name _ A \ Name J T~li1fr' dre ~ 7d`~ I teas Y` O ~p Name ame Address re Name Name ress Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name dress Address Name F-11 Address Name Name Address Address Name Name dress dress Name Name Address Address Name Name Address rose R ~ `Np TIGARD UNION HIGH SCHOOL CLASS OF 1943 REUNION COMMITTEE July 27, 1993 City of Tigard The Hon. Jerry Edwards, Mayor John Schwartz, Council President Judy Fessler, Councilor Paul Hunt, Councilor Wends Hawley, Councilor Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder Liz Newton, Community Relations Coord. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 50-year Reunion Celebration Thanks to all of you for making our reunion one of the best ever held. We are truly proud of the City's proclamation declaring three days in June as Tigard Union High School Class of 1943 Days. In fact, we dare to believe that we are among the few classes to have such an honor bestowed upon us. Thanks to Cathy Wheatley for drafting the proclamation, and to Liz Newton for giving us "ICp Tigard" balloons, which we used at our pizza party. The proclamations were made part of an update booklet which contains a short bio of each classmate, and a wonderfully appropos cartoon drawn by our classmate, Jim Smith. The booklets were greatly appreciated, and may have restarted friendships which first began in high school. Thank you again. You have made the City of Tigard more alive in our hearts. For the Class of 1943: Pat Anderson Keerins Vlasta Becvar Barber 12195 S.W. 121st Avenue 11120 S.W. Summer Lake Dr Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 y Y i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM a- C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 7. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appointments to PREVIOUS ACTION: Library Board PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE ]FOR THE COUNCIL Appointments to fill two vacancies on the Library Board. =i STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of the attached Resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY There are two vacancies on the Library Board. The Mayor-'s Appointment Advisory Committee met on June 30, 1993 to interview interested candidates. C The Advisory Committee recommends Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin for appointment. Copies of their applications are attached. Also attached is a Resolution which, if adopted, would appoint Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin to the Library Board. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES i 1. Adopt the attached Resolution. 2. Take no action. FISCAL NOTES q C~ . 0 EL 1 Utz 2 6 1992 CITY OF TIFARD OREOON CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION Name: n St I n P Lewis Date: J u n e Z;3, ) 9 Q Z Address (Res.): ► zq 02 5.0',Ja Ill ut ; T u a rd U 7 Z 2 3 Res. Phone: (o%4-134-7 Address (Bus.): Bus. Phone: 5 a \-A P Length of Residence in Tigard: [ r Suggested by: J0&1 We tert%VA Where did you live previously: n tao ri Educational Background: R.S. --tarn ISu (T1 <dsa-, AT-J!~) City- Pr2~hotcS Occupational Status and Background: VSr- km I CC V0I Lu*P Pya n o TZ-C dk!2t ; oc c"' 2 ~ r1 --(~s~er~•I ~~~rv~S~r-~nrf(a~~S1z;~~Gtti~~yz~~~'sl~\~ How long have you been employed with this firm: (Z \IR~~(5 Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only): Previous Community Activity: Organizations and Offices: V - ~ W L r~~r, I-Colrn tip A Yl~b~rylnlocY~ u~ Other Information (General Remarks): Boards, Committees or NPO Interested in: (d Mt j P'r'a'rZ'4 . Date Received'ht City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO -ide City Outside City loti n\liz\citcomin 13125 SW Hail Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 WAM CIOF TI D CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION OREGON Name: A vt c L rv ; ,•t Date: S~2 y~Pz Address (Res.): / 3 S S.a . 12 Sk P/a c~ T, ~4- d o,< 97ZZ 3 Res. Phone: Z 0- 8 Address (Bus.): s a.•~ Bus. Phone: sa,•, Length of Residence in Tigard: rS _ Suested by: wuYIva..:t Where did you live previously: raised Pov-tle-,A a (so (;red Nom. Yo,k~ Pg E//d''ucational Background: B.S. 13c&s; He.s, /~d.y,;..:sip tea Orega.1 Staiti a.; V-.-st 2~ (Go„ce.. fYa't i o„S i n Acc.,Av%j;i :j a,., A ~i ha..c 11 Occupational Status and Background: 6"rre~J1 y rais;NQ mt preScl,oe ( chi 141.1 4uli( For____ w± tT ~ y ~ro 1(er of ~Q~' eo.-. Go,-lo . a. p t..b c I-, -trad~.d e l ec-(1or; c, c,o», Pa" r (v,ou wu„rneA -J-1. Scia..llCiS' TecLKeleSiQt TIC, e-c- flaYO'~jy CA) IAUw long have you been employed with this firm:" e Y e-ay-s a s a Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only): n /a Previous Community Activity: Vo/t4olf- r -fir Boys Q.,d ('ith A;d Soc;ctV . Treatarm r (,rrlesf5jr- T„~~r Parllc'i/ m1ew%6('t'- oq Tr;-Jj Ck,irt rq-'LSC1..j Z;y God leac~~ (n'- Mart1, of U.•N's~ VoluhTee.r for Aone is ' C,,-,,., Soc.`i'~ Organizations and Offices: Treas,,-, op St. i2.d•.r Mo~'6.r.s' G, o~,P C s4 . TiAarA Tykes Parr C--ae, i•%v4(ved in Neic~(,b~rl,oed 1n1Qtc(, P } n,e.v.Lar cf I.N.TO. Fu.n). Gab i:t(iN~ G.o-olp Other Information (General Remarks): }tav~ e"+ ayoj ma,„, of fl, Sere cLf a„d c-(arses o-Cfe.recl 6;e V.- li~.ary t-AJ t,ou'J riI-- a- 4. q;vc- so►rtcTt,;~~ toed LIZ VAX seVic-cs. Boards, Committees or NPO Interested in: T and 64L/-c- C; wary 13a4,J Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or IJPO Inside City Outside City If login\liz\citcomin 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 s f C- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3 a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorization or PREVIOUS ACTION: Acquisition of Easements for Industrial Area Sewer CIP PREPARED BY: Greg Berry DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL 1 Acquisition of sanitary sewer easements and temporary construction easements for the Industrial Area Sewer CIP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer Project will replace a defective and undersized portion of the line at its connection to the interceptor sewer along the railroad near Coe Manufacturing in order to reduce required maintenance and provide adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated C development within the Tigard Triangle. Additional easements are needed upon land owned by Coe Manufacturing to construct the sewer. As with other capital improvement projects, staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the acquisition of the easements by adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution includes all easements required for the project although additional agreements with Coe Manufacturing for the temporary construction easement may be required. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1, Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing acquisition of the easements. 2. Withhold authorization. FISCAL NOTES All costs of the Industrial Area Sewer CIP are funded by the sewer capital improvement fund. This project is included in the FY 1993 - 94 budget as one of the "committed" projects from previous years. dj/GB:Acqu1s1t1on.SS y ( COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Formation of a PREVIOUS ACTION: reimbursement district for Rand _ Janette Wilder PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: , ISSUE BEFOR THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district for a sanitary sewer line constructed by Randy and Janette Wilder. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY A sanitary sewer line extension has been constructed by Randy and Janette Wilder to serve a subdivision they have developed near 100th and Inez. The sewer line also provides service to four adjoining lots. Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code provides for the formation of a reimbursement district to repay a portion of the development costs when other properties are connected to the sewer. The Wilders have requested that a district be formed. ( The engineer's report attached to the resolution provides more detail. ` No public hearing is required to form a reimbursement district. However, for a period of 60 days following adoption of a resolution, affected property owners may petition the Council for a hearing for any objections to be heard. The City Recorder will notify all affected property owners of the formation of the reimbursement district and their right to petition for a hearing. This process of notifying property owners after the district is formed has caused some concern in the past. The City Attorney's office is drafting revisions to the Code to change the procedure. We expect to be ready to present the revisions for Council consideration in a few weeks. However, until the Code is revised, the process is governed by the existing Code procedures. To avoid surprises to the other property owners, Mr. Wilder has contacted each owner and advised them of his intention to fora a reimbursement district. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the attached resolution forming the district. 2. Direct that the resolution be amended. 3. Reject the reimbursement district. FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by the Wilders. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer. 1rw/wild-sum COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. 7 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: _July 27, 1993DATE SUBMITTED: July 16, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 72nd Avenue 99W PREVIOUS ACTION: Intersection; ODOT Traffic Signal Agreement PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: aa=a===a=aaa=a==aa==aa.~=aaaaaaaaaa = aa==aaaaaaaa=a=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaQaaaaasaa ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with ODOT for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Resolution, authorizing the City Administrator to sign the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project includes the construction of a new traffic signal . The agreement obligates the City to construct the signal and to pay for 1/2 of the energy, Fred Meyer to pay for 1/2 the energy, and ODOT to maintain the signal. The existing signal at the Fred Meyer entrance will { be removed and the agreement between ODOT and Fred Meyer will become void. Fred Meyer has reviewed and approved the agreement. A copy of the agreement is available in the Engineering Department. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FISCAL NOTES Funds for the energy are provided from the annual budget for maintenance of signals and street lighting. Signal construction is included in the 72nd Avenue/99W project. ga\ss-72sig.ga 5 f l 4i i~ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July _16, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 72nd Avenue/99W PREVIOUS ACTION: Intersection; Tri-Met Intergovernmental Agreement PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD OK _ZrTY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ===a===a====aa=a===a===c a=a=--a=aaa==aaaa=aaaaaaaaaasaaaaa=sa I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL ; Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met to allow for construction of a bus turnout in conjunction with the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Administrator to sign the agreement. z -s a INFORMATION SUMMARY The 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project includes the construction of a bus pullout on 99W at the request of Tri-Met. The agreement obligates the City to construct the pullout at the expense of Tri-Met. The agreement is identical , to the previous agreement used for Greenburg Road. A copy of the agreement is available in the Engineering Department. I a=a-aa=aaaaaaaa===aa=a=aaaa=a-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaxaaaa=ssaasaammasmaasaa PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the agreement. 2. Reject the agreement. ; FISCAL NOTES Funds for this portion of the project are provided from Tri-Met. ga\ss-72tri.ga i CL ( MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Randy Wooley era July 22, 1993 FROM: Gary Alfson r,~(~J-1 SUBJECT: Construction Bid Awards We have four Council agenda items related to bid awards by the Local Contract Review Board on the July 27th meeting date. On July 15th bids were opened for two projects, Bonita Road East Railroad Approach and 96th Avenue Sidewalks. On July 20th bids were opened for two more projects, 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection and 93-94 Pavement Major Maintenance Program. We requested review of the four projects for award as soon as possible since we are well into the construction season and need to allow the contractors as much time as possible to complete the projects. Bonita Road East Railroad Approach (Item 3.6 d) Although only one bid was received for this project the cost is within the budget and appears to be reasonable. We recommend awarding the contract to Benge Construction. The Durham Road improvement project, from Hall Blvd. to Boones Ferry Road, is scheduled for next year by Washington County. This project will require the closure of Durham Road and detouring traffic to Bonita Road. Therefore we cannot delay our project until next year as it requires the closure of Bonita Road. 96th Avenue Sidewalk (Item 3.6 c) The low bid of $68,392.66 exceeded the budgeted amount of $53,000 by $15,000. The engineer's estimate was $57,000. We underestimated the high unit cost of the small quantities of materials required for the project. I do not believe that, if we readvertise the project next year, we could receive a lower bid within the budgeted amount. The low bid appears to be reasonable, therefore the decision needs to be made whether to reject the bid, reduce the scope of the project or to reduce the size of another project to allow construction of the sidewalk and associated improvements. The sidewalk will improve safety, providing a place for students to walk to the Elementary and Junior High schools. We have met with the schools and the neighborhood and they are excited about the project. We have evaluated the project for ways to reduce the scope of the work so the total cost is within the budget. We do not see a way to Page 1 do this without affecting the overall purpose of the project. Therefore I recommend awarding the contract to the low bidder, utilizing additional funds from the CIP budget. In order to keep budget in balance, I propose to reduce the pavement major maintenace program, as discussed below. 93Z94 Pavement Major Maintenance Program (Item 3.6 a) Six bids were opened on July 20th as Follows: Eagle-Elsner, Tigard $ 349,000 K F Jacobsen, Portland 380,050 Oregon Asphalt Paving, Portland 387,170 Lakeside Industries, Portland 390,800 Morse Brothers, Sherwood 393,175 Baker Rock, Beaverton 413,849 The engineer's estimate was $330,000. This project included the major maintenance of 11 streets, widening of 79th Avenue for a pedestrian/bike path and making repairs to the existing storm drainage and sanitary sewer system. The pavement major maintenance and 79th Avenue widening were bid as Schedule A The storm drain and sanitary sewer repairs were bid as Schedule B. The Pavement Major Maintenance Program budget is $248,000 and is part of the 93-94 Streets-Gas Tax CIP. The 79th Avenue project budget is $7,000 and is part of the committed projects portion of the 93-94 Streets-Gas Tax CIP. The streets CIP portion of the project bid exceeded the budget by $68,000. With the overrun on the 96th Avenue project of $15,000, we need to delete $83,000 from the Pavement Major Maintenance Program. Deletion of the 7 smaller projects from the list of 11 would reduce the project cost by $40,000. Since this would not be adequate I recommend we delete the fabric and overlay of 72nd Avenue from Boones Ferry to the City limits for a reduction of approximately $85,000 instead. This overlay would be the best project to defer. I believe it would deteriorate less than the other 7 projects. There would be an additional cost for deferring the overlay but not as much as deferring maintenance on the others. The digout repairs would still be performed this year on the failed pavement areas. The storm drain repairs is budgeted as part of the unrestricted fund at $10,000. The sanitary sewer repairs is budgeted as part of the unrestricted fund under the sewer major maintenance item at $15,000. The cost to repair the storm drain and sanitary sewer pipes appears to be reasonable. Therefore, I recommend we award the contract to the low bidder, Eagle-Elsner, with staff directed to delete the overlay work on 72nd Avenue between Boones Ferry and the City Limits. Page 2 f C 72nd AvenueZ99W Intersection (item 3.6 b) Two bids were opened on July 20th as follows: Emery & Sons, Stayton $ 579,269 Dirt & Aggregate, Troutdale 616,485 The Engineer's estimate was $460,000. This is a complex project involving several businesses, utilities, and agencies. Ideally I would have preferred to bid the project in the spring, allowing the contractor ample time to complete the project. Due to the number of utility relobations, private property negotiations, and business and agency agreements we were not able to advertise the project for bids until now. The low bid exceeded the engineer's estimate and budget amount by $120,000. The high low-bid is most likely due to past inclement weather creating a backlog for contractors, as evident.by receiving only two bids, and the short time to complete the construction. The unit costs for almost all the items are higher than expected. I recommend that we reject all bids and readvertise the project early next spring. I believe we will receive a more reasonable bid at that time. ( Summary In summary we recommend the following LCRB action: PROJECT RECOMMENDED ACTION Bonita Road East Railroad Approach Award to low bidder, Benge Construction 96th Avenue Sidewalk Award to low bidder, All Concrete Specialties 93-94 Pavement Major Maint. Program Award to low bidder, Eagle-Elsner, with staff directed to delete the overlay on 72nd from Boones Ferry to the City Limits 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Reject all bids dJ/GA:BID.HEX Page 3 _s f COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. a- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 16, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 93-94 Pavement PREVIOUS ACTION: Major Maintenance Program PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: z ISSUE BEFOR THE COUNCIL Award the contract for construction of the 93-94-Pavement Major Maintenance 3 Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION t Authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with the low Bidder. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 93-94 Pavement Major Maintenance Program involves the digout repairs and/or structural overlays of 11 selected streets in need of repair as listed on the i attached sheet. The project also includes making repairs to existing storm drainage and sanitary sewer lines in the streets to be overlayed. The widening of 79th Avenue, from Durham Road north to the widened street, is also included to provide for a pedestrian walkway. Bids will be recieved from contractors on July 20th and the bid results will be sent to the Council prior to the July 27th meeting. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL NOTES Funds for the Pavement Major Maintenance Program are provided from the 93-94 CIP budget. Funds for the sanitary sewer and storm drainage repairs are provided from their respective budgets. Funds for the 79th Avenue Widening are provided from the 92-93 CIP budget. ga\ss-pmmp. ga 1993/94 ' PAVEMENT MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM { I OVERLAY PROGRAM AREA (SY) OVERLAY VZ-BRIC DIG-OUTS STRIPING LOCATION TONAGE (INCHES) (S.Y.) (S.Y.) (SEE BELOW) 1 72M AVENUE 16,896 3 8,448 100 NOTE 1 Bonita Rd. to Carmen Rd. 3,041 2 72ND AVENUE 12,390 3 3,098 170 NOTE 2 Upp. Boons Ferry Rd. to City Limit 2,230 3 TIEDEMAN STREET 4,928 2-1/2 2,464 100 NOTE 3 Greenburg Rd. to Tigard St. 745 } 4 BURNHAM STREET 40 Main St. to Hall Blvd. 5 HUNZIIKER STREET (ALTERNATE) 90 Hall to 72nd Ave. 6 LANDMARK LANE (ALTERNATE) 10 r 72nd Ave. to Cul-de-sac 7 CASCADE BOULEVARD (ALTERNATE) 100 Greenburg Rd. to Toys-R-US 8 GAARDE STREET 300 LEVEL 300 30 110th Ave. to 112th Ave. 20 9 GRANT STREET 2,957 2 1,500 100 NOTE 4 Walnut St. to Johnson St. 362 i 10 SCHOOL STREET 278 3 99W Entrance 50 i 79TH AVENUE WIDENING 150 4" A.C. NOTE 5 35 15" A. B. TOTALS 37,899 S.Y. 15,810 740 6,483 TON STRIPING NOTES: 1. CENTER TURN-LANE, CROSSWALKS, ARROWS, RR X-ING; LENGTH = 3800 L.F. 2. CENTER TURN-LANE, CROSSWALKS, ARROWS; LENGTH 2550 L.F. 3. CENTERLINE, RR X-ING; LENGTH = 1480 L.F. 4. CENTERLINE, BIKELANE; LENGTH = 950 L.F. 5. BIKELANE; LENGTH = 180 L.F. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM (C t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 16, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 72nd Avenue 99W PREVIOUS ACTION: Intersection PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OK/jZff REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFO E THE COUNCIL Award the contract for construction of the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with the low Bidder. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project involves the construction of a new intersection at 99W by extending 72nd Avenue through Villa Ridge. This will require the relocation of the existing Fred Meyer entrance and signal, and construction of a new access from Villa Ridge to 99W. The American Legion building has been purchased by the City and removed in preparation for this project. Construction easements have been obtained from all affected properties. Bids will be received from contractors on July 20th and the bid results will be sent to the Council prior to the July 27th meeting. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL NOTES Funds for this project are provided from the Traffic Impact Fees budget. ga\ss-72-99.ga oil COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CO G CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 16, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 96th Avenue PREVIOUS ACTION: Sidewalk Pro 'ect PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Award the contract for construction of the 96th Avenue Sidewalk project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with All Concrete Specialties, Inc. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 96th Avenue Sidewalk project involves the construction of a new curb and sidewalk along the east side of 96th Avenue from Sattler Street to Murdock Street. A project meeting has been held and the adjacent properties have been C notified. Three bids were received from contractors on July 15th. The bid results are as follows: All Concrete Specialties, Vancouver $ 68,392.66 Cushing Bros. Inc., Salem $ 78,168.50 Gelco Construction Co., Salem $103,777.20 The engineer's estimate was $ 57,500. The total cost of the project has exceeded the estimated budget. We are investigating ways to reduce the cost of this project and/or other capital improvement projects in order to stay within the total Capital Improvement Program budget. Additional information will be provided to the council prior to the July 27th meeting. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL NOTES Funds for this project are provided from the 92-93 CIP budget. / ga\ss-96swk.ga i i i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.~D CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 15, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bonita Road PREVIOUS ACTION: East Railroad Approach Improvement PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Award the contract for construction of the Bonita Road East Railroad Approach Improvement project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with the low Bidder. 1 INFORMATION SUMMARY The Bonita Road East Railroad Approach Improvements project involves the reconstruction of existing roadway to improve sight distance across the F railroad tracks. This will require raising 300 feet of the existing roadway east of the tracks and reconstruction of two existing accesses. Construction easements have been obtained from the affected properties. Only one bid was received and was opened on July 15th from Benge Construction Co., Lake Oswego, for $101,483.00. The Consultant Engineer's estimate was $108,000. The single bid is an equitable bid and within the project budget. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Award the contract to Benge Construction Co. i 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL NOTES Funds for this project are provided from the 92-93 Capital Improvement Program budget. ga\ss-bon-rr.ga i_ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3• (o e. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize bid PREVIOUS ACTION: advertisement 100th McDonald Storm Drainage Pro 'ect PREPARED BY: City Engineer DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL Authorization to advertise for bids. - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids for the 100th/McDonald Storm Drainage Project. - INFORMATION SUMMARY On July 13th, Council approved the FY 1993-94 capital improvement budget for storm drainage projects. The approved budget includes funds for upgrading storm drainage in the area of 100th Avenue and McDonald Street. Staff requests authorization to advertise for bids for construction of this project. The purchasing rules require formal authorization prior to bidding on projects over $15,000. After bids are opened, contract award will also require review and approval by the Council. The purpose of the project is to provide improved drainage for the area bounded by S.W. Inez St., S.W. 103rd Ave., S.W. 89th Ave. and S.W. McDonald St. by installing a ditch along S.W. 100th Ave. and a storm drain in S.W. McDonald St. connecting to an existing storm drain further east in S.W. McDonald St. It is intended to prevent stormwater runoff from flowing on to undrained private property on the east side of S.W. 100th Ave, north of S.W. Inez St. The storm drain in S.W. McDonald St. will also relieve the overloaded Ash St. line, currently receiving the flow from S.W. 100th Ave., by redirecting the flow to the proposed McDonald St. line. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FISCAL NOTES rw/bld COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM LI CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 7/27/93 DATE SUBMITTED: 7/14/93 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: "Gage" Natural PREVIOUS ACTION: none Area LID 1.- 4 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE%74HE COUNCIL To adopt a resolution directing staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineer's Report regarding the feasibility of providing a nature preserve and adjacent half street and sidewalk improvements through a Local Improvement District (LID). STAFF RECOMMENDATION To authorize the preparation of the report, based on the project description, method of assessment, and suggested boundary described herein. INFORMATION SUMMARY - The City has received an LID interest petition requesting the City to investigate the feasibility of forming a local improvement district to acquire a four acre parcel as a "neighborhood nature site". The attached Preliminary Evaluation Report discusses the LID process, the attributes of the site, the proposed assessment district, estimated costs, possible methodologies for benefit assessments, and the pros and cons of formation. A Preliminary Engineer's Report would provide more detailed information on the physical and financial aspects of the project. This Preliminary Engineer's Report would come back to the City Council and would include a preliminary assessment roll. At that time Council would decide whether or not to proceed with a notified public hearing on the proposed LID. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1) adopt the resolution 2) direct staff to terminate work on the proposed district and improvement FISCAL NOTES The cost of the Preliminary Engineer's Report is estimated to be about $1,400 for an appraisal of the property plus staff time. These costs would be assigned to the LID, and recoverable if the LID is formed. DR/lidsum July 20, 1993 Now "GAGE" NATURAL AREA LID PRELIMINARY EVALUATION REPORT This Preliminary Evaluation Report outlines the arguments for and against the establishment of a Local Improvement District (LID) to provide funding for the acquisition of a four acre undeveloped site and its preservation as a natural area. The site is located between Hall Boulevard and Durham Road (Map 1) and is owned by Dorothy and Marjorie Gage. Proposed improvements include half street improvements, a sidewalk connection between SW Bond and Patti Lane, the clearing of underbrush, and the provision of soft trails. The report describes the LID process, the attributes of the of the site, the proposed assessment district, estimated costs, possible methodologies for benefit assessments, and the pros and cons of formation. The report recommends proceeding to the feasibility stage and the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report. This study would provide more detailed information on the physical and financial aspects of the proposed project. It also would address the issue of whether a street connection should included as part of the scope of work. A previous LID petition related to this property was informally reviewed by Council some three years ago but no action was taken. At that time most of the land between the site and Hall Boulevard was undeveloped. This land has since filled in with single family development. This evaluation report is presented to Council for a decision of whether or not authorize staff to spend public funds and staff time developing more detailed information on this proposal to bring back before the City Council. What is an LID? Briefly stated, an LID is a district formed for the purpose of carrying out local improvements. Examples include construction of streets and storm sewers, addition of street lighting or sidewalks, and development of neighborhood parks. Property owners within the LID are assessed for the cost of the improvements. In accordance with state law these assessments may be paid in full or in installments. Table 1 outlines the normal LID process, which consists of a series of stages, each of which requires a key decision before proceeding to the next stage. Initiation of District Formation Process In May of this year City staff received an LID interest petition signed by the owners of 103 properties located within the three subdivisions that surround the Gage property on all sides (Map 2). The petition requested the City to investigate the feasibility of forming a local improvement district to acquire the parcel as a "neighborhood nature site." Most of these petitioners live south of SW Ashford Street between Hall and SW 79th. Also in May City staff received a second petition signed by 71 owners opposed to the inclusion of their properties in an LJD involving the Gage parcel (Map 2). The bulk of these petitioners live north of Ashford between Hall Boulevard and SW 79th Avenue. t Page 1 of 10 sr, ~ • emu. MAP ~ e . sl PROPOSED p~ATURE PRESERVE 4 :1 ttfATN yIEW tl!• t FWD 1p• 53 D~tA IN t CA 1(IEW ~"G 0 Pty"" r q P g !i 5 ST •E~ DA cl rR S 1 rn e ss . 7GTM ~Da Fk-• a s28` st ~ Awe 5t ~ C P~ ~c r C ~ ay •0~s USA iREA~•µT COCK .11-U pt.ATt'f Ci ~T ___avow m BOOM i TABLE 1 The LID Process: Major actions, products and decisions. - K-e-y-De-c-i-s-io Citizens/Property Owners Staff Key Administrative Actions Key Decision Documents Initiation Indication of interest Informal meeting with Staff's preliminary Resolution to Prepare, LID Interest Petition Informal meeting with staff citizens evaluation ordering staff to prepare Preliminary evaluation • LID interest petition the Preliminary and staff report • Staff report Engineer's Report Resolution to prepare Feasibility Fund the cost for the Prepare the Preliminary Staff projects Priority Resolution of Intent and Preliminary Engineer's Preliminary Engineer's Engineer's Report Ranking for the project setting the date for the Report - Draft Report or waive until later, Send a notice letter to public hearing - Notice Letter depending on priority the appropriate CIT and Resolution,ol Intent to property owners Formation Citizens have the Amend the Preliminary Arrange notification and Ordinance Forming the Notices opportunity to remonstrate Engineer's Report when the public hearing District Preliminary Engineer's necessary Report - Final • Publish and mail notices Ordinance Forming the District Improvement Property owners remain in Prepare the Final Plan Controlling the Project by • Resolution Accepting the Final Plan and Specs contact with staff on the and Specs identifying and correcting Final Report Construction Contract progress of the Manage construction actions or materials not Final Report construction. Prepare the Final Report equal to the Final Plan Resolution Accepting the and Specs Final Report Assessment Receive Notice of Prepare for the public • Ordinance Spreading the Notice Letter Assassment hearing Assessments • Ordinance Spreading the • Prepare Notices of Final Assessments Assessment City Lien Dccket Finance and Arrange to pay assessment Prepare for the bond sale Preparing the terms and Closing the accounts and Bond Prospectus Closure or Bancroft. Pay the Sell the bonds, working conditions for the bond releasing liens on all Bancroft Application and assessment in cash or by with bond counsel sale properties Installment Contract with arranged methods Collection of assessment Managing the collection of Terms and Conditions payments payments Resolution Accepting Bids • Inspect and release for Bonds contractor's bond My 12. 1903 sig 1111111 111, 1111'~111111111§ { MAP 2 04 K NTON DR. PETITION 1 & 2 3 GAGE NATURAL AREA LID > 6 y SIGNED PETITION IN FAVOR OF nOOi uri FURTHER ANALYSIS (SUBMITTED 5/93) z z p ~ r v c ® SIGNED PETITION AGAINST BEING ASHFORD ST. A INCLUDED IN LID (SUBMITTED 5/93) > m J ei:: LANGTREE Z c :vii):]:: W ::...::•:.-t 0 K CL BON VENTURE LN W - a CH WY PATTI LN F 0 . BOND ST. F r JULY 13, 1993 DURHAM RD. In accordance with the City's adopted procedures, staff held an informational meeting with property owners to explain the LID process and to disseminate suggested boundary and general cost information. Only subdivision lot owners located south of SW Ashford Street between SW Hall Boulevard and SW 79th Avenue were given notice of the hearing. The owners of 58% of the 169 lots within this area had signed the interest petition. The owners of lots located north of SW Ashford Street were not notified of the informational meeting and were not considered for inclusion in the LID because of the clear lack of interest in the project expressed by petition and because of the area's comparatively less favorable access to the site. Approximately 40 people attended the information and discussion meeting. About two weeks after this meeting, staff received a third petition signed by property owners objecting to the inclusion of their properties in an LID (Map 3). Of these petitioners, 19 owners who previously had signed the interest petition now requested their names be "withdrawn from any previous pe-dtion". This reduced the percentage of proponents from 58% to 47%. The owners of 40 properties within the proposed district, or 29% of the total, have not declared themsevles as interested or disinterested. Appendix 1 contains the wording of each of the three petitions. Interest Petition This Preliminary Evaluation Report is submitted to Council in response to the interest petition received by staff. Ordinarily, a proposed LID is not referred to Council when property owners interested in proceeding hold less than 50% of the property estimated to be benefitted. An exception is made in this case for three reasons: (1) it is possible to redraw the boundary to achieve the required percentage; (2) since the LID procedures report does not set a deadline for i the submittal of signatures, additional petition gathering could change the interest percentage within the suggested district by the Council review date; (3) the concept of forming an LID to acquire this property for a nature park has been a controversial issue for some three years, consuming considerable neighborhood resident and staff time and effort. Staff believes the Council should consider the merits of the proposed LID at this time to bring this matter to a resolution. Site Description and Vicinity Information The site measures 222 by 778 feet and is rectangular in shape. It is relatively flat and is covered with large ash and cottonwood trees and an understory of diverse vegetation. A recent evaluation undertaken by Scientific Resources, Inc., a private consultant specializing in wetlands research, has identified a .25 acre wetland site on the southeast corner of the property. The zoning is R-12, multiple-family residential. The permitted uses in the R-12 district include single-family detached residential units, single family attached residential units, multiple-family dwellings, residential care facilities and, mobile home parks and subdivisions. Conditional uses in the R-12 district include community recreation, religious assembly, schools, and hospitals. The minimum lot size for single family is 3,050 square feet. Page 5 of 10 W. W-M iD ~ PETIMAP 3 TION 3 GAGE NATURAL AREA LID ~ SIGNED PETITION AGAINST (SUBMITTED 6/93) J' I ! ASP RD z4 - v m NGTRE n z m ~ N cc Y W O a O CL CL "V NT R LN - T u H wY. PATT LN r OND T U V_1 ~Y A JULY 13, 1993 DURHAM RD. SW Bond Street borders the southern edge of property. SW Langtree and SW Patti Lane stub into the western edge. The stubbed street layout was approved by the Hearing Officer in 1988 as part of the Langtree Estates preliminary plat review. The road network first proposed for this project included a connection to SW Bond. This connection could not be made because the owners of the subject site were unwilling to allow connection of this street across their property and also because existing development precluded an alternate alignment. The approved Langtree street plan was intended to provide for future street extensions to serve anticipated development on the abutting parcel and also to provide a future connection between adjacent neighborhoods. Pertinent Comprehensive and Park Plan Information The comprehensive plan does not identify this site as a significant natural, scenic, or special area, suggested by specialists for preservation. However, the recent SRI evaluation determined that the wetland portion of the subject site has a high value for wildlife. This assessment can be applied to the site as a whole because similar conditions exist. Proiect Costs and Scope The estimated total project cost is $178,200 (Table 2). The major cost is land acquisition, but an appraisal, appropriate at the preliminary engineering stage of the LID process, has not been conducted for this evaluation report. The acquisition cost used in the table reflects the tax roll assessed valuation. The cost of the street and path improvements are based on staffs tentative estimate of the prices. Finance and administration costs include interim notes, or the money required to acquire the land and make improvements, interest on these notes, and bonds to pay off the borrowed funds. There are different opinions about whether the planned Patti Lane/Bond Street connection should be included as part of the LID project. This issue should be decided at the preliminary engineering stage. The interest petition language referred to "improvements to streets immediately abutting the site". The people who attended the meeting clarified that they meant one-half street improvements, not a connection between Patti Lane and Bond Street. Assessment Boundary Map 4 shows the suggested boundary of this assessment district. There are 169 buildable parcels within this boundary that fall under the district. The suggested boundary is based on accessibility to the site. The large lot properties that front on Durham and Hall are located relatively close to the site but are not included within the district because they lack direct access to it. Assessment Method Table 2 shows two suggested methods for spreading the cost of the LID: costs spread equally and costs spread by category or zone. Under the first method assessments are spread equally among benefitted properties. Under the second two benefiting categories are established that represent the benefit to residents. The categories include properties located adjacent to the project and those located one or more blocks away. Adjacent houses back onto the natural area, with the back yard of the house being separated from the area only by a fence. These residents benefit from pleasant surroundings without leaving their homes. People living a block from the nature preserve do not have such a direct benefit. Their view of the property is obstructed by the houses between them Page 7 of 10 7A ~ 1 "GAGE" NATURE PARK LID COST ESTIMATES ACOUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS LaW Acquisition t.-<ticef t" apwa sat a togar i+n+►l $125,000 1iXt Struot Improvonu,nts A Road Connoctlon32,000 Cloaring & Soft Pam Construction isaum,es ttw donation of i-6.0%JA valued at $2 000)' 1,600 Total Acquisition 6 Construction Costs: 158,600 _ FINANCE COSTS Total Finance, Administration b Legal Costs: ~y 19,600 Total Project Cost: 178,200 HOUSING UNITS WITHIN THE DISTRICT Number of HOusir<j Units 169 NumW, of Units Wholly Abutting Proposed Park: 30 ASSESSMENT SPREAD OPTIONS & COSTS PER HOUSING UNIT 'Costs Spread Equally 1,060 "Casty. Spread by Category. Non-Abutting 920 Abutting 1,660 MONTHLY PAYMENTS OVER 10 YEARS (PRINCIPAL PLUS ESTIMATED 7% INTEREST)` 'Costs Spread Equally 12.00 "Costs Spread by Category: Non-Abutting 10.50 Abutting 18.50 Tha assessmant is spread oquwly among the hour" units mth,n the proposed drstncl Two banef,tvQ colego-,oz are astati4shad (1) propertws wt pity abutLng the proposed park, and (2) W1 other propertraa located within the assassmiM d,svcl. Abut" propen,es are assessed twice as much as non abutt-ng propartws for hod ecxlu,s•trori, path constructron, and tmance costs Road improvemanl costa we spread equally among all MoperlNSS tocnted w,th,n the protyisad d,sdKt A19a60mentR 1,ade,ona.'1y are pad Serra annually However Council can adopt rules allowing monthly payments Y . ~_=11T .Li LL~l MAP 4 fit TTJ 3 GAGE NATURAL AREA LID V) i Proposed LID Boundary v > I - i ASH RD y - Assessment Area 1 J ~ s - - i N_ Assessment Area 2 Y oil 11. KL NT R U C' 4 EL WY. C~ 1 P LN - E20ND JULY 13, 1993 DURHAM RD. and the nature area, and they benefit most by using it. Because those closest to the project benefit more, the second assessment method proposes a double assessment for adjacent properties. Arguments for Supporting the Proiect This is a desirable site for a small nature preserve. It contains full size trees, thick groundcover, and a small wetland. These features provide scenic views, recreation opportunities, and resource values. The area immediately around the site has experienced significant growth during the past few years. Very little open space remains. If this area of green landscape is replaced by housing, opportunities for walking in natural surrounding, nature study, and other healthy outdoor activities will be lost. Maintenance costs would be low. The Parks Maintenance Division estimates that on average only two hours of crew time per week would be required to maintain the site as a nature park. This work would involve tree and vegetation management, such as hazardous tree removal. It also would involve the once a year spreading of the wood chips that would be used to surface the trails. The wood chips currently are available from tree removal companies at no charge. The City's property insurance premiums would not increase as a result of the subject parcel being turned over to the City. No significant criminal activity or police patrol costs are expected. According to Police Department records, the area surrounding the subject site is a "very low activity" neighborhood. The only calls they have received related to the site itself have concerned illegal dumping of yard and other debris. The Police Chief anticipates that the proposed improvements to the subject site would not increase activity. The experience of Tualatin and other communities with small nature preserves located in residential areas suggests that such preserves typically do not become problem spots in terms of criminal or nuisance activities. Argument for Not Supporting the Proiect There is a lack of neighborhood support. As of this writing, a majority of property owners living within the boundaries of the suggested district have not expressed interest in the project. Persons who do not support the project would be forced to contribute to its cost. Some of these people may not be able to afford this added expense. This would not be an active or community-wide park, which are identified in the park plan as higher priority needs than nature preserves. Because it is surrounded by housing on three sides, public access to the site is limited. Recommendation This report recommends that Council direct staff to proceed with the preliminary engineer's report. The report, status letter, informal meeting(s), and hearing provided for at this stage would provide a much needed common base of accurate financial and other information about the project and would help to clear up any confusion among residents regarding the LID process. Based on this information, residents could decide for themselves whether the benefits of preserving the subject property outweigh the cost's they would have to pay. This recommendation to proceed is contingent Page 8 of 10 upon an updating of the interest petition. If the percentage of support continues to be less than 50% by the date set for Council consideration, consistent with adopted policy, staff' would recommend against proceeding. Staff recommends against changing the suggested boundary of the district to achieve majority support because the boundary is believed to fairly reflect the area that would benefit from the project. MteveluaU July 20, 1993 s Page 9 of 10 MEMO APPENDIX I Petition l: PETITION STATING INTEREST IN THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT We, the undersigned, request that the City of Tigard investigate the feasibility of forming a local Improvement district to provide the following improvements that may service and benefit property owned by us: Purchase of Tax Lot No. 2SI 12000200 as a neighborhood nature site; clearing of debris and development of soft trails through the site; signing at entrances to the site and improvement of sidewalk accesses; completion of improvementsto streets immediately abutting the site. The suggested boundary of the local improvement district would include the subdivisions known as Ashford Oaks, Bond Park and Longtree Estates. We understand that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging on interest In receiving the benefits of the proposed improvement and are not committed to supporting any local improvement district that may be proposed as a result of the City's investigation. Petition 2: PETITION TO EXCLUDE THE BELOW LISTED HOMES FROM ANY FUTURE INVOLVEMENT OF PURCHASING THE GAGE PROPERTY There are 29 homes from the beginning of Thurston Lane off S.W. 79th, all of Thurston Lane to I Ashford Street, That portion of Ashford Street from where Thurston Lane dead ends into Ashford Street, East on Ashford Street to S.W. 79th, and back to the beginning point of Thurston Lane. Those home owners that have signed below, are requesting the City of Tigard to exclude our homes from any future involvement of any kind in the possible purchase, or development of the Gage property. We have no interest in this property, and do not want any of our tax money spent on its purchase or development. This is the 3rd try in the last year and half by Dorothy Gage to sneak the sate of her property by the area home owners and we are tired of having to defend our rights as taut payers. it is for this reason we want our area excluded from all future plans that she may have. Petition 3: PETITION IN OPPOSITION OF GAGE PARK L.I.D. There are homes on S.W. 80th Ave. between Churchill Way and S.W. Bond Street. These home owners that have signed below are requesting the City of Tigard to exclude our homes from any future involvement of any kind in the possible purchase or development of the Gage property, including the formation of any Local Improvement District. We have no interest in this property, and do not want our tax money spent for its purchase or development. We respectfully request that our names be withdrawn from any previous petition. i Page 10 of 10 t ( Mr. Michael F. Najewicz 7961 SW Churchill Way Tigard, Oregon 97224 July 26, 1993 VIA FACSIMILE 684-7299 Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: "Gage" Natural Area LID { Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter is written in opposition to the proposed "Gage" Natural Area LID. Please enter as part of the public record. I would request that you please direct staff to terminate work on the proposed district and improvement for the following reasons: 1. The proposed "Gage" Natural Area LID is not a permitted local improvement within the meaning of City Ordinance Title 13. Under City Ordinance Title 13.04.010 Definitions, the term "local improvement" is defined. There is no authority within the City Ordinance for the acquisition of a natural area. The only permitted definition which allows the acquisition of real properties is contained within ordinance section 13.04.010(x)(7) which allows for the acquisition of motor vehicle parking facilities. Nowhere within the definition of local improvement is the acquisition of real property other than for an ancillary use permitted. This is consistent with the definition of local improvement district fund in ORS Chapter 310. To permit the City of Tigard to create a local improvement district for the acquisition of a natural area would be in violation of City Ordinance and Oregon Revised Statutes. Even if it were argued that this was the acquisition of a park under 13.04.010(x)(9) which relates to the construction, reconstruction, installation and equipping of a park, the term "acquisition" is absent. Had the City intended to permit the Document #0002584 "in Mr. Ed Murphy - July 26, 1993 acquisition of land by a local improvement district, it would have been included within the term definition. Therefore, the acquisition of the proposed "Gage" Natural Preserve is beyond the permitted scope of a local improvement district both under Ordinance and State Law. 2. Properties in Ashford Oaks which will be benefitted by the creation of any local improvement district have been excluded from the proposed district boundaries. The initial petition submitted to the City included three subdivisions for the proposed district boundary. Staff has deleted the vast majority of the Ashford Oaks subdivision from the proposed district boundaries because of the lack of support for the proposed LID. Under City Ordinance 13.04.020(1)(c) property owners owning at least 50% of the property benefitted by the local improvement may, by written petition, request the Council to form a district to make the improvement. That was attempted by the petition submitted as Petition #1 in May of 1992 to the City Council. That petition did not contain 50% of the required signatures for the initiation of a local improvement district by the citizen process. Staff, by choosing to delete Ashford Oaks and create a new proposed improvement district boundary, has initiated this process improperly under the Ordinance. There is no authority for the City to consider the proposed formation except either upon Council's own motion or upon a properly received petition. The petition presented to the City did not meet the requirements of the ordinance and staff has no authority to amend the proposed boundaries to acquire the necessary percentages to request initiation of a local improvement district. Therefore, this matter is not properly before the City Council because the initiation of a local improvement district was not properly submitted by property owners of at least 50% of the property benefitted by the local improvement. 3. The proposed district excludes benefitted property. An examination of Exhibit "A" contained in Staff Report indicates that numerous properties in Ashford Oaks, i.e. all of those north of Ashford Street and west of 79th Avenue, will receive substantially the same benefits of all other properties located within the proposed district and have been improperly excluded from any proposed district formation. The only reason for the deletion of these properties was staffs determination that their inclusion condemned this proposed improvement district to failure. 4. The status of the amended petition for the formation of the local improvement district does not meet the ordinance requirements. Document #0002584 -2- . a i i Mr. Ed Murphy July 26, 1993 Even considering staff s amendment of the first petition proposed, if the petition may be amended or adjusted, then the proposed petition which creates the local improvement district does not meet the requirements of containing 50% of the property owners within the benefitted local improvement district. See Appendix 1 and Petition #3 which withdraw names from Petition #1. If staff may amend a petition, i.e. deleting Ashford Oaks from the boundary, then Petition #3 reduces the number of interested citizens to under 50%. See Staff Report, Page 5, Paragraph 2. Therefore, based upon this, this petition is not properly before the City. In conclusion, I would request that the proposed "Gage" Natural Area Local Improvement District resolution be rejected and Council should direct staff to terminate work on the proposed district and improvement. Should you have any questions, I may be reached at 275-1166 during business hours and 684-8921 after business hours. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Michael F. Najewicz Document #0002584 -3- RECEIVED UL Z 6 1993 l i r c] i r'Y'i <'t ci! t+':I I:>Frlll'i I:ic'i- 1 {.I.mr chi. 1. ;l. I.LCIl:u'"s:I, rl of 1:: 17 C! E" Cl 7 , b•`]....i p.. f.. q C?e'~f.].f...c... f lo A_ r)"i.!=:, i='i- k C. L< t+1,t-,.,...k.., ! ~i! iil :..i': P'+_ A -t: '1.,. 'il: I' r't;.:l.. •J c., I:. ..:t: 1_;+• t' 'i:.i. -it.:: Cl at'.; AM-"tCir:. i + •ikfi i.. .alb! 'i'• P - : r~( ;7S ,t' + ~f Ci r i 1 at i ,.,~r• t. ~ +:-.i. , - ;i: ~-iii ,~t.t' .<k I`iJ~:14-."'t:."4' 2i .L .Li'7Ld5. ct}. iEP7 gllb(-I n C'1 3 n 5; t. d3 f3 rl t-3'~' r a ( 17. C:J !i:: (i 'se c! f_ C:' 4:t:;• a~. f:, 3. (~ta~~>::zLlt: a•a..a.I 1::r 1'it~.t:~!_;- tI-: • - ,.I t::- t. _,r:;,-:!<> ti l(- ftc:• l t:il~Jl.i:at' L.:c:ri:Jr.1 v,ta i~:f-I t:J t_! t: c1-,a_, i. r C1; I i:)(1-fc 4 l:.l-IFS' E.i?aac 1Jr c • c:1 ,..i ! i:? L? (-1 L..1 , 1 1 i Ci : t ~ > L_ .:I C2 f? :i : 1'!I L:i l l !F> :L rl ! ? 4:r t 11::1 n C) t-- V (_I }"J(';11c:;::' ,-;t. (lI'ts:] I.at`o L-, F.;i:'n :l:f: !-_('-:.~f:'tc::•1'~'d tifi;.:f ii U: c!. ::}:-.;<.tli {:f'~•%'~1 c:+'r ._ii!~., C,!I-, t.-.'i~:>C.?• i."1(:+ l:it::~ %.!:i'•JE-. 1'i :C. nl.•.,,,. f:: n.,•. 3 ,I(.(tt., l_! 11 f r_t:-(i' •=t]f_'C'Lrtt. I. L.IL.:._ C.1 c, •..,1.,{., t-:,., is iJ!> i`.1... c_ C.Cil"iP`rJ--s i::JCi. :°!t'i? ,°I:1 r r _ i! !.tt ~ .1 L.'f t F? :cf,'•.,' iJ!_' r-(:,t,di•;- I,t",t i. !Y'Lr I 1 C_r.i.,? i L `IQ t(!!r:i,G 4..1 ' : i • r': ! C.:. i' i r! I' ('t c.'! a. 1'J :1 I t' ,_,rlt i..._. ......i:. :?f9?{-'7f(t+fC3 t.iil...5'. t C., C, F I ,.,i t.1 (_.,,...:~I 1 7. r Azad- t~ 0-i- Y~ e ez4jz?e~ ii. try . r i PETITION STATING INTEREST IN THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL iMPROVEMENT DISTRICT We, the undersigned, request that the City of Tigard investigate the feasibility of forming a local improvement district to provide the following improvements that may service and benefit property owned by us: 1 .purchase of Tax Lot No. 2S1 12CC 0200 as a neighborhood nature site] .clearing of debris and development of soft trails through the site; i .signing at entrances to the site and improvement of sidewalk accesses; completion of improvements to streets immediately abutting the site. The suggested boundary of the local improvement district would include the subdivisions known as Ashford Oaks, Bond Park, and Langtree Estates. 111 We understand that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest in receiving the benefits of the proposed improvement and are not committed to supporting any local improvement district that may be proposed as a result of the City's investigation. Phone Number Owner's signature Property address: (Zip) Printed acme of property j owner: Js~~3c~ Sc,J 7q ~z - Buz 7 s ~1~ ell 'b l VW ~C~~ 5w L4U~~°~~IIL C l~-1,C (~Tok ~1 r~10 (08 Z ~Zd t y 1 8'0'`(L Sw tai 1, ; c~n.ti( } 1 39 - 8 63 L Fall, 1992 7~z~~3 I IN 1-1~1 ? ra-~ INCIDENCES OF BREAKING OF LAWS IN THE LAST 8 YRS. 1 - Attempted rape of an 11 year old girl. 2 - Exposure of a man's genitals on Bond St. a few weeks ago. (Hearing on this soon.) 3 - 5 or more cars broken into. 4 - 3 homes broken into and merchandise stolen. 5 - Marijuana and drug use in 4 acres of Gage sisters property. 6 - Addresses are available on above incidences as well as the names of some of the people involved. 7 - The police have been called many times to disturbances of two homes: one on Bond St. one on S.W. Churchill Way Witnesses available. 8 - Car stolen. 9 - Stereo stolen from van. 10 - Car recovered stripped. al - v~r lg3 CCltS 4L) Co 4A~ C, 2 1 +~urus CISr' -247?/43 ~d +0 Co WV...a~ To: City of Tigard Date: July 27, 1993 Hearing From: Liz Callison, Vice-Chair Parks Committee, Southwest Neighborhood Associations, Portland I strongly urge the preservation of the Gage acreage in Tigard. Your city is becomingly heavily subdivided, without a corresponding dedication of adequate natural parks. Natural parklands, such as this wetlands property, serve the cost-effective function of draining stormwater. They also provide for wildlife habitat, and have immeasureable scenic value. If you give in to the real estate speculators and developers who benefit from the destruction of our region's nature parks, you not only shortchange the descendants of your present population. You will add significantly to your need for increased revenues for storm and wastewater management. 7 /'.Z7 /43 a-f /~cbI yam 5 i 1 .I I 1 I I t c ~ 1 c 1 z~ c x MENA 7 (a~/a3 / COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 14, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: A eat P.C. Denial PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Comm. Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Sub Hearin - June 7 1993 0002 Var 93-0004 - Ames Orchard II PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council reverse or of 'rm the Planning Commission denial of the preliminary subdivision plat for es Orchard II? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a modified preliminary plat as outlined in the July 27, 1993 addendum to the staff report and direct staff to prepare a final order with conditions of approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY Applicants Robert Ames and Mark Rockwell have appealed a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots. The property is located north of the Ames Orchard Subdivision and south of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. The Commission denied approval because it did not find the proposal fully consistent with approval standards. Staff had recommended denial because variance requests did not meet variance approval criteria and the proposed street design did not adequately connect to adjacent properties. The main issues are addressed in the attached addendum to the staff report. The applicants have withdrawn variance requests and proposed a modification to the street design that can be found to meet code requirements (Exhibit B). The Council needs to determine whether the modifications adequately address all city street system connection and design requirements. The applicants' appeal, a June 21, 1993 letter to Ed Murphy and the site plan reviewed by the Planning commission are attached as Exhibit A. In addition a copy of June 27, 1993 staff report is included for Council review. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the applicants' site plan as submitted for the June 27 Planning Commission meeting and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order with conditions. 2. Approve a modified preliminary plat as indicated by Exhibit B and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order with conditions. 3. Deny preliminary plat approval and call for redesign and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order. 4. Refer the application back to the Planning Commission for hearing. FISCAL NOTES No direct impacts. i + F`_ "j 111 I _i l - ,_11 Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: July 27, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93- 0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of "Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 101313, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS ADDENDUM - STAFF REPORT A14ES ORCHARD II SUBDIVISION APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SUB 93-0002 HEARING DATE: JULY 27, 1993 HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR. 97223 Background Applicants, Robert Ames/Mark Rockwell, have appealed a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots. The property is located north of the Ames Orchard Subdivision and south of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. Based on the testimony from neighbors and Planning Commission deliberation at a April 5, 1993 hearing, the applicants proceeded to redesign their proposed subdivision plat. The subsequent submittal for the June 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting raised a number of issues. The Commission did not find the proposal fully consistent with applicable approval standards and voted to deny the preliminary plat. Staff had recommended denial for a number of reasons: { o variance requests to street width and street grade were not demonstrated to meet variance approval criteria; o the proposed subdivision street loop system served to act as an over-length cul de sac; o the interpretation of transportation plan policy and previous development approvals that require the applicant to participate in the improvement of SW Gaarde Street west of 121st Avenue; and o the lack of street extensions to tract boundaries that would allow access or satisfactory future division of adjoining land (18.164.030.F.) The applicants' statement of appeal is attached (Exhibit A). In their appeal, the applicants have withdrawn variance requests to street improvement standards for street width and grade. The applicants have suggested determination of the share or responsibility for the construction of the extension of SW Gaarde Street should be part of another proceeding. analysis of Major Issues Variances. By withdrawing the variance requests, the applicants have eliminated street width and grade as a basis for denial. The applicants propose to meet street grades and widths as now required l in the development code. Cul de sac/one outlet street. Staff believes that the June 7 proposal involving a loop street system serves as an over length cul de sac which limits circulation and connectivity. The applicants had argued that the concern relative to cul de sacs was for emergency vehicle access. They felt that they had mitigated the problem by providing for emergency access from Ames orchard I. After studying numerous potential solutions with staff, the applicants now propose to extend both legs of the loop system to the western boundary of their property and dedicate additional right of way for a future north-south connection to SW Gaarde (Exhibit B). This will not only eliminate the long cul de sac issue but also provide access for property to the west to be further developed if the those owners so choose. It appears that there is approximately 10 acres to the west that could be developed. Gaarde Street. Based on code section 18.164.030.A.1.b., plan policy 8.1.1. and previous development decisions, staff believes the applicants are required to share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde. Pages 15-18 of the June 7, 1993 staff report outline the analysis of this issue. The applicants opposed participation in the improvement of Gaarde because they felt that Gaarde did not serve or was not necessary to serve their development. By agreeing to conditions of approval to participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district or other financial mechanism to allow for the construction of SW Gaarde Street and the dedication of right of way as may be necessary, the applicants can meet their obligation. Connection to Ames I. The applicants' proposed plan provides for emergency vehicle and pathway access between Ames I and Ames II at the and of SW Hazelhill Drive. Staff recognizes neighborhood concern and the effort by the applicants and the neighborhood to work out an agreement regarding access between Ames I and Ames II. Neighbors feel that a full street connection would serve as a collector because of the potential traffic volume. The NE Bull Mountain Traffic Study recommended against the direct connection of 121st Avenue to Bull Mountain Road. The study does not talk about the need for indirect connection of local streets. It is staff's understanding that, at the time of the study, there was discussion that the Traffic Study did not preclude connection of local streets. It would be possible for the Council to require connection between Ames I and II, require a tract to be set aside for a future connection, or require construction of a connection with with Ames I to be barricaded until the completion of additional connections between Bull Mountain Road and Walnut Street. The majority of the Planning Commission appears sympathize with the concern of the neighborhood. Connection to East. The applicants" proposed street layout creates street grade and fill issues that preclude realistic connection to parcels to the east of Ames II. The applicants' original s preliminary design included a feasible connection. A major redesign of the present proposal would be required to allow connection to the east. Intersection of 121st and Gaarde. While nothing in the code or plan prohibits an intersection at 121st and Gaarde as proposed by the applicants, there are issues to be considered. These include: Introduction of a fourth leg to the intersection will reduce the efficiency of a future traffic signal at this intersection. This could increase delays and create the need for additional traffic lanes at the intersection in the long term. - Operational problems and neighborhood disruption tend to occur when a major collector street like 121st is continued into a local street (121st Court as proposed). In these cases, lost drivers tend to end up driving through the neighborhood. Drivers turning from the major street frequently do not yield to drivers from the low volume street. Council ORtions 1. AR12rove Modified Preliminary Plat. This should include withdrawal of the variances, agreement to conditions to participate in the development and implementation of financial means to construct SW Gaarde, a condition to require extension of both legs of the loop street to the western boundary of the applicants, property and dedicate additional right of way to provide for a future north-south connection to SW Gaarde and any other conditions that Council finds necessary. A final order with conditions and findings as modified by Council direction would have to be prepared. 2. ARRrove ARRlicants-* Orgi al Preliminary Plan. It may be difficult to develop findings for the lack of street connections. Variances have not been justified. 2. Deny Preliminary Approval and Call for Redesign, Potential grounds for denial would be whether Transportation Policy 8.1.1 which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development's is met; the lack of street extensions to tract boundaries that allow access or satisfactory future division of adjoining land and the lack of a street layout to conform to already approved plats (18.164.030.F. & 18.160.060.A.3.). Recommendation While staff feels redesign could allow for other connections to adjacent properties and create a more connected street network, the preliminary plan as modified in option 1 above is recommended. The applicants have spent considerable effort trying to adapt marketable plans to a multitude of issues and desires. Findings i from the June 7, 1993 would be modified and conditions based on those recommended in option 1 and the April 5, 1993 staff report would be prepared. a tl r 5 pCa116~T p` EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City RecorderC4~7t14' DATE: June 25, 1993 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Final order - SUB 93- 0002/VAR 93-0004 Dick, attached is the appeal received from Jack L. Orchard of Ball, Janik and Novack (Attorneys at Law) on behalf of Robert Ames, Applicant. I have a tentative hearing date of July 13, 1993, please advise as soon as possible if this date changes. The applicant should also be apprised of the hearing date as soon as possible. Thanks. c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director 7 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON June 25, 1993 Mr. Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack Attorneys at Law One Main Place 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204-3274 Re: Bull Mountain Land Development Company Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004) Dear Mr. Orchard: . { The appeal for the above-referenced Tigard Planning Commission Final Order was received in my office at 2:05 p.m. on this date. Enclosed please find a receipt for your $315 appeal fee check. I am also returning your Check No. 6060 that you included for transcript fees; transcripts are not a requirement of the hearing. I forwarded a copy of your appeal to Community Development Director Ed Murphy and Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. You will be contacted by the Planning Staff apprising you of the hearing date within the next few days. If you have questions or need additional information on the Council hearing process, please do not hesitate to contact me. sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner cwc0625.93 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ~T BALL, JANIK & NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S.W. MAIN STREET SUITE 1100 10- FLOOR,1101 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N.W PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3274 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 TELEPHONE (503) 228-2525 TELEPHONE 12021636-3307 JACK L. ORCHARD TELECOPY (503129S-1058 TELECOPY 12021783-6947 June 25, 1993 BV Messenger t~ City of Tigard c/o Ms. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Bull Mountain Land Development Company Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004 Dear Ms. Wheatley: This firm represents Applicant in the above-referenced appeal. Enclosed is Applicant's Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission decision of June 14, 1993 and a check in the amount of $315 filing fee. We have also enclosed a blank check prepared for transcript costs, if required at this point. i Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. Sincerely, Rft..-- L - Jack L. Orchard Enclosures JLO/crs/BJN/CityTigard.625 n r BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL t OF THE CITY OF TIGARD Bull Mountain Land ) Development Company, ) Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004 on Behalf of ) Robert Ames, Applicant. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL 1. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code §18.32.340, this Notice of Appeal is submitted by the above- identified Applicant with respect to the case files referenced above. 2. f Petitioner on this appeal is the Applicant. The Applicant appeared both in writing and in person before the Tigard Planning Commission with respect to the application to which this appeal relates. 3. e The specific grounds for the appeal are the following: (a) The Planning Commission denied Petitioner's request for subdivision approval based on certain conclusions relating to transportation issues. Petitioner hereby withdraws its request for a variance to the existing street standards on the understanding that such standards are in the process of review and possible alteration through a separate code amendment procedure. There is no necessity for a variance to the existing standards at this time. The future street standards may be altered consistent with Petitioner's variance request. 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL (o/a~/93 , asvS P en. Gf t~71 y ,~~Q Petitioner will await final action by the City on the street standard amendments. (b) Another basis for denial of the request were proposed street grades in excess of 12%. Petitioner concurs that the 12% grade standard is appropriate. Petitioner's engineer has confirmed to City technical staff that the proposed grading plan can be feasibly altered so that no street grades for the subdivision will exceed the 12% maximum standard. i (c) The denial was further premised on the lack of a street connection or street stop to the east of the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission was in error in adopting the standard or imposing a condition requiring such a street connection. The proposed subdivision meets all circulation, ( public safety and access requirements without such a street connection. The street connection would result in unmanageable 4 and impractical grades for lots within the proposed subdivision and would leave them impractical to build upon, leading to excessive housing costs and infra-structure costs. (d) The denial was also based upon a requirement that S. W. Gaarde Street be extended and that Petitioner either bear one- half the cost of the extension or construct the extension. Neither is a valid requirement to impose on Petitioner. The issue of the Gaarde extension is beyond the scope of this application and should be left to a subsequent proceeding relating to the improvement project or cost-sharing, including 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL i whether Petitioner has any obligation to construct or pay for the proposed extension. (e) No other colorable basis exists for denying the subdivision. 4. The Notice of Final Order by the Planning Commission was dated June 14, 1993 and stated that Petitioner had the right to appeal the decision by June 25, 1993. x! 5. This appeal is accompanied by the $315.00 appeal fee. Petitioner stands ready to provide any required transcript deposit or fee. Respectfully Submitted, ( BALL, JANIK & NOVACK By: L. Orchard Of Attorneys for Petitioner Dated this 25th day of June, 1993. JL0/crs/8JN/Rockwe11.APP 3 - NOTICE OF APPEAL L June 21, 1993 To: Ed Murphy - City of Tigard From: Mark Rockwell - Bull Mountain Land & Development Co. Ref: Ames Orchard II subdivision - Tigard, Oregon SUB 93-0002 / VAR 93-0004 The Staff Report for Ames Orchard II recommended denial, because of (1) our request for a variance to the existing street standards, (2) a preliminary design that contemplated a greater than 12% street grade on S.W. 121st Court, and (3) the fact that the plan did not provide for a street stub to the east. (4) The Staff Report also recommended that if the subdivision application was approved, one of the conditions for approval should obligate Ames Orchard II to pay for 50% of the cost of extending S.W. Gaarde Street, for that portion of the S.W. Gaarde extension that would front on the Ames Orchard II site. We believe that to a large extent the concerns expressed in the Staff Report can be addressed satisfactorily. We submit the following for your consideration, in the hope that this is an approach we can agree on, and mutually support when our application is heard on appeal to the City Council. (1) Request for a variance to existing street standards. We are prepared to drop our request for a variance to the existing street standards. We and ( are willing to accept Staffs recommendation that if narrower streets are the standard at the time we construct the subdivision, we would have the opportunity to construct the streets in accordance with the revised standards, otherwise we would be held to the existing standards. (2) Maximum street grades. We are able, and willing, to alter the proposed grading plan so that no street grades would exceed the 12% maximum allowable grade standard. (3) Street connection to the east. Because there is a ravine at the east edge of tax lot 600 (Ames Orchard II) which results in a large grade change between Ames Orchard II and the properties to the east, we do not believe that constructing a street connection to the east is the best approach. Such a connection would require approximately 15 feet of fill at the property line, and would also require a large portion of the property to the east (tax lot 300) to undergo extensive filling in order to eventually complete such a street connection. Such a connection would be costly for the owner of tax lot 300 as well as Ames Orchard II, and would substantially reduce the useable area on tax lot 300. Given the fact that all of the tax lots to the east of Ames Orchard II can be readily served by an alternate street layout, we recommend that a connection to the east not be a condition of approval. (4) Cost for extending S.W. Gaarde. There are legitimate questions regarding the cost for extending S.W. Gaarde, and how that cost should be borne. We believe that the proper forum for discussing responsibility for those costs, and determining how the costs are to be divided, is at the time the City establishes a ( zone of benefit (Code section 13.08.20), and should not be arbitrarily established at the time the subdivision application is approved. . p.01 -gyp 684?2`J? Jul W, 1993 08.2ow r X10 d61~ OM n~notax~a"smti~► wfam 5fl 7.00 J ya ~ N Z~ i 01 33y~ a 1oD ra 0 IN N 22 a ~ ( J l ~ ~ 13i00~~ 1Q ~ 'r i r d t roN ~r ~.J Q 15 i ~Y AGENDA ITEM 5.2 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: MONDAY JUNE 7, 1993 - 7:30 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL. 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST i CASE: AMES ORCHARD NO.2 SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 93-0002 Variance VAR 93-0004 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 11,050 to 23,664 square feet. A 12,663 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. Variances have been requested to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030 to allow 28 foot wide curb to curb internal local streets (tentatively named SW 121st Court and Vista Circle on the preliminary plat) within 40 foot wide right-of-ways whereas this Code Section requires 34 foot wide street within a fifty foot wide right-of-ways. In addition, the applicant requests a Variance to Code Section 18.164.070.1.b for these same streets to install sidewalk only on the outside of the looped streets whereas this Code section requires sidewalks on both sides of local streets. APPLICANT: Robert Ames AGENT: Alpha Engineering (c/o Mark Rockwell) (Mark Dane/Randy Clarno) 16325 SW Boones Ferry 9600 SW Oak Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Robert Ames LOCATION: South of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, north of the Ames orchard subdivision. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM 2S1 10BB, Tax lot 600 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units per acre) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Cade Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164 and 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. '~G STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the subdivision request. Denial of the variance request. II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: Tax lot 600 is 12.68 acres in size and has approximately 180 feet of frontage along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street. The property extends approximately 800 feet further west of SW Gaarde's intersection with SW 121st Avenue adjacent to an approved, but as yet to be constructed and dedicated, extension of SW Gaarde Street. The property is roughly rectangular in size. B. Site location: The site is located between the SW 121st Avenue/SW Gaarde Street intersection and the Ames Orchard subdivision. The present northern terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive is located along the southern boundary of the site. C. Existing uses and structures: The site is presently vacant. Tree cover consists of a filbert orchard covering the western approximately 3/4 of the site. The eastern 1/4 of the site is open grassland. The applicants' exhibit 3 of 3 is an aerial photo which clearly illustrates the existing cover of the site. D. Topography and drainage: The property slopes generally from the south to the north and northeast. A broad swale which includes an apparently intermittent stream extends from just northeast of the present terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive to the eastern property boundary. This intermittent stream and a storm sewer drain to a distinct drainageway just to the east of the site. E. Surrounding land uses: Adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Properties to the west are developed with single family residences on parcels ranging in size from approximately 0.5 to 6.8 acres. An approximately 1500-1600 foot long private dead-end road which extends northward from SW Bull Mountain Road currently serves eight residences on these parcels to the west. The property to the north of the site has recently been approved for development of a 64 lot subdivision (SUB 92-0005/Vista Point Subdivision). This subdivision would include a westward extension of SW Gaarde Street. SW Gaarde would abut the northern property line of the subject Ames property. Lots on the north side of SW Gaarde Street near the subject Ames property will average approximately 8,500 square feet in size. Properties to the south of the Ames property are zoned R-1 (Residential one unit per acre) and contain 23 single family residences within the Ames Orchard subdivision. Lots within this subdivision range from approximately 0.5 to 1 acre in size. This subdivision was approved by Washington County in the 1976 (to include a second phase on the current subject site), but the subdivision was annexed to the City of Tigard while 2 under construction. SW Hazelhill Drive extends through Ames Orchard I and is stubbed into the southern boundary of the subject site. The fully developed Shadow Hills subdivision is located to the southeast of the subject site and west of Ames Orchard subdivision. Shadow Hills is zoned R-2 (Residential, two dwelling units per acre). Shadow Hills is served by a loop road off of SW Bull Mountain Road. Properties to the east of the subject site range in size from 0.5 to 2 acres in size and contain single family residences, filbert orchards, and a water tank. Properties to the northeast in the Colonial View subdivision range in size from approximately 14,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and are developed with single family residences. F. Plan designation and zoning: The site and surrounding properties are all designated for Low Density Residential development by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the east and northeast are under the jurisdiction of Washington County, but are within the City's planning area. Existing zoning of surrounding properties is illustrated on the vicinity map attached to this report. G. Proposed use: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 11,050 to 23,664 square feet as illustrated on sheet 1 of 1 of the applicants' plan set and described in the applicants' statement. A 12,663 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. The current plan was submitted on May 7, 1993 in response to the Planning Commission's continuance of the review of this subdivision application. The Commission had reviewed a previous plan for the property on April 5, 1993, and had declined to approve the subdivision plan that had been presented at that time, or City staff proposed revisions to that plan. H. Public service and utilities: The preliminary utility plan (applicants' exhibit 2 of 2) proposes that the subdivision be served by development of a water main network from the existing 8 inch water line along the western edge of the site. Public storm sewers are proposed within the streets throughout the proposed subdivision with outfall to the proposed storm water quality and detention facility to be constructed within Tract A in the northeastern corner of the site abutting SW Gaarde Street. The detention facility would drain to an existing storm sewer within SW Gaarde. Sanitary sewers are proposed to be extended through the site from an existing sewer in Gaarde Street through lines to be located in the proposed new streets. I. Access and nearby streets: The street system for the proposed subdivision would consist of a southward local street extension from the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street to provide access to a loop street extending westward 3 r i N through the subdivision. An eight foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path extending 140 feet from the existing southern stub of SW Hazelhill Drive to the proposed cul de sac bulb at the end of the proposed new north-south street. This pathway would be located within a 5,648 square foot, triangular shaped open space tract, Tract B. The applicant's statement notes that this tract is intended to be dedicated. The internal subdivision streets are proposed to vary from standard local street improvement standards. Variances have been requested to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030 to allow 28 foot wide curb to curb looped local streets (tentatively named SW 121st Court and SW Vista Circle on the preliminary plat) within 40 foot wide right-of-ways whereas this Code Section requires 34 foot wide streets within fifty foot wide right- of-ways. In addition, the applicant requests a Variance to Code Section 18.164.070.1.b for these same streets to install sidewalk only on the outside of the looped streets whereas this Code Section requires sidewalks on both sides of local streets. The applicant's statement addresses the standard variance approval criteria of Code Chapter 18.134 at pages 8-10, rather than the subdivision variance criteria of code Section 18.160.120. The existing section of SW Hazelhill Drive to which the bikepath within Tract B is proposed to connect is approximately 42 feet wide, has bikeways/walkways striped on the pavement, has open drainage ditches, and has no streetlights, curbs, or sidewalks. SW Hazeltree Terrace connects SW Hazelhill Drive to SW Bull Mountain Road, a major collector street under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW Gaarde Street abuts the property to the north. Jurisdiction for SW Gaarde Street lies with both the City of Tigard and Washington County. SW Gaarde is functionally classified as a major collector street by both the City and County Transportation Plans. Current pavement on Gaarde is approximately 24 feet in width from this point eastward to SW Pacific Highway. No sidewalks are currently provided along SW Gaarde and streetlights are few. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to SW Gaarde Street to the east in the near future. The applicants are proposing to connect this development to SW Gaarde Street directly at its intersection with SW 121st Avenue. The applicants propose dedicating 10 addition feet of right-of-way along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde, along the northeastern edge of the site. The plans do not indicate that the applicants intend any improvement to this stretch of street, but the applicants' statement in responding to Policy 8.1.3 appears to indicate that improvements are contemplated. The proposal does not contemplate right-of-way dedication for SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. The applicants' statement in its response to Section 18.108 provides arguments for the applicants not improving SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. SW 121st Avenue intersects SW Gaarde Street just north of the subject property. SW 121st Avenue in this area is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW 121st Avenue is also a major collector street with approximately 24 feet of pavement, open ditches, few streetlights, and no sidewalks. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to this section of SW 121st Avenue, except for half street improvements on the west side of SW 121st extending approximately 300 feet north of Gaarde that were required as a condition of development approval for the proposed Vista Point subdivision. 4 J. Other applications affecting this parcel: ` The applicants have recently submitted an application (File No. ZON 93-01) for rezoning of tax lot 600 from R-1 and R-2 (Residential, 1 and 2 dwelling units per acre) to R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre). That request was approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993. The staff report for application ZON 93-01 contains a brief summary of previous land use and development applications affecting this property. This report incorporates that information by reference. It is important to note that the subject property had two prior subdivision approvals - the first approval was a Washington County approval that included this site with the land that has been developed as Ames orchard I; the second was a City of Tigard approval for 14 lots on this parcel only. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The approval standards for a preliminary subdivision plat are listed at Code Section 18.160.060.A. The hearings authority may grant variances to Community Development Code standards if the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120.B are satisfied. In addition, the proposal must also be found to be consistent with the development standards of the following Code Chapters: Chapter 18.48 (R-3.5 zone); Chapter 18.88 (Solar Access Requirements); Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations); Chapter 18.150 (Tree Protection); and Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Standards of other Community Development Code chapters may apply to subsequent development of the subject site but are not applicable to the current review. 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 also apply to the review of the subdivision development proposal. IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has provided comments which are attached as an appendix to this report. 2. Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: A. SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street (east of SW 121st) adjacent to the site are under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The County's Department of Land Use and Transportation recommends that approval of this subdivision proposal be conditioned upon the following: a. If made a condition of approval of this development proposal, the collector road extension of SW Gaarde Street along the north side of the site west of SW 121st Avenue shall be constructed pursuant to Section C.4.a., b., c., d., and e. of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Tir*ard. 5 d B. Prior to Final Plat Approval: a. The County shall be afforded the opportunity to complete a traffic analysis pursuant to Washington County Resolution and Order No. 86-95. The applicant shall construct any improvements found to be warranted within the development's impact area pursuant to the County Traffic Analyst's review in relation to R&O 86-95. The applicant shall provide certification from a registered engineer that sight distance is adequate at the SW Gaarde/SW 121st Avenue access point. Contact Doug Norval, County Traffic analyst for specific questions regarding the traffic analysis. b. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 37 feet from centerline of the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage east of SW 121st Avenue, including adequate corner radius. C. The applicant shall sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve the base facility of SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and SW Pacific Highway. d. A one-foot non-access reserve strip shall be established along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage. The documents needed to complete these conditions shall be prepared by the Washington County Survey Division and shall be recorded in the Washington County Records Department. e. Submit plans, obtain County Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit for construction of the following public improvements: i. Concrete sidewalk to County standards along SW Gaarde Street frontage. ii. Adequate roadway drainage along SW Gaarde Street frontage. iii. Any traffic safety improvements required as a result of the completion of the County Traffic Analyst's report based on Washington County Rule and,Order No. 86-95. iv. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. Y L L! ZL 1= Washington County. 3. The City of Tigard Building Division has provided the following comments: a. Individual lot drainage should be to an approved public storm sewerage system; alternatively, individual private storm drainage systems may be utilized. Plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard plumbing inspector; b. Maximum finished slopes of all cut banks shall be 2:1; C. Soil tests and engineered footings may be required on an individual lot basis. 4. The City of Tigard Operations Division recommends that-SW Hazelhill Drive be extended through the site to connect with SW Gaarde Street. 5. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the preliminary plat and has provided the following comments: a. Hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Tigard Water District and Fire District; b. No parking should be allowed on streets that would have less than 20 feet of driving surface, if such streets are proposed. C. The Fire District is very concerned with the number of residences in the proposed Ames Orchard II that would be served by a long single- access loop street system. A street connection or emergency vehicle access should be provided to connect the new development with SW Hazelhill Drive or to the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st. 6. Tigard School District 23J has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed development lies within the attendance areas of C.F. Tigard Elementary School, Fowler Middle School, and the Tigard Senior High School. (School District review was made with regard to original subdivision plan, only. May submittal was not forwarded.) The proposed development is projected to generate the following additional enrollment at those schools: 11 students at C.F. Tigard School; 4 students at Fowler Middle School; and 3 students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that, in general, school capacities are projected to be exceeded as a result of this proposed development and other recently reviewed and approved developments within those attendance areas. The District notes that core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. Staff also contacted Bud Hillman of the School District (phone call on 2/25/93) with regard to whether the District had any concerns with school bus routing. (Contact was made with regard to original subdivision plan, 7 only. May submittal was not forwarded.) Mr. Hillman stated that under present policies, school buses would be routed into this subdivision to pick up elementary school students but that secondary students from the proposed development would need to walk out to SW 121st Avenue for school bus service. 7. Neighborhood Planning Organization #3 supports the suggestion of several neighbors to the south of the proposed development that access to the development should come off of SW Gaarde Street with only an emergency vehicle access/pedestrian and bike path between this development and Ames Orchard I. The NPO does not support any of the requested variances to Community Development Code road improvement standards. (These comments were provided in response to the original submittal. The revised preliminary plat has been submitted to NPO #3 for review, although the NPO meeting will occur after issuance of this staff report but prior to the Commission's hearing.) 8. Northwest Natural Gas has commented that there are both a 10 inch diameter high pressure feeder main within the approximate alignment of the Gaarde Street extension along the northern edge of the site as well as a 2 inch diameter poly main on the north and west sides of the site. The developer's representatives should contact Northwest Natural Gas to have the main located prior to any excavation on the site. 9. The Tigard Water District has provided several comments which are included in a letter attached as an appendix to the report on the original proposal. 10. GTE has reviewed the proposal and offered no comments other than that the site developer should contact GTE at least 30 days prior to the opening of utility trenches. il. The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (cable television) and PGE have reviewed the original proposal and have offered no comments or objections. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. compliance with Community Development Code - Subdivision 1. Code Development Code Section 18.160.060.A provides the following approval standards for a subdivision application: a. The proposed subdivision must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations: b. The proposed plat name may not be duplicative of another recorded plat and the plat must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92 related to a plat; 1 8 C. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects unless the City - determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and d. An explanation has been provide for all common improvements. Staff finds that the proposed Ames Orchard No. II subdivision is only partially consistent with the approval criteria for a proposed subdivision as described below: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential density opportunity for the site and with the use, density, and dimensional standards of the R-3.5 zoning district as described in #3 below. However, staff finds that the proposal is only partially consistent with applicable Plan policies and with other applicable regulations, as noted within the accompanying paragraphs that point out specific deficiencies - some which staff feels are significant enough to warrant denial of the proposal. b. The proposed name of the subdivision, Ames Orchard No. II, is not duplicative of any recorded plat within Washington County other than the first phase of Ames orchard subdivision. The form and other details regarding the final plat would be required to be consistent with applicable Oregon Revised Statute standards, as well as the detailed plat filing requirements of the City of Tigard and Washington County. These details are not normally considered during the Planning Commission's preliminary plat review but instead are reviewed by the City's surveyor and the Washington County Surveyor's office; C. The preliminary plat does not provide for a northward extension of SW Hazelhill Drive as would be consistent with the existing road pattern with the previously approved plat for Ames Orchard I subdivision as well as a previous subdivision approval for the subject property. Conformity with the road patterns of existing plats is required by Code Section 18.160.060.A.4. On April 5, 1993, the Planning commission reviewed a plan that would have provided for an extension of SW Hazelhill Drive through the subject property. After hearing the comments of several residents of the Ames orchard subdivision, the commission determined that it was in the public's interest to not provide for a road connection between the existing Ames Orchard subdivision and new development on the subject property. The neighbors and the Planning Commission were concerned about changes in the existing neighborhood that might result from additional traffic travelling between SW Gaarde Street and SW Bull Mountain Road. / While staff continues to continues to have concerns with the 1 9 Planning Commission's decision on this matter, we can ( understand the neighbors and the Commission's concerns. Staff accepts this decision as being based upon special circumstances which would affect an established neighborhood as well as special concerns about traffic safety on a stretch of SW Bull Mountain Road that presently has limited sight diatance. As such, we respect the Commission's decision regarding not connecting Ames Orchard I and II at this time with a public road. (Nevertheless, we urge the Commission to consider requiring any tract for a pathway or emergency vehicle access to be at least 50 feet wide so as to provide for a possible roadway connection in the future, if and when attitudes change regarding this connection and when Bull Mountain Road is improved. It is important to not totally lose opportunities for logical road connections by allowing a house to be built in the way). The applicants, however, have seemed to have understood the Commission's earlier decision to not connect Ames I and II as throwing out the baby with the bathwater such that they have redesigned the subdivision proposal so that it seems to totally ignore Plan and Code directives for developing a safe and efficient transportation system and providing access for future development of abutting properties. Some of the current proposal's inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan Policies and Code standards will be dealt with later in this report in sections directly related to the specific standards, but general concern are addressed here as well as in the attached Engineering Department comments. First, the proposal does not provide for a street stub to serve future redevelopment of the properties to the east, as was previously proposed. Staff believes that such a stub is necessary in order to allow for connectedness of neighborhoods for social, traffic, and emergency vehicle access reasons as discussed in the report on the earlier proposal. Sheet 3 of 3 of the applicant's plan set illustrates a possible scheme for redevelopment of these properties to the east without a connection to Ames Orchard II. This scheme would require a new street to intersect with SW Gaarde Street approximately 250 feet east of the proposed SW 121st Court, opposite SW Rose Vista Drive. The City has attempted to space intersections on major collector streets as far apart as possible, especially attempting to separate local street intersections from major collector/major collector intersections such as 121st and Gaarde that at some point will likely have a traffic signal. Westbound stacking on SW Gaarde would likely extend beyond the Rose Villa intersection, and adding another leg to this intersection would seem to exacerbate this traffic problem. Alternatively, the street to serve redevelopment of these properties to the east might need to be another dead end far in excess of the maximum 400 foot cul de sac length standard of the Community Development Code. Staff recommends that any development of the Ames II property be required to provide a public street connection to serve the efficient redevelopment of these properties to the east, consistent with Code Section 18.164.030.E which states where necessary to give access 10 d...5 or permit a satisfactory future division of land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be divided...." Second, the proposed loop street within Ames Orchard II, while not being what most people consider to be a cul de sac, effectively would be a dead-end, single-access street with the eouthwestern-most point of the proposed loop street being approximately 1,000 feet distant from the single SW Gaarde access to the proposed subdivision. Staff is not clear whether this street should be considered a cul de sac since this term is not defined by the Community Development Code. The Commission can determine whether this street should be determined to be a cul de sac. The Doubleday Dictionary for Home, School, and Office (1975) defines a cul de sac as "a passage open only at one end; blind alley." Certainly, this proposed street system meets this definition and the Commission could therefore find that the proposal must be reviewed against Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.x.1 which states that "a cul de sac shall be as short as possible and in no event shall be more than 400 feet long." Regardless of whether the Commission wishes to determine that the proposed street system is a cul de sac, it is still appropriate to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the theory behind limiting the length of dead end streets. The primary reasons cited for limiting the length of dead end streets are generally to provide adequate and f alternative access for emergency vehicles and service vehicles such as school buses, and to provide for connections between different neighborhoods or between the development and collector streets. It is noted that the Fire District has raised concerns with the proposed dead and street system. Staff recommends that the proposed over-long dead end street system be avoided through the Commission, at a minimum, requiring a street stub to serve redevelopment of the properties to the east as outlined above. In addition, staff would recommend that Ames Orchard II subdivision also be required to provide for a connection to the approved, but as yet unbuilt SW Gaarde Street extension approximately 450 feet west of SW 121st Avenue directly opposite the short north- south street within the approved Vista Point development, if the Commission allows creation of SW 121st Court as currently proposed. Such a street within Ames Orchard II would use up approximately 6,500 square feet of the development site. Because all proposed lots are substantially larger than the minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone, the applicant would not appear to need to eliminate a lot, although some reconfiguration of the subdivision would be necessary. If the applicant raises concerns with losing lot area or possibly losing a lot, we point out that at the time of the filing of this application, the applicants did not have the right for this number of lots without the requested rezoning. Clearly, the Commission should not feel afraid to require necessary public improvements from developers who have already 11 ~ ~D benefitted from the Commission's recent upzoning of this property. Because the current proposal is so significantly deficient with regard to satisfying Community Development Code road pattern and road improvement standards and therefor: a would not provide a safe and efficient road system as required by Plan Policy 8.1.1, staff recommends that the current subdivision proposal be denied. Staff finds that the current proposal is so far from what should be provided that the application cannot reasonably be approved subject to conditions of approval. We do recommend that the Planning Commission provide clear direction to the applicants as to what is expected for this property so as to guide the preparation of future development plans for this property. 2. Code Section 18.160.090 authorizes the decision-making authority to grant variances to Code standards if the requested variance can be found to be consistent with the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120. The revised applicants' statement continues to ignore the appropriate variance approval criteria and instead refer generally) to the approval standards of Code Chapter 18.134. To make sure that the Commission and applicant are fully aware of the applicable variance approval standards, we quote Code Section 18.160.120.B: Variances to Code development standards may be approved through the subdivision review process upon satisfaction of 1 the following variance criteria: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. The applicants' statement at page 5 states that the functional characteristics of the proposed street exceeds that of the City's current local street standards as it relates to...." (Emphasis added). Staff does not disagree with the applicants that the loop street as proposed would function adequately with regard to the roadway width carrying anticipated traffic, providing necessary width for emergency vehicle travel, and providing enough on-street parking spaces. In addition, the sidewalk on only one side of the street may in fact serve future pedestrian traffic adequately. 12 -.c 1 However, staff fails to see how the proposed street would exceed the C City's local street standards as the applicants assert. It is totally unclear to us how a sidewalk on only one side of a street can provide better pedestrian circulation than that same sidewalk as well as another sidewalk on the other side of the street. Perhaps we're stupid, but it also is unclear to staff how a 28 foot wide street can provide more width of driving area or "clear zone" than a standard 34 foot wide street. Staff finds the applicants to be guilty of overstatement with regard to how the proposed street would exceed the functional characteristics of standard local streets. Staff does not argue that the proposed varied street and right-of- way widths would generally function adequately, and maybe even as well as standard local streets, thereby somewhat satisfying the second variance approval criterion, although this really doesn't address why the varied streets are necessary for the proper design of the subdivision. Assuming that this is the case, permitting the proposed street design would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to the rights of others thereby satisfying the third variance approval criterion. However, the subdivision variance approval standards require a lot more than showing that the varied improvements may function adequately and not be detrimental to others. First, the applicants have not in any manner addressed the variance approval standard which requires that the need for the variance arise from "special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual or peculiar..." (Code Section 18.160.120.B.2). No evidence has been presented regarding any special circumstances or conditions such as ® excessively steep slopes, presence of wetlands, or other physical characteristics of the site which would preclude development of standard streets with this development plan. Second, the applicants' narrative also does not adequately demonstrate . an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations..." (Code Section 18.160.120.B.4). The applicants' statement notes that the applicants may incur "unnecessary hardship" through additional development costs if required to build standard local streets. There clearly is a huge difference between the alleged unnecessary hardship of having to pay the same sorts of development costs as other residential developers and the extraordinary hardship that is necessary to justify a variance. The applicants have clearly not met the burden of proof for this criterion. Unless positive findings can be made for each of the variance approval standards of Code Section 18.160.120.8, a variance request should be denied. The applicants have not satisfied the burden of providing the necessary justification for the requested variances. The usually generous Planning Division cannot see how we can provide the necessary findings for the applicants because of the absence of any shred of special circumstances affecting the site or anything resembling extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the established improvement standards. Therefore, the variance reauests should clearly be denied 3. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the use standards of the 13 Ci R-3.5 zoning district because the lots are intended to be used for { single-family residences, a permitted use in the R-3.5 zoning district (Code Chapter 18.48). The proposal is consistent with the maximum density of 3.5 units per gross acre allowed for the site by the R-3.5 zone. All lots are consistent with the minimum 10,000 square foot minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone. All proposed lots are consistent with the minimum average lot width standard of 65 feet. Standard R-3.5 setbacko should apply to this subdivision. The proposed development is therefore found to be consistent with the applicable use and dimensional standards of Code Chapter 18.48. 4. Community Development Code Chapter 18.88 establishes standards for solar accessibility for newly created residential lots. Code Section 18.88.040.E allows the hearings authority to reduce the percentage of lots that must meet the solar access design standard if certain conditions relative to the site (such as slope, existing shade, or existing or planned road patterns) make it difficult or impossible to fully comply with the solar access design standards without adversely impacting the development's permitted density and Cost or amenities. The applicants request, and staff concurs, that lots 28 and 29 should be exempted from the solar access calculation because these lots would have an east-west slope in excess of 20 percent. Of the remaining non-exempt lots, Code Section 18.80.040.C requires that 80 percent, or 24 lots, must satisfy the solar access design standards. Five lots, lots 28, 29, 30, 40, and 50, are exempted under the basic 20 percent exemption. Twenty-four lots satisfy the / basic solar requirement of a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west orientation and a minimum north-south dimension of 90 feet as shown on the applicant's solar access evaluation sheet. Two other lots (lots 38 and 49) are proposed to have solar building lines recorded. Therefore, eighty percent of the lots not exempted for cause would meet the solar access design standard. The proposed subdivision is therefore consistent with the solar access lot pattern standards of Chapter 18.88. 5. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) because the 441,930 square foot net developable area of the site (after deductions for streets and Tracts A and 8) yields an opportunity for 44 dwelling units under the R-3.5 zoning district's 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Thirty-three single family residential lots are proposed. The applicants' statement includes a density calculation. If revisions to the subdivision proposal are required (such as increased right-of-way widths or a different street pattern), the Commission should require the applicants to submit a revised density calculation that assures that the revised plat is still consistent with chapter 18.92. It is noted that the proposed subdivision layout would still comply with the allowed density if rights-of way are increased to the standard 50 foot width. 6. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in 14 d diameter that are removed during construction be minimized. The proposed development's public streets, utilities, and residences and related grading are anticipated to necessitate the removal of all of the filbert trees on the western portion of the site as well as some of the other few trees on the site. The applicants intend to remove all of the filbert trees because these trees would generally not be compatible with the future residential landscaping of the proposed lots and because of the possibility of unmaintained nut trees harboring diseases and insects that could be harmful to nearby filbert orchards. For these reasons, removal of these trees should be permitted to occur with approval of a subdivision plan for this k site and approval of grading and erosion control plans. In this special case, no separate tree removal permit should be required. 7. The proposed subdivision's streets and other public improvements, are not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) as described above with regard to the general subdivision approval standards and the subdivision variance requests. Staff provides the following additional comments with regard to the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Also see the attached Engineering Department comments): a. Approval of any development application for this site should be conditioned upon dedication of additional right-of-way for SW Gaarde Street as well as improvement to major collector standards. If development of this site follows development of the Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developers of Ames Orchard II should anticipate being assessed for their share of these improvements through a public improvement reimbursement district. If development of this site precedes development of Vista Point, the developers of Ames Orchard II should be required to pay a fee in lieu of half the cost of constructing this collector street across the Ames Orchard II frontage. Construction of improvements to this major collector street by the site developer will qualify for traffic impact fee credits for the individual lots in the subdivision. Staff is not persuaded at all by the applicants arguments for not contributing to the costs of the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st Avenue. First, the applicants argue that this street will not provide improved access to the subdivision's residents to area destinations. Obviously, with the road approved for construction only several hundred feet west of this site, the road (at first) would not provide significant access to area destinations. However, when the road is fully constructed to SW Walnut Street, the road will provide significantly improved access to destinations in western Tigard, to Beaverton, and to other locations to the north and west through improved connections to SW Scholls Ferry Road. The City Council's final order for the Vista Point development to the north found the following regarding the Code standards which require new developments in this area to contribute to development of the Gaarde Street extension as well as the benefits the road will provide for future residents of the area: 15 Qw~-- Mom 11 11 a ...Code Section 18.164.030.A.1.b states that "any new street or additional street width planned as part of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this Code." This street section has been planned for by Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Note 2. As noted in the introduction to the Plan, the Plan "provides a policy framework for decision making on such matters as...subdivisions." (Introduction, Page II-4.) The Council interprets this to mean that overall the comprehensive Plan represents the City's planning policies. The underlying basis for the Council's decision to require the Gaarde Street extension is found in the findings of the Transportation Section on Pages II-55 and II-56. The Council notes that the Community Development Code is intended to "implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan," # 18.02.010, and the following referenced sections accomplish that policy. The Council considers the following findings from the Transportation section as mandated guidance from the City's acknowledged plan in evaluating transportation issues for this area of Tigard. * Major congestion problems within the City have resulted from the rapid population growth since 1970, creating a need for major street improvements. * The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with private sector improvements to achieve the most effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. * The major residential growth during the planning period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard (the affected area). Both of these areas lack adequate improved traffic ways. * A need exists during the planning period to complete a collector street system between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway. In addition to the findings, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, Note 2 specifically states that "A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report." The Council finds authority for this condition in Transportation Policy 8.1.1, which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway 16 system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development." Strategy 5 of the Transportation Section states that "[t]he City's Tigard Community Development Code shall require developers of land to dedicate necessary rights-of-way and install necessary street improvements to the city's standards when such improvements have not been done prior to the developer's proposals. These necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal." The project site is in the westerly area of Tigard where major residential development was expected and is occurring, and which lacks adequate improved traffic ways. Gaarde Street is specifically mentioned as a necessary collector/connector to Walnut Street. This project site is included in the area covered by note 2 in the Transportation Plan, which specifically mentions a Gaarde Street-Walnut Street connection. This project represents one piece of the development puzzle, the completion of which will provide public improvements to help implement the solutions presented in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council finds there is a reasonable relationship between the current development of this project and the needs for transportation system improvements, as expressed in the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and implemented in the Development Code Sections 18.164.030.A.1.b and 18.164.030.F.1. (City Council Final order for the proposed Vista Point development, adopted by Council Resolution No. 93-19). Staff finds that these Council findings are just as applicable to the proposed Ames Orchard II development as they are to the Vista Point proposal. Additionally, the City Council apparently contemplated that other future developments in this area should be required to contribute to the cost of development of the Gaarde extension. The Council's final order for Vista Point also found: The subdivision developer will be required to construct an extension of SW Gaarde Street and a major sewer line to serve the proposed subdivision. These improvements will likely be used by other developments. SW Gaarde Street is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a needed collector street improvement. The street and sewer improvements likely will only be constructed as part of a development. Therefore, the City finds it is appropriate to initiate a zones of benefit pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 in order to allow the developer of these facilities to recover a portion of the improvement costs from other subsequent developments using these facilities. Section 13.08.020(x) allows the City to initiate formation of zones of benefit. The City finds that the Comprehensive 17 1 Plan is furthered by initiating zones of benefit because it enables the subdivision developer to proceed with the Y necessary public improvements. Getting back to the Ames application's arguments for not contributing to the Costs of improving the Gaarde'extension, the applicants state that the SW Gaarde Road extension is a detriment to the site. Staff reminds the Commission (and the applicants, especially) that the Commission's final order regarding the upzoning of this property from R-2 to R-3.5 (Final Order No. 93-07 PC) cited the approved alignment for the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site as a reason why the property should be up-zoned due to the potential impacts to the site as well as providing improved access to the site. While in some ways, the road may be a detriment with regard to livability for future development, the plans for the road were an asset to the applicants in justifying the upzoning. Additionally, the applicants argue that the site has little or no ability to dedicate additional right-of-way for the Gaarde extension. The staff report for the previous proposal noted that some additional right-of-way might be needed, to be determined by the City Engineer through review of the public improvement plans for this site as well as the Vista Point development. It may be found that no right-of-way is actually needed for this road from the Ames orchard II subdivision, but this will not be clear until final road plans are developed. i As for the "the site having no ability to contribute area to the proposed right-of-way due to the existing alignment of Gaarde east of the site," it is pointed out that Washington County is recommending that the subject site be required to dedicate 17 feet for expansion of SW Gaarde east of SW 121st Avenue. It will therefore be necessary for some additional right-of-way to be provided to the west of SW 121st Avenue in order to make a proper transition between these two road segments. Staff sees no physical reason why right-of-way could not be provided by this site. Lastly, the applicants state the amount of Traffic Impact Fees the proposed subdivision will generate and state that these fees should be more than a sufficient contribution to the construction of this section of the Gaarde extension. While this contribution is important, the City•s policy remains that developments are required to decision on the Vista Point subdivision application In summary, staff does not find that the applicants have presented persuasive arguments for the Planning Commission to distinguish this proposed development from other developments that are required to improve collector or arterial streets which abut the developments such that the Commission should break with the Code and Council's directives on requiring improvements to the SW Gaarde Street extension. Staff urges 18 J J the Commission to make it clear to the applicants that any r' future development of this site should be anticipated to l result in possible right-of-way dedication requirements and certain road improvements (or financial contributions) for constructing the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site. b. Internal subdivision streets should be able to be developed consistent with City standards for local streets, as noted in staff's analysis of the variance request above, although right-of way dedication for SW Gaarde Street would need to be increased to 37 feet from centerline east of SW 121st as the County has requested, and would need to be dependant on final road design west of SW 121st. Preliminary street improvement plans are consistent with these standards, with the exception of the requested variances for reduced width and sidewalk on one side. As noted above, staff is unaware of any reasons why these streets cannot be developed consistent with the standards of Chapter 18.164 and therefore the variance requests should be denied. c. As noted previously, the preliminary plat does not provide for a street stub to the east to provide for a future further extension of this street to connect up with SW Gaarde Street (potentially opposite SW 118th Avenue), as was previously proposed with the first submittal. Staff recommends that any future development proposal for this site provide for such a stub. When the subdivision is built, a reserve strip and a barricade should be required to be provided at this street stub. The barricade should be posted with a sign indicating that future extension of this street is anticipated with future development. d. The proposed development plan would cause the "block" along SW Gaarde Street to the west to exceed the 1200 foot maximum block length standard of Code Section 18.164.040.B. This standard could be satisfied by the Commission requiring a street to be installed opposite the short north-south street on the north side of Gaarde in the Vista Point proposal. e. The proposed lots are consistent with Code standards for maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum frontage, and other lot dimensional standards specified by code Section 18.164.060. Although this Code Section discourages the creation of through lots, such as proposed lots 11-17, the Code recognizes that situations such as this are necessary to avoid lots taking access from major streets such as Gaarde. These lots would need to meet the minimum 20 foot front yard setback standard along both streets as specified by this Code Section. f. Access to SW Gaarde Street should be prohibited for all lots which would have frontage along this collector street. These lots as well as all other lots could receive access from local streets. g. Preliminary plans for sanitary sewers, storm drainage, water supply, and other utilities would provide appropriate service 19 to the proposed development. (See the attached Engineering Department comments). C. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies 8. The Subdivision/Variance review process for Ames Orchard II is consistent with Plan Policy 2.1.1 because notices of the application and the original April 5, 1993 public hearing on this item were provided to the neighborhood planning organization and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. Notice of that hearing was also advertised in the Tigard Times newspaper. The hearing was continued to a date certain by the Planning Commission. Consistent with Community Development Code and Oregon Revised Statute provisions, no additional notice was provided for the continued hearing date. In addition, the applicants and their representatives, as well as City staff, have held meetings with concerned neighbors of the proposed development. Therefore, a substantial opportunity has been provided for the public to comment on this development application as is required by this policy. 9. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, conditions of approval would be warranted to require the developer to submit an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River basin as part of the grading permit application, as / well as to provide an on-site water quality facility consistent with ( the recommendations of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. 10. The preliminary subdivision proposal complies with Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 because development of this site will require the developer to extend public sewer, storm drainage, and public water systems through this site. Utility and service providers were provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No significant concerns have been raised with regard to the capacities of these necessary services, although the site developer will need to accommodate the utility relocation and construction concerns raised by the utility providers, most notably the Tigard Water District and Northwest Natural Gas. Future development of this site will require provisions for underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television lines. No significant concerns were raised by the providers of these utilities. 11. Staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat would not provide for an efficient street system as required by Policy 8.1.1 for the reasons stated in sections 1 and 7 above. Primarily for these reasons, staff recommends that the subdivision plan be denied. However, staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide substantial direction to the prospective developers with regard to what is necessary to provide a safe and efficient street system in 20 7 this area as it relates to any future development plan for this f. property. In addition, staff recommends that the Commission make it clear to prospective developers of this site that streets within any future development will need to be consistent with established City of Tigard street improvement standards in order to provide adequate safety and to allow for an appropriate consistency of improvements between abutting developments. Also, the Commission should make it clear that improvements to SW Gaarde Street on both sides of SW 121st Avenue should be anticipated to be made a condition of any future development approval for this site. 12. The subdivision proposal does not comply with Policy 8.1.3 because the proposed improvements to the public streets and utilities within the proposed subdivision and along SW Gaarde Street east of SW 121st are not consistent with City of Tigard standards or Washington County road improvement standards for needed improvements to roads under the County's jurisdiction. The proposed right-of-ways are of an insufficient width to accommodate standard road improvements, and inadequate justification has been provided for the requested variances internal to the subdivision as well as inadequate justification for not requiring road improvements along Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Tigard Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision's street plan does not promote the general welfare of the City and would be detrimental to surrounding land uses through its lack of connectivity to other developed areas, and adjacent underdeveloped properties. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the staff report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the Planning Division recommends denial of Subdivision proposal SUB 93-0002 request for the proposed Ames Orchard II subdivision. In addition, the Planning Division finds that the statements -rovided by the applicant in support of requested Variance VAR 93-0004 do not adequately address the criteria for approval of a subdivision variance. The Planning Division therefore recommends denial of the requested variance to several road improvement standards of Community Development Code Chapter 18.164 If the Planning Commission elects to approve the Subdivision and Variance requests, staff recommends that the Commission assign responsibility to the applicant for preparing the final order in this case and defending any subsequent appeals. Staff would request an opportunity to prepare conditions of approval for any subdivision to be approved. 21 ADM CITY OF TIG=ARD TO: Jerry Offer May 26, 1993 FROM: Chris Davies, Development Review Engineer SUBJECT: SUB 93-0002 - AMES i Description: The applicant proposes to divide a parcel of approximately 12.68 acres into 33 lots with variances to local street standards. Findings: 1. Transportation: The proposed subdivision creates a new neighborhood of 33 homes with only one vehicular access route. If you take a look at the surrounding areas this problem is very repetitive; we have neighborhoods with only one access onto a major collector street and no connections with adjacent subdivisions. In addition, this type of development perpetuates the following problems as can be seen from the existing neighborhoods: A. It precludes any future alternative access to adjoining areas. B. All trips from homes in the area must be made on the collector street system, even if they are short-distance local trip such as visiting a friend in the adjoining subdivision. C. It means there is no alternative access to the neighborhoods in case of emergency or in case construction or repair work blocks the entrance road. The connection of a local street to the intersection of S.W. 121st and S.W. Gaarde should not be made for two reasons. A. Introducing a fourth leg to the intersection will reduce the efficiency of the future signalized intersection, increasing delays and likely creating the need for additional traffic lanes at the intersection in the long term. B. Second is protection of the neighborhood. When a major collector street like S.W. 121st is continued as a local street, we typically experience some operational problems. Lost drivers circulate through the residential areas looking for the continuation of the collector street. Drivers turning from the major street ENGINEERING COMMENTS : S93-02A AMES Page 1 APPE?oLwY C•NE. frequently do not yield to drivers from the low-volume street. Signing does not seem to cure these problems. 2. Streets:" The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 18.164.030E of the Community Development Code for the local streets (i.e. S.W. 121st and Vista Circle). The applicant requests narrower streets and right-of-way and elimination of sidewalks on one side. Applicant has not shown compliance with the criteria for variance to street standards as required by CDC 18.160.120. The applicant has not shown that special conditions exist that require the variance nor that the variance is necessary for the proper design of the subdivision. Therefore, we recommend denial of the variance request and recommend that the applicant be required to install the proposed streets to local street standards. It should be noted that the City of Tigard is currently reviewing local street standards. In the near future, standards may be adopted which allow the use of narrower streets under certain conditions. We recommend, if the City formally adopts new local street standards, the applicant should have the ability to utilize the new standards. CDC 18.164.030.A.1.a requires that developers improve all streets which front the proposed development. This subdivision has frontage on existing Gaarde Street. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map requires that Gaarde be extended westward along the north boundary of the subdivision. Therefore, the applicant should be required to provide the following with respect to S.W. Gaarde Street: A. Additional right-of-way along the frontage of S.W. Gaarde Street where it abuts the development; and B. Half-street improvements along the existing Gaarde Street frontage (from 121st to the east boundary of the subdivision); and C. The applicant should be required to share the cost of extending S.W. Gaarde Street west of S.W. 121st Avenue. 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer line located within S.W. Gaarde Street. The applicant is proposing to connect to and extend the sewer line to serve this development. The existing line has the capacity to handle this development. 4. Storm Drainage: The site slopes towards the northeast. The applicant is proposing an underground piped system within the subdivision. The system will then divert the storm water to a water quality facility prior to being discharged into the public storm drainage system within S.W. ENGINEERING COMMENTS 593-02A AMES Page 2 Gaarde Street. 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 and should be required to construct on-site water quality facility.. Recommendations: The Engineering Department recommends this application be denied based on the inadequate transportation system. However, if the Planning Commission does grant approval of this proposal or some variation of this proposal we recommend that staff have sufficient time to propose detailed conditions of approval. We could still support approval of the applicant's original proposal with the conditions indicated in my previous memo. 0z APPROVED: Randall R. Wool , City Engineer dj/RY:S93-02A.CD i l ENGINEERING COMMENTS S93-02A AMES Page 3 3 c~ -7 /ate 1 tr3 Ames Orchard Home Owners Association testimony to Tigard City Council SUB -93-002,VAR - 93-004 July 26, 1993 The Ames Orchard Homeowners Association (AOHA) is in unanimous support of the modified loop street plan submitted by Ames / Rockwell which provides a second access to the proposed development through the northwest portion of the plate (Plan B). AOHA finds this proposal consistent with the written and oral testimony presented by members at the Planning Commission meetings of April 5th and June 7th. Specifically, • The modified plan meets section 8. 1.1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which calls for a safe and efficient street system. Access for emergency vehicles is immediately provided through two points, the 121st Street / Gaarde entrance and the emergency vehicle access via Hazelhill Dr. In addition, the northwest stub street would provide future access when properties to the west are developed. • The modified plan meets section 6.3.3 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which "protects established areas with primary consideration to preserve and enhance the character of adjacent established areas". The developers have consistently sought and incorporated inputs from AOHA members. • The modified plan is consistent with the findings of the Northwest Bull Mountain Transportation Study of 1990 commissioned by the City. The Study specifically recommended against the connection of Hazelhill Drive to 121st Street. The City Planning Department has mentioned in the staff report that such a connection remains an option for the Council's consideration. This connection was specifically opposed by the NPO #3 and was rejected by the April 5th Planning Commission due the inevitable traffic and safety hazards it presented. Hazelhill Drive simply isn't constructed to support increased traffic. The Kitterson traffic study submitted in the developer's original application supports the Northwest Bull Mountain Transportation Studyof 1990 at least in this regard. • The modified plan meets the Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule by providing bicycle / pedestrian access between Hazelhill Drive and the proposed development thereby promoting non-motorized modes of transportation. Ames Orchard Homeowners Association members have worked closely and cooperatively with the developers in meeting the needs of both the proposed and surrounding neighbors. AOHA is also concerned about the effect of the northwestern future access to Gaarde St. AOHA strongly recommends that the council APPROVE Plan B contingent upon the northwestern access being partially improved and stubbed as indicated on the submitted plate. AOHA requests that full improvement of the remaining access route shall not be required unless and until property to the west (Tax Lot 200) applies for development. Furthermore, AOHA urges the City to agree not to condemn any portion of tax lot 200 for the purpose of completion of the remaining section of this access. If the Council finds a disagreement with the Plan B as submitted and proposed which is inconsistent with AOHA interests, then AOHA requests that the record be kept open for a period of 7 days so that additional testimony may be submitted. Respectfully submitted, James P. Welch President AOHA 14340 SW HazelDrive, Tigard OR l U r I DOWN MR OWN 07-23-93 03:20PM FROM PRESTON LAW FIRM TO 6847297 P001/004 PRESTON CS x t C~" 3200 U.S. Bancorp Tower E Ll 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue THORGRIMSON Portland. Oregon 97204-3688 SHIDLER ~i m Cf ) GATES & ELLIS B tom" I Telephone: (503) 228-3200 Couw-t Ct L f=acsimile: (S03) 248-SOBS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ZF-D FACSIMILE COVER PAGE July 23, 1993 To: City Council Clerk _ From: Oan Kearns (individual) Chy of Tigard No. of Pages: 4 (Company) (Including Cover Page) 684-7297 Ment/Matter No.: 31474-00 _ t (Tolocvpy No.) 639-4171 (confirmation No.) Client/Matter Name: Ame_s._._ Orchard Homeowners Ass'n If yuu do not receive all of the pages, please contact our toleeopy operator at (503) 2283:00. ❑ Original will not be sent. ❑ Original sent by U.S. mail. ❑ Original sent by overnight mail. COMMENTS: Please distribute the attached letter to all members of the City Council for the Tuesday (7/27/93) meeting. Also distribute a copy to Dick Bewsdorff, the City Planner. Thank you. DHK The information contained in this facsimile is confidential and may also be attorney-privileged. The information Is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipienr, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, dixtribution or copying of this communication is strictiv orchibited. If you have received the facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by a collect telephone calf to (503) 22&3200, and return the original message to us at the address above via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. 07-23-93 03:20PM FROM PRESTON LAW FIRM TO 6847297 P002/004 3200 U.S. Bancorp Tower PRESTON p q 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue TH®RGRI MSDN Portland, OR 97204-3688 SH 1 IDLER Telephone: (503) 228-3200 GATES &z ELLIS Pacaimlto! (503) 249.9095 DANIEL H. KEARNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 23, 1993 Tigard city council P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 SENT BY FAX TO 684-7297 Re: Ames Orchard II Subdivision, SUB 93-0002, Nearing date: July 27, 1993 our file no. 31474-00001 Dear Council Members: This firm represents the Ames Orchard Homeowners Association, the group of residents living to the south of the property which is the subject of this application. We submit this letter in support t of this application, but we also wish to place in the record specific objections to certain alternatives which have been presented by staff in its latest staff report (dated July 27, 1993). To begin with, the Ames Orchard Homeowners Association has worked closely with the developer/applicant, Mark Rockwell, throughout the application and planning commission process. we participated before the planning commission by submitting a 4/5/93 "Report to the Planning Commission" and a 6/7/93 letter from Jams P. Welch. The Council should refer to those submissions for additional details. Throughout the process we have appreciated the applicant's responsivencsn and ability to accommodate our needs. In this fashion, we hope the product will be a development proposal which even the planning staff will support. Regardless of what that design ultimately looks like, we have the following primary concerns: 1. We oppose any design which includes a through connection between Ames I and Ames II by way of the Tract "B" or Lot No. 33. We agree that Tract 'o8" is appropriate for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access, but not through traffic. This has been our position from the beginning, and is a position shared by the applicant and the staff. On this basis, the ( planning commission decisively rejected the through connection between the Ames I and Ames II. However, we notice this design option has reappeared on page 2 of the July 27, 1993 staff report. Anchorage Coeur d'Alene Seattle • Spokane . Tzeoma • Wuhington. D.C. 07-23-93 03:20PM FROM PRESTON LAW FIRM TO 6847297 P003/004 PRESTON TIiuR(;Y.1MS('1N SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Tigard City Council July 23, 1993 Page 2 There are several compelling reasons to reject the connection option. First, all parties remain opposed to connecting A.ines I and Ames II in this manner. Second, as noted, the planning commission rejected this option. Third, in 1989, the City commissioned the Bull Mountain Transportation Study, which analyzed then and future traffic in this part of Tigard. That study concluded that a connection between Caarde stroat and Bull Mountain Road by extending Hazelhill Drive would be unacceptably dangerous. Not only would such a connection route 5000 to 8000 cars per day through Ames I, a quite residential neighborhood with small interior streets, but there are significant sight distance problems at the Bull Mountain-Hazelhill Drive intersection. Any through- traffic connection between Ames I and Ames II would create an unacceptably dangerous traffic situation, in violation of Transportation Policy 8.1.1 and purposes A(4)(5)&(F) of the Tigard Development Code §18.160.010. We request that the City council decisively reject the possibility of a connection between Ames I and Ames II via the extension of Hazelhill Drive through Tract "B." 2. We oppose any design which includes, or leaves open the option of, extending 125th Street from the south, up along the western edge of Ames I and Ames II to a future connection with Gaarde Street. All parties have opposed any option which would have provided for or allowed the extension of 125th Street along the boundary of Ames I and Ames II developments. The present design for Ames II envisions a second access onto the proposed Gaarde extension through the northwestern corner of the development. We believe that, if a second access is required for Ames II, this access should be north to the proposed Gaarde extension, not south to 125th Street. The northerly access option would be the safest, least expensive and most efficient means of providing the second access to Ames II, and would be adequate to serve the Walker properties should they be developed in the future. We request the City Council to decisively reject the possibility of extending 125th up from the south, and instead, assuming a second access point is needed at all, that second access should be through the northwestern corner of the Ames II property. The council should also consider adding a condition of approval stating that the second access point would not be developed unless or until a development application for the Wa1Ker properties is filed. Subject to these concerns, the Ames Orchard Homeowners, Association supports approval of the current design configuration. 07-23-93 03:20PM FROM PRESTON LAW FIRM TO 6847297 P004/004 41 PRESTON THORORIMSON SHIDLL•R GATES & ELLIS 1 Tigard City Council July 23, 1993 Page 3 However, the Association prefers the design option involving the internal loop configuration, which was submitted to the planning commission June 7th. This is the design which staff characterizes as a "cul-de-sac" - a characterization which we dispute and which j is, at best, debatable. Also, should the City Council decide to ignore either of our two primary points, we specifically request i that the record be left open so we can submit additional evidence and argument in support of our position. Thank you. i sincerely, PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS i Daniel Kearns cc: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Director Mark Rockwell, applicant 1 Tony Francis, AOHA (by fax) z a t i i i 1 MEMORANDUM! J. •Br ~64'.O aL~/1~ J, a. i\ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON J* ?I alwR~o pa`wfiuwq/ 4. p /w✓T fn A..C~ p''~. • Z /L' M~rr.•~ dw/r TO: Planning Commission ' hew rrZ7, •b,.v d~ Cr.•wt~~®'/wry FROM: Jerry Offer, Development Review Planner ,7A W „1 ~~'•~rI DATE: April 5, 1993 ~x~`J 'g''p~•~~ SUBJECT: Revised Recommendation for Ames Orchard Subdivision Application SUB 93-0002 2. C/cw, --az" k7A- 4'/d GOww, ~y Comments have been received from other City staff members with .I•'/'2' regard to the recommended conditions of approval for the proposed Ames Orchard II subdivision. These comments cause me to revise the Planning Division's recommendation as outlined below. First, it has been pointed out that the City of Tigard has typically required developers to construct half street improvements to Washington County roads, such as Gaarde Street east of SW 121st, rather than just partial improvements as Washington County staff typically recommends, and has had been recommended in my staff report of March 24, 1993. The City has required the developers of t the Aspen Ride Woodford Estates, and Three Mounta' 'visions to construct half stree im rovemen a on SW Bull Moun oa . Likewls , quire a prospec 1.ve developers of the vista Point subdivision to construct half street improvements along that site's S 21s Avenue fronts g. The City also required the eve oper of the st r7jng Crossing ~ division to improve the frontage of both SW Hall Boulevard and SW Bonita Road. We do not see anything that distinguishes the Ames Orchard II proposal from those developments. Therefore, staff recommends that recommended condition of approval #23 be revised as follows: 23. The applicant shall submit plans, obtain Washington County/City of Tigard Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit from Washington County for construction of the following public improvements: a. 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 site's SW Gaarde Street frontage, east of SW 121st Avenue. b. Any traffic improvements required by the City and County in response to the applicant's required traffic study. 4 ~ 4 C. Construction of the 121st/Gaarde intersection to County standards. d. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. Second, it has been suggested that recommended condition of approval #7 needs to allow for the possibility of Ames Orchard II subdivision being developed prior to the Vista Point subdivision to the north. It has been suggested that a fee in lieu of improvements to Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue be collected rather j than for the fee to be collected later through a local improvement district to be imposed upon the individual owners of lots within Ames Orchard II. Staff recommends that condition #7 be revised as follows : 7. The applicant shall share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue, where this street will abut the site's northern property line. If the SUb development of Ames Orchard II follows the development of Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developer of b J Vista Point shall be responsible for designing and constructing improvements to this section of road, with the exception of sidewalks which would be the ~'1 \ responsibilitty of the Ames Orchard II developer. The developer of Ames Orchard II may be required to pay for up to one half of the cost of the improvements for this road segment if the City Council approves the creation of a reimbursement district. If Ames Orchard II precedes the development of Vista Point, the developer of Ames Orchard II shall prepare preliminary plans and a cost estimate for improving this segment of SW Gaarde Street consistent with the current approval for Vista Point. The Ames Orchard II developer shall deposit with the City of Tigard a fee in lieu of improvements equal to one half the estimated cost of those improvements, minus any credit for improvements constructed by Ames Orchard II. The city shall hold this fee to be relesed only for the construction of improvents for this road segment. " 1 j',- ~ Yuiu aw>Wwwr~41vM.rvYf~WWrtB,Wai1WW4unxr+~ N J , ~ u ~ r ~ i ~ Y ~ i i , I ~ ~ ~ ` ! °Z 1 ~ I -__tt-____._.__._. _ ~ inn') ...f ~ 1 ( 1 i i I I ~O ~ i r r ;a a. ~ ~ ~lo►~ i'1 s~.ti; ~ ~ ' I i~ 4Q 1Q ~ ~ ~ h et n ' ~ ' 1 0' I 1 , tY, lomm~: ~ ~ MOMN! 6~ H 8 s 1 nar ~ j ~„~.,,,„,~I 1YHYC~ I ` roz , Bx~Z. c~ i yri b trq "t f~ ~ O 1 Q .p R i ~ ,`~j, t O X N O`Y Q 'i I -N 'M i C , ~ ~O " ~ _n I I- ~ 1 AM' TU ~ i " i~ ~ 1, rr i y y1 y/~ y~ . - N ^ _....._..O~.yi 1 4 '„i N 4 i ~ i ~ w I ~ 'q Yi ~ t ~ ,p I 0 • 1 r ~ ~ ~ ntr t. _ _ " 1 '7 ~ id i7ij~w" -i" 1 VE - - ~tr• tr .rte ~ ~v ' I V, W _ _ _ _ ~ i J 0. ~ , t 1, o 'w . - u 'a - -rt lA t.. t~ r.a m I ~ i t (rl ~ 1 ! ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ a I 1 ~ ~ C"~ x p ~ 1 1 i 1 I In P ~I 11: ta~ ue , , _ "tom ! ~ tr I. N O ~ ti) ~ CN i 1 f fV ~ ~ ! ~ W I - - - - - ~ ~.R . O ? 1 y P [u'i_ ~ 'ya;~,. r ra ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h~ ry' ,n ~ i' ~ L I ~ ~1 ~ e~ ~ , 1 I ,..~,.w..,,...m.,......~«.. i w~,.m,.,.., ` I ~ I ~-\'._~T y;. ~ m r '-x ~ r~r~,~~ rM ^ ' '~e!",~,^ ~ n-r.n.n,, ~tll , I ! ~ n M - , w a r t~ ~ , - a?"~: In ~ ~ 4 X10 `p~ , ~ I ~ I C~1 ~ l,1 ~i~,~,t, ~ 44 P ~ ti ,art ~ ~.lY . 1„ 4. y i r. t I Q o - . _ , ~.s ~ .S - t N[. Umlt i tld' ~ ~ Ht t1h p i !wV z A SHEET ~y, ,7 u. ,,,w , n,„~„;<,K«vw,+,,,,..«.~. a.. _ m ;q f tH pro 1luudn~ ' -°i r ^1 iI M~ (nlt iu1 , r.ld Ib,.,' 1 A~cS V11.~1 t~i,ll i4~V.?_ , Tlitli,,,NU,, n > m OF tp Nt'1W;p IJY!j~ 4)All, t1 t U1 I4 d~+dt i S o N NX4',+nMT NQ ~.~~-~jHll o AAJ"1`<A 11NIi1Nkk;111N INGt, I ; " " 3 S~ T~ i~Ll~t`~ at,~tfi ,•«,a,~' f,N91NI~Np1"I"111v1i1~11wYN1 +rkMne~~I tMUn1'1 I ?2f114,~iSl,~, IN.Ad1 ~Nklt„ aUll'►~ YAD i rtlW ~ Al,~~a ~1'~H11i,ND ...,.a a.®».~..,.... .,~K«.~ ,,w+wa^.,.,o.a~.Kw... „ ~,,.,,.,,.~„n,w,w:,.,cwu+,w:wRaww„•arw.ge:k,.w", i " i j .try...-r,~'~,va f t of'~ a ^'~k M?.~` ..y r a~ ~ e'r ...yti _ 4 ' '716~i~ I I ~ t MJ"T.. ~ ti i4T 44 t. 1 \ ^~l \ ab'?s tea, J ~ S.. t I , , ~ R. : ` \ t , - k~ ~ °1~.y - I ff n I j C. t \ ~ ~ ~ ' , r ' } - yr is ~ y, i ~ i 4.. _ I S? I~~Sv .\~tr, f. ~ t` r~t 4 g~~'w• ~ df (f T x HIV •v .R < t IV Lt' f h• ' ia~nt$-, A'i~ ~T l ~ r' ,.L i r • a} l: tT~~yr„,+r 9A+1~~ ~+'f `'iA~ ~ b.. .Y d m m ~f`,e ~ ~^ys ~ y. ~ y"F i 4 h e 5 ♦ of ~ 1 ~ d y,~ Hwy I z~`ic~ ~i,'1~-.~-•!- ~y.., r ` ~ +t''f.,,+.>k,, ~ J' 3 ,I 'st'ag I ~"S` ~ / ~ r. _ y... i .f t~~ y~ : ~ ~ A - ,rozg~ ~ f i„ " 1---y* ~ - ~p a A~~'~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ fi y ~~!k~ Ca ~ / ' ~ 3~ ~ IF 1. ' } 111 ~ t °c z m I ~ ~ , G~.. ~ 1 a ~✓i d~~ ~ ~ - , 1' t y. ~ y Ny~k-i ~ ~ 4~~i3 HHri~ I 'l(. r ~ ~ ` ; .r y\' ~ y ~'ifdY ~ { r~.. r ~ 1 { `1t~ tI b N'. I Y. \ . ; •4 II+, I I .t # #"1 4 y 'YR ~ r Kowli ! ~a 'a ;iA I. 'z ~ .rt~~ t'(~ N~ ' 'f" \ y~ ~ 'I~ I ~ .I.!. jA~ ~ .h~ 9 ~ t'1: ~{lr+ Ii n~:l _~x,q,..s'. I *I- t 1 sA-h , ~ -JiY.. ~ '.F 'y a t i/ s} w ;~,N ~ { Ij~~ 1 ' fl~ q+,11+,,1 r - _ .J--tr . :'a~ :p,.,n • k " ~ t a.~~' ;i {A j s 'y,: ~ ~f ~~il # "r '4 , ~ . ~ r t ,`t' ~ r . ~ i"E c;.. k 4Cp.~1x a ~ * ,,t 3 + I p'. 7 f yiq~~ 11, ~N.~~~, - .{~i r i ~...~?>:7 s:\.\. _.y r 7 /j b . i - ~A !t'"~' ~•j{ A+~'a''~~ I~ I i~ t'. .'k.if `~~W ,~.IKr II r z! I 1 ~ ' 1111 ~ f F . . ~ n!t " N. ."F ♦ ~ Sk t~' ~ r N I S rt n ~~;1 1 - ~ :'t ~ ~ ~ ~ . «~J r o y. ~ ~ /A'~.~^'±. y~ ~ ~ r. ,1 ' y~ ~ ~ a ~ 1 + v ' ' '-t.; ~ :'1 • ~ .~:it 1 t "f ~ ° 8;~ ~ J~•.t4~"~..•v'F I S, r 7~`y+y i, 1~ i, : c~~ Yr3. ' \ ~ t ; : f yr. ~ Ti~+ M:' ' y y ~ d4 ~ d ti R , M r =i1.~,'S`e I ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 6'\ 1. I. ~ , t, ♦ ri ~ tra fW ~a r , ~Ni, , r ! - , ° 1 r ~ ( C •'S ~ ~ ~i'~} ",s y'1;,~~ y+: h ~ ,~j'~~"~ 4, „ yjl• (1111 - _N ='i 1 .r !3i _ _ . ..9, - ~ ~ 1 [ ~ ~ I ~1 ~ Iw' ~''~'t 'A I ~ `r&1; Gi~i ~ ~ ~S. a f4~s. ~ W~~\ r rf ~ A ~ * `:1~~ } .yI.V ~ 4~#, jl}'r ~`JtI•~ ~ t, - `!~,!..iy;,. _ _ c I -N ~t ~ ~,,._y_ ~ <.~~r ~ LAX l ;R / ~4. i ~ f p r~ 1 ~R* ~ , ~ a1 q~.~ A,~ t\ *w' ~_I+yk ~y P, y I !~I+'~•~i~ U.. gr 1 , r\' ~ ~ ; :a•.~. r':l- ~/.a } _~''1 N i ,N ,»°1 ~'a ~ ~ F +4'~'a, i3S~;'+~ ~y ~q I " ~ ~1.. r ' IF ° q ~ r * • . r• y `'~°~9,'''~~ 1, ~ j' 1 i'+~R M ~ ty et} 'd t'1 I - r . S y ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ a +i } fi ~~3 y : 1~ t it ~ ~f r. I a 7=,~Tr • ~YS ; r 1 I y a 4'" t " 0 '{R "y,1~ `r i . k '1 '}Sr { ~ ~ ~ 7 sp ~~`~t '~~l i F ! U ~ Y ; . 'I~`yI~ • 't , ~r ~•rN~a J', • Y ~ yy~t«~ ,.::~1 ' ~~4 .R b i 6 ~i t fi ~ • ~ 1 - ' .X _ r''~! ' = x .a..a:.~ -r s r~. >.e. r ~ ~ Ail' K 6, , A M ~ ~Si 1t r y ~ I ~ 11It I '-I+ •y~ _S W 'HAZELTREF': TERRACE c~ ~ . a' y~ ~ , ,i~. ~ ~1 ~ q A~.~/j)~ "+p~~Atf~ ~~I~'~1 ~ ~~r'~'a~ 1" ~ ~3 ~ ~It i - lJ i .:,k ~ e!'~`, ~{~~~#~i~,(~ 4M ~ )t'1 ~~-~r'~{ 1 U i'1'.:~, y~y ~±I i i .tr Y "Se_'~ ` ~ * `~ti'~.k~ I ~;„q.a i at "'~R~ ~!'}t ~^W ~ \ ' r Ae~y •t, ;y'pp• ~ ~ ~A1, y;~ 0t' i; ~ a ~ y A r ±+IiF~y,,~ d 1 , vn y~ d - 1 _ ~ix ,7~ t~tg.° s. 8 » i s et fr. "~d :AX; r`34 M~ S" ~TM~~~~m: r @. ig \e~3L a# - ~ ('kyM''y,# y~, J\ . 9 , t r~.+ i y . ~j f ~ " ,\1 Y~~ ' i e~11'" A ~.:ry,~l~ j :!.t 'yS ~;~fi~!'at ~ ! i.a, ~'MMy J'I _w .r d e \ ~ 'aUIT' p y~ - ; t ~ • ' : ~ ~'w :a ~ - \ f ~ ~ :a,mr,~~'" i r y. r A ,~ys!~ ;a '3x , t~' ~yl : ~ =rlil' tea" 4,..' \ .~1. ~ t ft' r a, * ~k~" ~ tR~ y{\ ~ 1 ;haN 4i I r~i ~';~b~ 1; r ` rr A ^y,+y<+,• ~ - ~ t, .3 _ :k f '1f(.r.~s, ~ ~ ~f T r.\I i~ ~ *'~."4 w~':~ "et'dr '^I -,~~4 'fir w~ , i~ rA t ~ ! h ~ t~ OD ~ i4r- •y , t' ~ ii' ? A k'k t e+ ~ , ~ x rl ~ Q'14~i1 ~~~~t!k i~r~;~e~ r r~y ~ 1 ~ ~ rr r ':v ' dy ~ rr ..y ~ $.W. HA2El}'~„~° k~#i13': +t'a,A ~ ~ ( .I a, ~ yrw : 'I ~ i"r. > } tf r +1` i X J11~'^:.... M h l^,. ~r a ---~~~gggggg r ww i 1,1 y M,~,a t dh~. d~.' ~ }i - en - ~ti~ .r r7. .Y ~ 11'1 ,y P L`e. 'it ,J~ 9 ~~N .f ~ r • ~ • r R.$ ~ +~x n:f .l f ~ ~ ~ yj; r ~y •1„~~~r~`~ ~ _ z r 11 i +A~I ro p i ~ ~ u ~yl '"~'it ^r~i .t~' ~ r ~ J t { , ~ j! t*d 4 ,IL ,~C,r'~ j "'i1t Y\ At 2~ ~ a~~ ~y ' ~_:~i ~r Jrr . i , N , N+et ~ -,~G ' ~ - 1 5 Mfr , * r ~ ;~~N ~ r ~ ~ , v `st1 ~~aY'~S^1~" -V? a ~3' ~ j 4 ~ + R r r< ~ ~ ♦ l i t~~`` r~ r ~ I z~ .W '~";f ~ ~ is . ~ " ~ !k +brtV~..~. a ^ 1`f:,. , •f i r u~ 1 ! e-Y ,:w r`_ : I ~ :f ~ ,.,~.r c~ I'+~r l~~ '`y_>4 ,.v 1('~ t{. i. .r = rl ~ a ~ 3 ~ •A.~•..'~.<~ o .v `1'~ :,s * s` ~ ~ ' `a. . i+''11 +Rr a a? ` 1 ,l ~ y 5 t 1 f ~ I 7 y ~ 'd,'A,~ 1 y' 1 ~ ,},-..•.y' y. N ,~''°'.;,.:t,fi„ ,r 1'~t r irf'i }R{ w 4 ' }A, I W r ~ • D .h _ A ' 4 S I A, , ♦ i ~ 1 1 J ry l'+ 'a~ `r~ O Z 1'."_~_~_ r~,a•~ ,V '4u;r r ~ _ l`. a as ~M'~9'b . t T`:~tiN ~ .t ~ ~ ~ ..t''~ ~e~,rrr 1' f ~ 1... ~ ~ ~`'a,,,~ y,A~p~~',' 'e k~ ~ t ~ '~(i~.y .p r s ~ { 1, I ~4 9' l ~ L~ ; g}, t .Tar ` A ~ ~ . i ~ \ ~ (D ~b'tiz~t ~ t .k~ _ t.°,~ ,c~'1`jA_~ t i . r C~ y`~~," ~ ;t '"'1',t'• . R t < >A ,t 1 _``f`~i l~ t ~ h ~ X11,- r . ~ _ _I 3 ; 2~ 1't' ~ 'F~ ' 5. ~ ~ ~ I A 1' ~ '~~°~?`t+~ ;,rte i,1 n~i.-, { : / ~ ~ ~ ~ , ef1t,. .••1 ~ ~ ' V•,FM, , wrp ~ i 1 Y ~,~~.f'1 ~ f .sfj `...:c. ~i~ "ii r, ~ f.` ~ r.. ' ~ ~ I yt~l I, T. S~ ~ s ~ s s rt . .,)y , % ~ - ~ ~ i~ y y 't, r S ~ 1: 1.ti. ~ `t'~x`[~~ 4.~; . A s ~4.., ~ ~ pia } ~ ~ ` 4 ~ .A ~ ' / 'y} 1;~ r~: ~ +Sp t~'• r, - yam' ' . ! I 1 1, i ...,..,J w ~ a!y~y y'~" f& ! "'4 ~ r u ~11,, . ~s(l:7t rZ'i / 3iL !'~~'~'tffl• ~.Y ~ :.,o ~ ~1 + [ f 1, `4 d'#{ ~"4~, ' {4{~" ay, ~ " Y' `i • . t . _'11 I ° ~~'11,~ S tii\ M 1 _ ~~i'x^ ~ ,k~ a""y~ ~ ~jti, / r ~t ,a' ; ~ i ) ~ 1tY 4 ,y .1 . ~ . _y, :3 . ~ ; .*.y., ~~i.,n r ,wry... r~W~a off".". 1 r i '>w tin . #l ~ti\ ~ -y-J SR'..a i•'.. rti ~ .N *'yw,~~ ~ ~ , R '7 i~ , ~Jti,•'~ ~ N~ a.C .s.~..~ ~ i ~ } ~ ~ ~w.~ • .w h ~ ~ t4i#attr , .,.~,w w m ' I - I il`tEf AN1ES ORCH!aRD N0.2~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~,,~►1► 13 AREA CIRCULATION PLAN I ~ t ~ ~ , AtJ1HA I~N1fINM11Q1itN[9 INtt~ ~ ~I~ OF ~ ,',etiaMg.pYVt.IOPMkIVY NRN{{w,'tN1gqyy"\Ny1,V11111 ~ A ~ ~ I ~ I , ~~i~ t~k uMll~ailrM d~~AA!t~ilr~Ni1~N~~rIN Y1NAp ,_1 i_ - - 07/27/93 RGENOR N0. 5 2 OF 2 t --tee COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM r. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27. 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 15. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Como rehensive Plan PREVIOUS ACTION: and Code Amendments removing refere s to NPOs. PREPARED BY: Elizabeth An Newton + REQUESTED BY: Planing Commission DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK W= ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to remove references to the NPOst involvement in land use issues and deletion of the NPO Fee Waiver for appeals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY As you know, the NPOs no longer serve the citizen review function for land use proposals, the revised Land Use Notification process succeeds the NPOs in providing interested persons an opportunity to review and comment on land use ALL. issues. There are several references to the NPOs in the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan policies that need to be deleted or amended to reflect the changes in structure and process. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes at their public hearing on July 12, 1993. The commission voted 5-0 to modify the Appeal Fee Waiver section to allow Council to waive the fee for any party as appropriate. Attached is a memo that includes a brief history, analysis and summary of recommendations. Also attached is an Ordinance which, if adopted, would approve the Planning commission's recommendation. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinance. 2. Modify the attached ordinance. 3. Take no action at this time. FISCAL NOTES t MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: July 14, 1993 SUBJECT: NPO amendments to the community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan As you know, the Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPOs) no longer serve the citizens review function for land use proposals. The Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) and revised Land Use Notification process will succeed the NPOs in providing interested persons an opportunity to review and comment on land use issues. There are several references to the NPOs in the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan policies that need to be deleted or amended to reflect the changes in structure and process. The material in this packet provides background information on the NPOs, analysis, staff recommendations, Planning commission recommendations, and an ordinance with proposed new code and comprehensive plan policy language. NPOs In 1975, the City Council passed a resolution formally recognizing Neighborhood Planning Organizations and the Committee for Citizen Involvement as the official citizen involvement structures within the City of Tigard. The purpose of these organizations was to act as advisory groups to the Planning Commission and City Council on all matters affecting their neighborhood and city. Throughout 1982 and 1983, six of the seven NPOs met on at least a monthly basis to provide input on the various elements of the Community Development Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The geographic areas that defined the NPOs were used as subareas for the development and review of the Plan documents. Since acknowledgement by the State of the Comprehensive Plan in 1984, the NPOs have served as the City's citizen commenting body for land use proposals. Under the resolution establishing the NPOs, membership has been limited to 12 residents or property owners appointed by City Council. In May 1992, City Council set as a priority broadening citizen r involvement. The existing Board and Committee structure was reviewed to see if modifications would encourage the involvement of more citizens in a broader range of issues. The CIT concept was developed as a result of that review. ANALYSIS The City of Tigard remains committed to a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and other issues affecting quality of life-. The intent of the CIT program is to provide for widespread citizen involvement on a broad range of issues including land use. The town hall format proposed for the CIT program will encourage two- way communication with citizens. The proposed land use notification process in conjunction with the CIT program allows citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process, including prior to filing of a land use application. The focus of information presented to the CITs will be to educate citizens in a manner that prepares them to be involved in issues facing the community. Resource teams of city representatives will be assigned to each CIT to assure that citizens receive responses from policy makers. The City will provide financial support to the CITs as outlined in the agreements between the CITs and the city. SUMMARY OF RECONIIMMATIONS References to the NPOs appear throughout the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Those references serving as background or providing a historical context do not need to be deleted. References to the NPOs that relate to process or assign responsibility need to be modified. Exhibit "A" attached to the proposed ordinance contains the specific recommendations. In general, the following changes were recommended to the Planning commission: • Chapter 18.30 - Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative Delete references to the NPO in the sections on application process and notice requirements. • Chapter 18.32 - Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi-Judicial Delete references to the NPO in sections on the application process, preapplication conference, notice requirements, amended decision process, and fee waiver for appeals. • Chapter 18.142 - Home Occupations - Delete requirement that preliminary notice of approval be issued to the affected NPO. • Volume II - Findings, Policies, and Implementation Strategies Chapter 2, Citizen Involvement - Delete references to notifying NPOs. • Volume II - Citizen Involvement - Delete references to the NPO as the primary means for carrying out the citizen involvement program. PLANNING COMMISSION RECODRIENDATION: At the July 12, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council that the Ordinance presented by staff be approved with one modification: Ordinance Exhibit "A". page 74, Section 18.32.345 A, Fee Waiver For Appeals be modified to substitute "any party" for "other parties". Consensus of the Commission was that the existing language is inappropriate if the fee waiver procedure for NPOs is discontinued. l EXHIBIT "A" b. All surrounding property owners of record of property within 250 feet of the property for the following types of Director's decisions: (i) Minor Land Partitions; (ii) Site Development Reviews; and i (iii) Sensitive Lands (steep slope, drainageway); (iv) Type II Home Occupations (Chapter 18.142.060.8.3) a C. All owners of record of property immediately abutting a site subject to the following types of director's decisions: } (i) Temporary Uses; „ T (ii) Flexible Setback Variances; (iii) Lot Line Adjustments, and k x (iv) Administrative Variances. d. The applicant for a Director's Interpretation or a Director's Decision regarding an extension of approval; 5? Any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice; and Any person who requests, in writing, and pays the required fee established by the Council. 2. Within 10 days of signing the decision, the Director shall post a copy of each notice of decision at City Hall; and 3. Notice shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation for site design review, major land partitions, and minor land partitions a minimum of 10 days prior to the date the decision becomes final. Newspaper notice is not required for other decisions by the Director. B. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing, posting and publication of notice where newspaper publication was required in Subsection A.1 of this section to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. C. Notice of a decision by the Director shall contain: i 1. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the applicant's proposal and of the decision; J Revised 10/28/91 Page 57 s j .S i ~rvrn Ja ~~2 rGb /ans July 27 a 1993 Site Development Review SDR 93-0012 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 93-0006 Ruble/Planning Design Group Lo^ation: 13305 S.W. Pacific Highway (WCTK 2S1 20B, tax lots 1804, 18009 and :L900). Dear Dick B. City of Tigard Senior Planner: As provided for by code section 18.32.130 D & E request notice to me on any and all matters relating to the Taco Bell and Hot N Now applications, as subcommittee chairman of NPO 3, and self. As required by Community Code Section 18.32.060 a., c., the staff report and all case file materials are to be made available at least 5 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The Taco Bell/Hot N Now application is scheduled to be heard on Monday, August 2. Therefore I wish to have available to me on Wednesday, July 28 the file for said application. It is our understanding that all applicant materials are required to be submitted no later than 21 days before the scheduled hearings date. With regard to Hot N Now /Taco Bell application we would like copies of any information submitted by the applicant on or after July 12 for our review. Depending on the nature of this information we may or may not elect to request a continuance as provided by law. ( cc: Subcommittee NPO 3 - I'm also following up thru City of Tigard legal 61erk Cathy Wheatley as to CIT's legal standing at this time as a public review oertified approved public program addressing the City of Tigard review process. To my knowledge the language hasn't even been formulated let alone submitted for approval from staff to the City of Tigard Council, Planning Commission elected officials or appointed Boards? If the target date is October what standards are in place for thepublic required review process ongoing presently throughout City of Tigard planni$g processes. Please respond to this inquiry being NPO's were erased by the mere act of being dismissed without CIT's replacement even approved by the Boards. As a member of an NPO speaking for many they were allowed to deplete in members even tho the legal number was I NPO's had 2 or 3 representing large areas without maintaining the required 7 members appointed by the Mayor and one other selected by the charter. NPO 3 has noted the need for review requiring the appeal processes Our NPO 3 was made up of informed individuals and dedicated maintaining the quota- of 7 well qualified individuals. Most members question the CIT program metro oriented, in objectives, selectivity, and orientation via facilitators with everyon being 'trained' into the program. There were many guidelines for NPO's that allowe critical evaluations and the right of appeal. Published legal newspapers notices agenda do not follow up.At what time may these 2,e 1 otices be pulled off the legally published agenda from open meeting? ere~y, cc: council Planning Board 0 Lynne and Charlie Kamerman l~ Gina and Don Corbet Dan and Christina McMillan -others. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: June 22, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Vacation of a o io PREVIOUS ACTION: None of a 15 foot wide storm drainage easofft PREPARED BY: Ron Pomeroy DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE HE COUNCIL Should the City Council vacate a portion of a 15 foot wide storm drainage easement? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the vacation as requested. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council initiated this street vacation (vicinity map; Exhibit A) at a meeting held on June 22, 1993 (Res. 93-26; Exhibit B). Mr. Jay Miller requests City Council that approve the vacation of the southerly 5 feet of a 15 foot wide public storm drainage easement which lies adjacent to, and south of, the northern lot lines of lots 4 and 5 of the Tubilee Place subdivision. As stated in the applicant's narrative (Exhibit C), a building permit was issued on March 30, 1993 with a 10 foot side yard setback for lot 4 of Jubilee Place. The site was excavated, concrete foundation poured and inspected, and a home was being framed when it was determined that the residence was partially on the 15 foot easement. The applicant filed this easement vacation request so the residence would not encroach into a public easement. If additional easement width is necessary in the future, it may be obtained from the property to the north when that property is further developed. All other appropriate agencies have been contacted and have communicated no objection or other concern in relation to this vacation request. Therefore, the Community Development Division recommends that this easement vacation be approved. Exhibits: A) Vicinity map; B) Resolution 93-26; C) applicant's request. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the vacation as requested. 2. Deny the vacation request. FISCAL NOTES .11 fees and staff costs shall be paid by the applicant. S.W 11 11 lelwoln N DES off? . S'AL HlLLVIEW CT. Q U 17,1,NALCi r C i ELFR SE T 1 S ui 3 At EASEMGHT MO TAIN VIEW L H v _ rn G. IEIY TERR S.YL VIIkW TER m 3 3 > ~ w vi a ~ 3i cm IT ST. S.W. INEZ m ~ PINEBROC LE S.W. PEAABROOK ST N TWALITY W a air. JUNIOR a> NIGH o H 50. PINEBROOK F-I MURDOCK - ST SCHOOL s MuRDOC ST TEMPLETON S.W. Q W ELEMENTARY HTa SCHOOL N _a W. SW MARILYN C LESLIE CT. G r co_ IAi. S. A W. DAP.MEL G C WEST L N 3 ~ 3 2w. ^ BATTLER cn Y Y a ° aJ SMRFLD A a► 3 EXHIBIT a o CT. f y• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 93,2(.0 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE 15 FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. WHEREAS, the southerly 5 feet of the subject easement is a s dedicated easement, giving the public rights over the land for utility improvements; and WHEREAS, the southerly 5 feet of the subject easement is no longer ' needed; and WHEREAS, the property owner(s) will be required to retain a 10 foot storm sewer easement across the northerly 10 feet of the subject properties; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it necessary and desirable to initiate vacation proceedings for a portion of said easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: (1) The Tigard City Council initiates the vacation request with the understanding that those property owners who would normally sign a petition shall be notified by mail of the proceedings; and (2) A public hearing is hereby called to be held by the City Council on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within the City of Tigard, at which time and place the Council shall hear any objections thereto, and any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacating a portion of said easement; and (3) the City Recorder be, and (s)he is hereby, authorized and directed to cause to have published in the Tigard Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tigard hereby designated for such purpose, a notice of said hearing in the form hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof, the first publication to be July 8, 1993 and the final publication to be on July 15, 1993. The Recorder be, and (s)he is hereby, further directed to cause to have posted within five (5) days after the date of RESOLUTION NO. 92-Ae PAM 1 Fxh;APr 8 Z MEN! 1 f y first publication, a copy of said notice at or near each end of the area proposed to be vacated; and (4) That the particular portion of granted public easement to be vacated is shown on the attached sheet labeled Exhibit "1" and r by reference made a part thereof. I i PASSED: This cDG) day of 1993. 1 i J ATTEST: / .Gi%(~c~CGli j Mayor - City of Tigard ;l City Recorder - City of Tiga i RESOLUTION NO. 93-.;?LP PAGE 2 3: i 1 , 1 i i NEW CASTLE HOMES INC. t P.O.23291 TIGARD, OR 97201 3 CITY OF TIGARD ATT: RON POMEROY RE: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF THE SOUTHERLY 5' OF THE 15' PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 JUBILEE PLACE, ` TIGARD, OR. ON 3-30-93 A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED AUTHORIZING A 10' RIGHT SIDE YARD SET BACK FOR LOT 4 JUBILEE. THE SITE WAS EXCAVATED, CON- CRETE FOUNDATION POURED AND INSPECTED, AND HOME WAS BEING FRAMED WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THE RESIDENCE WAS PARTIALLY ON THE EASE- MENT. A 15' EASEMENT ON THE SIDE OF RESIDENTIAL LOT IS UNUSUAL. LOT 4 JUBILEE IS IRREGULAR IN SHAPE AND WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SITE EVEN ZE AND TYPE OF HOME IN THE AREA. VACATING THE SAME 5' ON LOT 5 JUBILEE PLACE WOULD KEEP THE OVERALL EASEMENT STRAIGHT AND CONSISTENT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. SINCERELY, J MILLER PRESIDENT NEW CASTLE HOMES, INC. X~iB/T C ion I NMI i-a C:,ent%-_rlimq_- C4 '"cepts, Inc. "0 82W D *ft CW00M Oregon 97087 503 650.0188 fax 503 650-0189 CLIENT NME: JAY MILLER BUILDER INC. DRAWN:BTA ADDRESS: 9567 S.W. JUBILEE PLACE SCALE-.1"=20' L®T:.4 JUBILEE PLACE DATF-'4-8-93 S 89'5rl3" W 138.54, STMM DRAW EASE] MT 4 `q b- b. O N r.5 320r O O S sr b 34 W m z ~9e b o 20.00' ao q? ,s . ca oS 894'39' O 1s9. 15.00' S 8954'39' W --SIX FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG FRONT LOT LINES. EXHIBIT D .I