Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 08/24/1993
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheeL BUSlness aigenda items an be heard in arw order after 7'30 pm Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services. • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, It is Important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, ExL 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 1 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 24, 1993 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL f 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON AGENDA • STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.) - Agenda Review - Council Communications/Liaison Reports 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 Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 3.2 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for the 109th Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the Mayor to Sign - Resolution No. 93-_ 4. CONSIDERATION OF GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - RESOLUTION NO. 93- Community Development 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION - METZGER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 93-_ • City Administration 6. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - AMES ORCHARD II, SUB 93-0002 - RESOLUTION NO.93 • Community Development Department COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 2 OWN 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0008, ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0002, CRITERION EQUITIES Location: Generally west of S.W. 70th Avenue, east of 72nd Avenue, south of Elmhurst Street, and north of Beveland Street (WCTM 2S1 1 AB, Tax Lots 800, 801, 900, & 1000). A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential, 25 units per acre (R-25). The request is for four parcels totalling 5.06 acres on S.W. 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1., 6.1.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 7.8.1. 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2. 12.1.1 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, and 18.64. CURRENT ZONE: C-P (Professional Commercial) The C-P zone allows public agency administrative services, public support facilities, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, and professional and administrative services. PROPOSED ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) The R-25 zone allows multi-family residential units, residential care facilities, public support services, residential treatment homes, family day care, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony - Proponents (Support the Request) Opponents (Oppose the Request) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Motion for Final Order 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF Billboard on Scholls Ferry Road 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 ma0824.39 COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 3 Council Agenda Item TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 • Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Jerry Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and John Acker, Associate Planner. STUDY SESSION Agenda Review - Council briefly reviewed the business agenda. One item discussed was the Metzger LID issue. It was noted that a copy of a 1988 letter was received from Jack Reardon of Washington Square. This letter outlined concerns with an increase in the assessment for the Metzger LID. Council discussed the park and the effect that a reduction in the LID assessment might have. Council consensus was to ratify the assessment for one year. Staff will gather information to assist Council in their determination of whether the City should continue to support the LID assessment or to pursue other options for this park. Citizen Involvement Teams (CITsl - Facilitator training was completed last week; 12 people participated. There will be a one-hour "kick-off" meeting (8/31 - 7-8 p.m.) to make assignments, discuss the timing of the first meeting and begin work on the draft agreements. Review of Agenda Item No. 4. Gage Natural Area Local Improvement District - It was noted Council must repeal the resolution approved previously with regard to the petition process (Resolution No. 93-37). If Council should decide to proceed with the LID process, they would need to approve a resolution to start the process on Council's own initiative. Review of Aaenda Item No. 6. Consideration of Final Order - Ames Orchard II, SUB 93- 0002 - Legal Counsel Coleman advised two pieces of correspondence were in the Council's meeting material. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the letters were received after close of the Public Hearing. Council should note the letters were received, but that they would not be considered part of the public testimony. The letters should not be accepted as part of the record of the proceedings. If Council would want to hear more on any issue, the Public Hearing would have to be reopened and proper notice must be CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 1 given. Legal Counsel Coleman, in response to question from Councilor Fessler, advised the final order may be modified by City Council, as long as the modification is consistent with the intent of Council action which was taken previously on the night of the hearing. Metropolitan Advisory Committee - Councilor Fessler received indication of consensus from the Tigard Council that they were not in favor of the Multnomah County proposal to either transfer or fee title to Metro all Multnomah County inventory of Expo, Glendeveer Golf Course, Blue Lake Park, County parks, open spaces, and Pioneer cemeteries. Request from Washington County to use City Hall as a polling place for the November, 1993 election - Council briefly discussed the request. After discussion, Council consensus was to suggest to Washington County they check with the Joint Water Agency administration to determine if that building would be available. It was noted City Hall has a high volume of traffic and is very busy during the day. It was the opinion of Council that the water agency building might better accommodate Election Day needs. Joint Water Agency - City Administrator Reilly advised Audrey Castile had resigned from the Joint Water Agency Board. City Council must select a fourth representative to the Board. Councilor Hunt questioned whether or not the appointment must be made from the membership of the old Tigard Water District Board. City Administrator Reilly advised he thought the City of Tigard had fulfilled their obligation with regard to appointments. Training Session for Cijy Council - Council consensus was they would like to meet in a training session in the Fall. Location and dates will be determined at a later time. Council meeting recessed at 7:16 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Mr. Ed Gallaher, resident of Merestone Court, advised of concern with a developer-built gravel roadway in a nearby greenway. City Engineer will contact developer to determine the schedule for removing the driveway. The City holds a bond until all work is done. Mr. Gallaher questioned status of billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. This item was reviewed later in the Agenda (See Page 10). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 2 • Curtis Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted his concerns with regard to the "logging" of the Hart property. He expressed concerns with the fact that Mrs. Hart's land is classified as developed land which means there are no restrictions for taking out trees on her property. Mr. Herr advised that 100 to 120 foot trees are being pushed over. He urged criteria be specified for developed and non-developed with regard to tree removal. He noted the tree cutting on the Hart property was an "irreversible situation," and urged that an ordinance be put into place which would take care of situations such as this. He noted that the activity on the Hart property was irresponsible. He reported that there was another slash pile near the "wetland" area, and that it was his understanding the first pile was to have been removed by August 16. He questioned when the City was going to enforce the removal of the piles. Community Development Director Murphy responded the Code Enforcement Officer returned to the property on August 16 to inspect progress. In the meantime, Mrs. Hart's attorney, John Rankin, was advised Mrs. Hart had permission to access her property through the park by working with staff. Staff determined Mrs. Hart was working towards the removal of the slash piles, and Mr. Murphy advised the piles should be removed on or before September 3. City Attorney Tim Ramis had also been instructed to contact Mr. Rankin to gain an understanding of how Mrs. Hart was progressing on other items, such as the delineation of the floodplain area. Discussion followed about enforcement and timing for compliance, in general, for a situation such as this. Mr. Herr expressed his concern about the length of time being taken. • Christy Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted that for over two months they have tried to alert the City with their concerns of a "reckless landowner." Mrs. Herr said Mrs. Hart was commercially logging her property. She outlined her frustrations, noting it was too late for this piece of property with regard to trees, and advised of her concerns that those trees left would be vulnerable because of removal of trees next to them. There was discussion by City Council with regard to the process for a tree ordinance. Mayor Edwards advised he hoped staff was moving as quickly as they could on the issues which could be addressed. He advised the changes with regard to the tree ordinance must be fair to everyone concerned. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 3 In response to a question by Councilor Fessler, Legal Counsel Coleman advised that on September 3 the next step may be to involve Mrs. Hart in the civil infraction process if it was determined violations of the Code did exist. For each day the property owner is in violation of the Code, a new citation could be issued. There was discussion on the action which could be taken by the City. The same deadline would apply to the fill as well as the slash piles. Legal Counsel Coleman stressed that the philosophy of the civil infraction process was to bring the property owner in compliance and to avoid going to court if at all possible. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda, as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 3.2 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for the 109th Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the Mayor to Sign - Resolution No. 93-AG Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. CONSIDERATION OF GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. After introduction to this item by Community Development Director Murphy, and upon his recommendation, motion was made by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to repeal Resolution No. 93-37, which approved a preliminary feasibility study on a petition-initiated LID process. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. This action was taken because it had been determined that 50% of the affected property owners did not sign a petition to pursue this LID. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report, which included a memo in the Council packet. This memo, dated August 17, 1993, outlined the options available for City Council. Those four options were reviewed by the Community Development Director, who advised he recommended Council approve the first three options. Lengthy Council discussion followed. The following statements are highlights of the discussion: • Councilor Hunt noted he had viewed the property with Dorothy Gage. He advised he was not in favor of proceeding with the study of this LID. He was concerned there would be limited access to the property which would not be inviting as an area available for use by the general public. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 4 It WENRIMMINNO advised he could see no evidence of any wetlands or property which would need special consideration. Councilor Fessler noted she recommended Council go forward with the engineering report and have the petitioners pay for the cost of the report. She advised she wanted to give the people concerned a chance to protect this natural area. * Councilor Hawley advised she would like to have more information to make a proper decision. She noted she was not necessarily in favor of the LID, but wanted to have enough information to make the determination as to whether or not this was a proper thing to do. She also advised she would accept the idea of having the Gages or the petitioners provide the dollars for the engineering report. She said that she was in favor of going ahead with the engineering study. Councilor Hawley advised she would also like to see the neighborhood very involved in determining what they would want for this park. • Councilor Schwartz advised that because this LID was not a public safety issue, he was not inclined to support unless there was an overwhelming majority of proponents. He advised that even if the petitioners paid for a study, he would not vote for a park LID which did not have a super majority of support. One option suggested was that the interested parties purchase the property through the formation of a homeowner's association. • Councilor Schwartz also noted he opposed a great deal of staff time being spent on the issue. * Major Edwards acknowledged the validity of the comments of the other Council members. He noted his agreement with statements made by Councilors Schwartz and Hunt. Mayor Edwards said he thought this would be an excellent CIT project in order to resolve this issue for the neighborhood. He agreed there should be limited staff time in looking this issue over, and he would also oppose an LID where 51% of the population could "drive the other 49%." *Addition to minutes (See minutes of 9/14/93, Page 1): Councilor Hawley referred to the August 24, 1993 minutes, Page 5, Paragraph 2, which summarized her comments during the Consideration of the Gage Natural Area Local Improvement District. She said notation should be made she also made the comment that if this property did not somehow become public property, then when the property is sold to developers there will be people calling for protection of the trees. This could develop Into a similar situation now being experienced with the Hart property. In addition, Councilor Hawley asked that it be noted that the following sentence in the last paragraph on Page 5 be amended as follows: (Mayor Edwards' comments) "He noted his agreement with statements made by Councilors Schwartz, Hunt and Hawley." (Councilor Hawley said Mayor Edwards agreed with her comments that this could develop into a similar situation with regard to the Hart property.) f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 5 There was further discussion on boundaries and clarification of process by staff in R response to questions from Council. After lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley,to initiate a preliminary feasibility study (engineer's report) by City Council direction and to have the petitioners bear the cost of the engineering report. Motion failed by a two to three vote. Councilors Hawley and Fessler voted "yes"; Mayor Edwards and Councilors Hunt and Schwartz voted "no." z 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION - METZGER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT City Administrator Reilly summarized the issue for Council. The issue before Council is to decide whether or not to ratify an increase in the assessment established by Washington County in 1988. Without approval by the City, the County advised the operations and maintenance assessment levied on property within the City would have to be reduced to the pre-annexation amount. The 1988 annual maximum assessment of $40,500 would be reduced to an annual maximum assessment of $27,000. City Administrator Reilly noted an article had been written in the Tigard Times and Aff large property owners were sent letters, asking for their opinion on the Metzger Park LID. One letter was received from Washington Square. Mr. Jack Reardon sent to City offices a May 5, 1988 letter from him to Bonnie Hays, Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners for Washington County. Mr. Reardon, General Manager of Washington Square, advised his comments in the 1988 letter were still valid. In this letter, Mr. Reardon advised he felt the Board could work with the assessment of $27,000 per year, which was a more than an adequate amount to maintain the park. (Copy of this letter is on file with the Council meeting packet). Mr. Reilly advised the City received six responses from residents. Four persons were in favor of continuing with the LID payments, and two residents indicated they did not wish to pay more, or asked to be eliminated entirely from the LID. Mr. Reilly outlined options for Council. These options included: 1. Affirm the increase in assessment by approving the proposed resolution. 2. Approve the increase in assessment, with limitations. 3. Decline to affirm. C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 6 Mr. Reilly advised his recommendation would be to affirm the proposed resolution for a set period of time. Council discussed the issue briefly. It was determined Council would like to be advised what the actual operating costs are for the park. There was concern expressed that the park not be cut off immediately until some determination can be made as to the need for operating costs for the park. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the proposed resolution (Resolution No. 93-41), with an amendment being added that such approval would be for a one year period of time only. (Note: Legal Counsel noted that in Section 1 it would read as follows: The ongoing maximum annual operations and maintenance assessment for Metzger Park in an amount not to exceed $40,500 is hereby approved for the tax year beginning January 1, 1994.) RESOLUTION NO. 93-41 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF METZGER PARK FOR ONE YEAR. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - AMES ORCHARD 11, SUB 93-0002 Legal Counsel Coleman noted that the Public Hearing had been closed. Two letters included in the Council packet would not be accepted as part of the record. Legal Counsel recommended that the Council clearly make a determination that the letters will not be considered. If Council should feel they would want to take new information, then the City would need to re-notice and advertise the Public Hearing. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, stating that the Council conducted a Public Hearing on this issue. Additional information received after the close of the Public Hearing would not be considered as part of the record for this issue. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. He referred to the final decision before Council for ratification. During the course of his presentation, Mr. Murphy recommended that Condition No. 6 be amended. (see Page 25 for Item No. 6 on the Ames Orchard Final Decision, which is attached to Resolution No. 93-42). The proposed change to Condition No. 6 would require additional documents be recorded to give notice that each individual lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 7 Jill financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the ; frontage of the subdivision. In this manner, property owners will be advised at the time of the purchase of the financial obligation with regard to the reimbursement district. Discussion followed wherein Community Development Director Murphy responded to questions by Council and clarified the Final Order. RESOLUTION NO. 93-42 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL DECISION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, AMES ORCHARD 11, SUB 93- 0002. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 93-42, with the additional language as outlined by Community Development Director Murphy for Condition No. 6 as specified on Page 25 of the Final Order. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0008, ZONE CHANGE ZON 9M002, CRITERION EQUITIES Location: Generally west of S.W. 70th Avenue, east of 72nd Avenue, south of Elmhurst Street, and north of Beveland Street (WCTM 2S1 1AB, Tax Lots 800, 801, 900, & 1000). A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential, 25 units per acre (R-25). The request is for four parcels totalling 5.06 acres on S.W. 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. A. Public Hearing was opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. No members of Council reported any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including site visits. All members of Council indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter, nor was there a challenge on the participation of any member of Council. D. Associate Planner Acker reviewed the staff report. He advised the proposal meets all applicable criteria and therefore staff recommended approval of CPA 93-0008 and ZON 93-0002. He clarified some issues from questions asked by Council. He noted the increased density would add to the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 8 inventory of units per acre as required by state density requirements for urban areas. E. Public Testimony - Mayor Edwards advised that for those wishing to testify, they should be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue would preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff had described or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which was believed to apply to the decision. Applicant Testimony • Mr. Mark Rockwell, 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035, advised he supported the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission findings. He outlined his research and the need for multi-family housing in this area. He advised that presently there was no multi-family housing planned in the Triangle area. Proponents • None Opponents • Mayor Edwards noted for the record that a letter in opposition was received from Carroll W. Lantz and Patsy R. Lantz, 7270 SW Hermosa Way, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. The letter is on file with the Council packet meeting material. The Lantz's advised the change would not enhance livability or value of their neighborhood within the Triangle. They advised they did not believe the proposed change was in the best interest of the Triangle. They asked that Council deny the proposal and change. • C. L. Roberts, 12465 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. Mr. Roberts outlined his concerns with increased traffic and expressed he believed that better planning for traffic mitigation should be completed prior to approval of this proposal. F. Rebuttal • Mark Rockwell, during rebuttal, said the proposed amendment to R- 25 zoning would add traffic to what occurs. However, the current commercial zoning (when developed) would draw more traffic than CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 9 the requested R-25. In addition, Mr. Rockwell advised R-25 zoning would create traffic that would be more defused throughout the day than commercial zoning traffic. G. Council discussed the issue and asked questions concerning the process within the context of the Triangle Master Plan, which is being worked on for this area. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the Master Plan can be taken into account. The plan is still under development and is not a part of the Comprehensive Plan at this time. H. Public Hearing was closed. 1. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the ordinance as presented, noting this request was consistent with the plan and for the area. In addition, Council believes the traffic questions were adequately answered. J. ORDINANCE NO. 93-23 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY CRITERION EQUITIES (CPA 93- 0008, ZON 93-0002). K. Ordinance was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. Billboard on Scholls Ferry Road: Legal Counsel Coleman advised research is underway to determine whether the Code interpretation that billboards must be oriented towards 1-5 or Highway 217 is defensible. Staff has had discussions with Ackerly communications to advise them of the City's interpretation of the sign code. First step will be to press for compliance. If compliance is not obtained, the City's Civil Infraction process can be utilized. 9. Purchase of property for right of way for the 109th Avenue Extension Project: City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report on this item. After brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the purchase of a portion of the Ristig - K ielhorn property for $161,000 and authorize the City Administrator to sign any documents necessary for completion of the purchase. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes." Councilor Hunt abstained from voting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 10 MMMA nip= 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. ADJOURNMENT: 10:54 p.m. Attest: therine Wheatley, City Recorder *or, C of Tigard Date: ~1C3 h:\recorder\ccm\ccm0824.93 r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 11 f COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P o WX 31`0 ""At 003) 04013W 111otdca IT 7652 17gA6'i ti t(k1, (Xis t1(:N 910/5 Legal Notice Advortising by dw 7UNd citcoma • Ci t of 71 •nrd • 0 Tesrsheat Notice T>m0 4 &k=!Eg Y w .erle +Civ Camol.'fo"(fall. yt =W 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Om 11141ri3isa SFr fDe •'Iirnrd, Oregon 97223 e O Duplicate Affidavit Vkmw e1rC1!'y ~'i tl{, ~ bs Is~,..i3 iD tads wTit- t eaoRks4ris is twltldastce d Pam iYr111 re+lD y Pmk Mat • " wi19 6rw >d1 fAw 71ar C ~ In d rttaCCn tqo ayplkdtele Ch f t).72 dat Y' 4wd Adt~licias kWh cado ! 6W my fWa bit pmaikin bloplfad by lisp Caumn itw uyllkwft ~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, )ss " ba71:A7TiY~i°C kY?3tj+iyd860yTi5.W.7 if iiltL~;7bdA . COUNTY OF WAS►4AdOTON. ) t>{$tighwa A>id*Whotlf4VdadlzWM(WM231 IAD3 1 3txf i th Koehler --I~f~ tar s Cisalric411dIhC 1't being Irst duty sworn, dopose and say I~t I AT Advertising limm I to Isiitdlsc~.,ffigt Dau ty Director, or his principal clerk, of the... i6p ~i ~ Iti list OW A a from commitid PtQk*d0jjW (C.P) to Pape( RmJdd , 23 ualfa .11~o f its f~ t r Naiutl• per general _ tion des defined in ORS 193.010 .OSacres cm W.7 a d Avense its tAe YS~tdrB'TrS it?: hI`• endne1g9.01b; pu bl+shed att__ 1811zU i n the iegS at ouid co ~c anq tat tM tM 13.ICAt11.B.'•'1M ALMITI tM: T ~~t ~ im Pien FoUdu . 19.1.1.tt,3.Z,s4:7.3~d.~f,3.t.2,7.2.1.7,4R 9.1712i.i,mWComo 0e f822,~D~32. • printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the l70 19.36, and DL64. CURT 'D-01 MCI (pPbt•GS51ow G'p iClgl). entire issue of said newspaper for.. One . successive and Tm C-P so" pwit; way m6aKAmdvit +pf. pa& sup- sup- port facilidsm Am mew, )arrwom, HYQ nw aatses =ita{611p a consecutive in the following +ssuea ~ s ftv,,.,,, 4n Wit ~ vs swvk" FOP=, ~ugu9 t 12, 1993 ~~t* *4• " . 231 1114AWM). TIRO R-25 vxo allows fmtki• _ t,~,itx sxai0eduipl etdds. slide ti.1 "m baudIm 3 ROg im services. _ . . f: fawncs, tetaily day cm. ftmpamy aws, mW wctx. _ . ._1-_... _ fiNY tlfnaCitm sows tEllQf x1111 4L .1 T"6S2- PGi>M Amp* 12.19". rxr,c Al SEAL Subscribed and sworn to /fore me tthis-. 12th-dAY 4E_A41$tl9 ItGaiN A lit"G[f8 C044116144r34 N4 024552 fdotiry is fa Oregon Mr COuy t S U+~ ! fr+73 Our te, in? My cornirwasion Expires AFFIDAVIT i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. r• o W.)x 310 ello r ('W3) 6M oxo Nalbca TT 7660 The Ct>t 02"41 NOW m to RM Legal Notice Advertising al![e m y 4t=t x13123 &W, Hsdi ~m ti 63 4 i, • C.Ity at It,'Am • ❑ TearshealNotlce cTby ammm 13125 54 H4111 Blvd. AUGUST 24, 1"3 • rlAarri, Ciregixl 97223-h19-a • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit InOARD('MHA1,1,-TWNHALL 13123M. HALL 00UMARD.TIGAHD, 000 M • • comil tvlt+e tg Crum Mail cos+lem'" Roma) stody semion: (00; P.M.) AFFIDAVIT OF Pb8LICAt~tpA Ilminm Welbir (7:3D P.M.) STATE OF OREGON. 1 ,at, • c0=11DNxtr y'iteportrfrol-ao,:ff COONTY OF WASHINGTON, fiialbcedanScUllisRay Rm4 t -kxiiUl Koe4ller a'' • Comm cami&zarlm beu+g first duty sworn, depose and say Tth.at I ~m the Advertising . FilW Or*(- Amm Onhwd Director, or his prtncipal clerk, of the 1J.wa1~1 Tllax:9 » Fbs:l" NXu ArelLoaal laammoft Dberia a newspaper of general cucutgtwt qqs dahned in OILS 193 010 ! UfS1IRIp/OYE9eeift Ditartct T1Ypq and 193 020, published at 11Z,A in the sforgsatd Ounty n sts e, that the o POW Heart City ~vunc~~ IS nos t Tee c t hold wo rea At ilt CAA 93-m, xoeo cameo a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the x•93.0 (immakm 1lyw~Q( entire issue of said newspaper for QM successive and at S.W. 90th AY 8" tlat! •77.HtQ Ave0ta0, wwA of Irribu t Y Saroat. WA kX.* of bZ;07laad Spm Q conse,cutty in the foltovnng issues j L.oW Caw m3 Revf,,rFea d h dog ~us t 19, 1993 ~ COUWI _ i F , sion under to mmiafa~ or qRS 92,6,60 (1)(0 ~7 A (((h) ~ scusn tshar tt t ta, rrtal pfoiNny tntAm tt3mm ~urreH attd pon&$ lititattioa . T'P6W -1 Abilbb Attract It. MI.: Subscribed and sworn lo,a~fore me thre 19tH day of August C0jy^.?AAV rVICIAL SEAL elw auRccss ~f`'LYl Ll 4 416}} ')1 KLIC • MOON CC "1 40 024552 Notary Wic for Oregon E 1OWS uAr 14. 16,97 uy rr.ommsttorl Expires AFFIDAVIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed v STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, - 7 begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) q-3 3 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated /Z lq-'R copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 3 l day of G~C-sT , 19 ~f 3 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 7 1 G~ v Subscribed and sworn to before me this c3,) day of 19 q3 OFFICIAL SEAL81)V11 CONNIE MARTIN NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON COMMISSION No. 015877 Notary Public for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 4,1996 My Commission Expires: Iogin\jo\affpost CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 93--Q-2> AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY CRITERION EQUITIES (CPA93-0008, ZON 93-0002) WHEREAS, the applicants have requested a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential, and a Zone Map redesignation from C-P to R-25 for approximately 5.06 acres (WCTM 2S1 1AB lots 800, 801, 900 and 1000); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on August 2, 1993, and unanimously concurred with the Planning Division's recommendation for approval of the request; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the request on August 24, 1993, to review the applicant's proposal, the staff report, the Planning Commission recommendation, and to receive public testimony; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in the attached staff report; SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff recommendations, and approves-the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit A and the Zone Map as shown in Exhibit B changing the land use designation on identified parcels (WCTM 2S1 1AB lots 800, 801, 900, 1000) from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential and the zone designation from C-P to R-25. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By 0 n wrl C_?-~ vote of all Council members present after being read b number and title only, this Ll r-" of ft-t ~C 4<2-- day , 1993. Cc,~i•}-~ L~-vii Ca ine Wheatley, City Reo rder APPROVED: This day o , X19 3. ra d~--IR Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City tt rney Date O I CE No. 93- Q5 - Pa 1 I j I EX [4 1 e? /-r PINE (9NA~ED A2££y4 DES[~~T~J MEDru+H-N16N i79xtTy -~f+oL~amAL) P-TF y w SPRUCE 9 ILJ T N ; r• AA 911 W w t •-s STEVE ST ° " •r W~ % • Q a # AFFL ° - ~l\< T / ATLANTA- ♦ cc~------•.•----L1111 u: 41 \ 110 a~ ~ ~ _ > T ~ ~ S.M. ~ Yl STRCC 'Y 1 ~ t f SrQ OUVILL aTREET ~ ''EM9 \ ' 1 77 I ' ~ ♦ / S.W. C1.~1 V \ 1 1 ♦ : \ l I r v~ pR F1 r R ~ s 1 _ ~t ours , -crcTeKSlord P4 Rlf E PE . C ~ c !V HCRU \ . ~ A1,EDIU • - - s-K C a 4 St. -~i ,f! w P!# s~+1 sr I C &&A~ QMZA" ST. S v Na DM fT. FF ID _ 9 t11(3lNI abbowmed SAY 1 .,t .:..1 l x 1 U-I Isl. ;Ong►+ I r' r r i. s m , 1 '3Ar 1 1 -'S ~ v~zt ' i 1 V ~ '3AV ~ III I L ;E s r ji C ' \1 It ' lVolvo* 71gM 'x•01 _ S A~' ,r A 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: August 24,1893C (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 1't:) 'PEA} ~S O~ D B ovl~ Gv4£~-'-~ !.2 oP CU R s E ~2 ~ / ~2Z sZ v a _ -,~1v og n o v a tors.s t i 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: August 24, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL.) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93- 0008, ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0002, CRITERION EOUITIEW Location: Generally west of S.W. 70th Avenue, east of 72nd Avenue, south of Elmhurst Street, and north of Beveland Street (WCTM 2S1 1AB, Tax Lots 800, 801, 900, & 1000). A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential, 25 units per acre (R-25). The request is for four parcels totalling 5.06 acres on S.W. 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1., 6.1.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 7.8.1. 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2. 1 2.1.1 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, and 18.64. CURRENT ZONE: C-P (Professional Commercial) The C-P zone allows public agency administrative services, public support facilities, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, and professional and administrative services. PROPOSED ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) The R-25 zone allows multi-family residential units, residential care facilities, public support services, residential treatment homes, family day care, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS AGENDA ITEM! NO. 7 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name 0 Ad ress Address y6 S• ~,cJ 2.Yo~ ~ EName Name Address ress Name Name Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name dress Address ame Name Address --Address Name Name Address Address Name Name dress ress Name Ram- e Address Address Name Name dress ress • ~J a~ ~3 CITY OF TIG D OREGON August 23, 1993 To: Mayors, Councils, City Administrators and Managers From: Judy Fessler MPAC Rep. Re: Mult. Co proposal to either transfer or fee title to METRO all Mult Co inventory of EXPO, Glendoveer Golf, Blue Lake Park, County parks, open spaces and pioneer cemeteries. I wish to get your initial input as a MOU that just came across MPAC's agenda less than 2 weeks ago. MPAC,thanks to Judie Hammerstad's sleuthing, created more questions at the meeting than anyone from Metro or Mult Co were able to answer. We (MPAC) had hoped to get the answers in our packet for our meeting this week (WED), but we still did not get answers to some basic questions. This morning,I spoke with Richard Kidd, your MPAC alternate, and he expressed overall concern of this MOU setting precedence. I share Judie and George Van Bergen's concerns as expressed in the attached material that I am faxing to all of you. Sorry for this short turn a round but our packets did not arrive until Saturday. I will be waiting for your response before 1PM on Wednesday August 25, 1993. ThaC Judy FX # 639- 216 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 1.L/11.1♦ l.U/ lil. l./ ~.U VIVVLL ILL JVV VJV-v.J'~N fl LA :.V f:JV LI LV IVU V L 1 Vl ••Of CL'q".. • C LPlh C S Al all, M AWl', S `mac\4~\ CUUNTY Board of Commissioners •4Tt.OR.O~O i DARLENE HOOLEV CHAIN ED LINOOUIST COMMISSIONER FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION JUDIE HAMd1ERSTAD COMMISSIONER MICHAEL F. SWANSON CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER COVER SHEE 1 i s DATE: TO: -P~!J FAX ~O ~5 ~21C y FROM: ,BU OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FAX # 00)&W-8944 TOTAL PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER, SHEET: COMMENTS: GuP v ~r1R Main CtYPp} • rlrnnnn tN+A1 rip o7PIAtr001 . Ccc.0cD4 CLACK CO/BCC/COUNSEL TEL: 503-650-8944 Aug 23,93 11:23 P1o.011 P.02 4{ CF c~fc~ <•r~ :D`9 CU"CKAM10"I'A -00%0 Rai M M Board of Commissioners DARLENE HOOLEV August 23, 1993 CHAIR HD LINODUIS7 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MULTNOMAH COUNTY COMMlS;IONER PARKS TRANSFER JUOIE HAMWER6TA0 QOMMIRRIONFR MIC•HAFI R FWA N.SAN TO ALL MPAC MEMBERS: coUlw V AnMINI$I HAIOH j We would like to recommend that consideration of the transfer of Multnomah County Parks to Metro be postponed until MPAC has an opportunity to review the answers to questions which have been submitted regarding the transfer. We also recommend that the Metro Council undertake a process to identify matters of metropolitan concern. As a regional government, deriving its support from throughout the region, we feel that it is inappropriate for Metro to be engaged in assuming local government service functions that are not regional in nature. This is a fundamental issue as local governments which rely on property taxes may be tempted to ® transfer any number of their local service obligations with the assumption that adequate funding may follow the service in the short run. However, a long term funding strategy may become a regional responsibility. We also recommend that the city of Portland be given the opportunity to acquire those facilities within its boundaries, since they are local service providers and have personnel and equipment to operate those sites. Since this transfer includes the funding from Multnomah County through their dedicated recreational fund, it appears that these facilities are not in jeopardy and that further study of this } transfer is justified and warranted. Thank you for your consideration of our suggestions. Sincerely yours, ' 1 ;z Darlene Hooley, Chair I Ed Lindquist, Commissioner i_ Judie Hammerstad, Commissioner /DP CLACK CO/BCC/COUIJSEL TEL: 503-650-89A4 Aug 23,93 11:23 I1o.011 P.03 a ' t CLACK10"N'S cV0',QANk'Tffl 0 Board of Commissioners gre.OP pA11L[N[ lFOOL[Y CHAIR August 20, 1993 [DUNOWIST COMUiSSiONER Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee and Staff ~ COMmiSVONER Metro MiCNACL F SwANSON 600 NE Grand Avenue COUNTYAOMINiSTAATOA Portland, OR 97232-2736 ATT: MERRIE WAYLETT SUBJECT: PROPOSED MULTNOMAH COUNTY PARKS TRANSFER TO ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF: On behalf of Clackamas County, I am submitting the following issues and questions regarding the proposed Multnomah County Parks transfer to Metro. There are policy issues for Council consideration that are addressed in Metro documents - Metro Charter, RUGGO9, and the Greenspaces Master Plan: First, Chapter 2 of the Metro Charter states that the Council shall specify by ordinance the extent to which Metro exercises jurisdiction over matters of metropolitan concern. In addition, prior to any future transfer of properties, Metro should prepare findings of fact determining that these facilities are "of metropolitan concern". Secondly, the RUGGOs also identify areas of "metropolitan significance". We are, however, unaware of what criteria addressing metropolitan concerns with regional significance, if any, has been developed and applied to the transfer of the Multnomah County parks, especially the neighborhood parks, Glendoveer Golf Course, and the cemeteries. Objective 13 on Natural Areas, Parks, and Wildlife Habitat addresses open space,. corridor systems, wildlife inventory, and land bank. The RUGGOS do not address any developed parks, golf courses, or cemeteries. Thirdly, how does the assumption of Multnomah County Parks fit in i with the Greenspaces Master Plan? 1 We strongly urge Metro to pursue functions in planning and policy development over matters of metropolitan concern and to withstand the temptation of taking over local services that will divert them from their regional mission. CLACK CO/BCC/COUNSEL TEL: 503-650-5944 Aug 23,93 11:23 1-do.011 P.04 Page 2. Clackamas County re Parks Transfer In addition, we would appreciate having the following information provided to the members of MPAC for their consideration regarding this transfer: 1) Exhibit 1 which was to accompany the memorandum of Understanding and includes the inventory of the sites under consideration. Please provide us with the income and annual budget impact on each item in the inventory. We would appreciate it if you would include the current and projected figures as well as the allocated costs and rent. 2) The Expo Master Plan. In addition, we have the following questions: 3) How does Metro plan to provide for capital improvement needs at these facilities? 4) How would the financial agreement between Multnomah County and Metro be altered if Glendoveer Golf Course and the neighborhood parks are transferred to the City of Portland? 5) What are the sewer assessments and property taxes to be paid on behalf of Glendoveer? 6) Since Parks Administration and Cemeteries are combined in the Multnomah County Parks budget, it is impossible to assign a budget figure to each activity. What are these figures? 7) Since the cemeteries are apparently active and are still marketed and operated for current burials, is it possible to privatize this operation? This suggestion is made noting how profitable the cemetery business appears to be in the private sector. 8) How does Metro justify providing local services such as the marketing of burial grounds and the conducting of recreational programs as described in the Multnomah County Parks Services mission statement? 9) According to the Multnomah County budget there are a total of 31 FTE in Parks and Expo. However, the Metro budget lists 51 FTE. Please clarify the discrepancy. 10) According to the 5 year budget projections from Metro (3/5/93), the beginning fund balance is zero from 1992-1997. However, the beginning fund balance as of August 11th was projected as $450,000 in '93-'94 and amounts between $128,000 and $207,000 per year are listed through 1997. Please break down the figures and sources of this fund balance. The Multnomah County budget lists (and projects) beginning fund balances'at zero. MOW CLACK CO/BCC/COUNSEL TEL: 503-650-8944 Aug 23,93 11:23 No.011 P.05 C Page 3. Clackamas County re Parks Transfer 11) If a Greenspaces bond measure Is not passed by the voters, how does Metro justify the acquisition of a Parke program? Finally, I would like also to have the answers to Councilor George Nan Bergen's memo to Councilor Mike Gatee (3/30/93), particularly the items I have circled. I appreciate your willingness to research and respond to our questions. if anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, Judie Hammerstad, Commissioner ' Clackamas County i 1 CLACK CO/BCC/COUTASEL TEL: 503-650-8944 Aug 23,93 11:23 No.011 P.06 R 0 Mem'orandum - 2000 SW Flrst Ave. Portland, OR 97201-5398 (503) 221-1646 DATE* March 300 1993 TO: Councilor Mike Gates, Chair, Governmental Affairs Committee Casey Short, Council Analyst FROM: Councilor George Van Bergen REt. INVESTIGATION OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY PROPERTY TRANSFER I am concerned about the progress of the investigation of possible transfer of Multnomah County parks and other properties to Metro. I request information on the followings 1. Copy of the written-request of Multnomah County. ;2. Copy of writings of the Council and the Governmental Affairs Committee directing investigation of the transfer. Inventory of specific items by name, location, and other pertinent information. Income and annual budget impact of each item. S.• Obligations to Multnomah County employees in any transfer. Contractual obligations involved with each item, i.e., entrepreneurial golf course, restaurant, etc. Review of Oregon cemetery law concerning pioneer cemeteries and opinion on whether we have authority to manage such cemeteries? •8. Draft of any existing Memorandums of understanding. What review has been made of this proposal with our patrons at the county and city level within the Metropolitan Service District? (.10A memo from Mr. Short as specific analyst, to this function or to this investigation, as to his review of the budget impact on Metro. 1. A list of personal property to be transferred, a survey of the condition of the property, and where it will be housed in the future. 12 If income properties are transferred, has MERC agreed to supervise and manage without new capitalization? c: Presiding Officer Judy Wyers Don Carlson, Council Administrator L:\GVBMEM93.330 Recycled paper T CLACK CO,/BCC/COUNSEL TEL: 503-650-8944 Aug 23,93 11 213 No.011 P.08 1 .O t t Multnomah County Parks and Expo Transfer Updated Summary Financial Projections August 1'1,1993 AdoMed j Baed Aevhd FY 199394 FY 199344 FY 1994.95 FY 1 FY 9 9967 i FufW Babw" $187,372 $450,000' 820?.M 6177.09:7 $128,625 p 1.788.624 1,7@8,524 1,867,229 I.M.2W 2.071 6 1.549.532 1.549.532 1.659,981 1.702;60® 1,821,229 Eta T= Earned on Pwks gf+d Expo 0- 0 191.829 199,514 211,833 Cam,) RxW Suppod 80.000 0 0 0 24.445 Tow PAHMSM" $35605.429 $3.788 058 19,928.9 ' $4,047,O $4„ 2tf+7.518_ i pagk w Paft $2,214.264 $2,275.201 $2.363,337 $2,469,302 $2.643.846 Expo 1.301,164 1,304,907 1.3813,543 1.649.511 1,513.872 cor9'r2eaxy 90.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 U~od Baleme O 107,668 77.027 28,625 0 Tc6mlKftmetft SS~605~ M $3.82Q.907 541047A $4L2b7,618 i 1 , 1 krbuepotbtx%KI-Upaft7SWAAOARY.XLS &I IM; 2= PIA i 'pt r _ CL illhI fill!. F .j r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 24, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: August 11, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 109th Avenue PREVIOUS ACTION: Extension 99W Intersection ODOT Traffic Signal Agreement PREPARED BY: Gar Alf son DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: --.--------_=-===c=====_~________ - va=oa=====_=====aa~aomo=aacaa~aaac==ma i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL ! Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with ODOT for the 109th Avenue/99W Intersection project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - M=,or-Approve the Resolution, authorizing the Giaty -021 ,aver to sign the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 109th Avenue/99W Intersection project includes the modifica'.:iontion of the existing 99W/Royalty Parkway traffic signal . The agreement obligates the City to construct the signal and to pay for 1/2 of the energy, King City to pay for 1/2 the energy, and ODOT to maintain the signal. The existing signal will be modified and the previous agreement between ODOT and King City will become void. King City 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 109th Avenue/99W project. gauss-109ts.ga July 29, 1993 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 11729 COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division, hereinafter referred to as "State"; CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its City Officials, hereinafter referred to as "Tigard"; and CITY OF KING CITY, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its City Officials, hereinafter referred to as "King City". W I T N E S S E T H RECITALS 1. Pacific Highway West, State Route 99W, is a part of the State highway system under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission. S.W. 109th Avenue is a part of the City street system, under jurisdiction and control of the City of Tigard. S.W. Royalty Parkway is a part of the City street system, under jurisdiction and control of King City. 2. For the purpose of providing acceptable traffic circulation patterns on public highways and streets, Tigard plans and proposes to extend S.W. 109th Avenue west to intersect with 99W opposite its intersection with S.W. Royalty Parkway; hereinafter referred to as "Project". Work to be performed as part of the project includes modifications to the existing intersection to accomodate the extension of S.W. 109th Avenue and revisions to the existing traffic signal. The location of the project is as approximately shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. The project will be financed 100 percent with Tigard funds at no cost to State or King City. 3. By the authority granted in ORS 366.770, and 366.775, State may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties and cities for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 4. By the authority granted in ORS 810.210, State is authorized to determine the character or type of traffic control devices to be used, and to place or erect them upon State Highways at places where State deems it necessary for the safe and expeditious control of traffic. No traffic control devices B1193004 ` f. M. C. & A. No. 11729 CITY OF TIGARD and KING CITY shall be erected or maintained upon any State Highway by any authority other than State, except with its written approval. Traffic signal work on project shall conform to the current State standards and specifications. i 5. State and King City entered into Agreement No. 7299 on October 29, 1980 concerning the installation of the existing a flashing beacon (which has since been upgraded to a traffic signal by State). Any further reference to said agreement ! concerning maintenance and power responsibilities shall be superceded by this agreement upon completion of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: a STATE OBLIGATIONS 1. State hereby grants Tigard the right to enter onto and occupy State right-of-way for the performance of necessary roadway construction and installation of the traffic signal equipment. 2. The State's Traffic Engineer shall, at project cost, review and approve all traffic plans and specifications prior to advertisement for construction bids. 3. The State's Region Manager shall, at project cost, assign a Project Manager to review and approve the project plans and specifications; layout and paint the necessary lane lines for the project prior to signal turn-on; and provide material testing and technical inspection to insure State standards are met. 4. The State's Project Manager shall, at project cost, monitor roadwork performed by the City, or its contractors, within the boundaries of Pacific Highway West, and assign a Certified Signal Inspector to monitor the traffic signal work. 5. The State's District Manager shall, at project cost, issue the required permits and review and approve the project plans and specifications. 6. The State's Traffic Signal Services Manager shall, at project cost, perform the signal equipment environmental testing, field testing, and turn-on in accordance with current / State procedures. 1 2 - ~ F '1 M. C. & A. No. 11729 CITY OF TIGARD and KING CITY 7. State shall compile accurate cost accounting records. Tigard may request a statement of costs to date at anytime by submitting a written request. When the actual total cost of services provided by State have been computed, State shall furnish Tigard with an itemized statement of said final costs. 8. State shall, upon completion of the project, perform all required signal maintenance associated with the project signal at its own expense. State shall retain complete jurisdiction and control of the timing established for operation of the traffic signal. 9. The State's Region Manager or designee (Oregon Registered Professional Traffic Engineer) shall review and approve signal timing plan prior to signal turn-on. 10. State shall maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops installed on State highway in such a manner as to provide adequated protection for said detector loops, and shall adequately maintain the pavement markings and signing installed on State right-of-way as part of the project. TIGARD OBLIGATIONS 1. Tigard, or its consultant, shall conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic investigations; arrange for relocation or reconstruction of any conflicting utility facilities; identify and obtain all required permits; and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce plans, specifications, and cost estimates. 2. Tigard shall, upon State's review and approval of final plans, prepare the contract and bidding documents; advertise for construction bid proposals; award all contracts; pay all contractor costs; furnish all construction engineering, field testing of materials and technical inspection (except as provided for in STATE OBLIGATIONS paragraph No. 2), and project manager services. 3. Tigard shall, upon receipt of a fully executed copy of this agreement, forward to State's District 2A office (P.O. Box 25412, Portland, OR 97225) an advance deposit in the amount of $9000.00. Said amount being equal to the estimated total cost of State provided technical inspection, and testing and turn-on services for the project. Tigard was previously billed for the i advance review of plans and specifications, and for project striping. 3 - a M. C. & A. No. 11729 C CITY OF TIGARD and KING CITY 4. Upon completion of the project and receipt from State of an itemized statement of the actual total cost of the State's services, Tigard shall pay any amount which, when added to Tigard's advance deposit, will equal 100 percent of the State's actual total costs of the project. Any portion of said advance deposits which is in excess of the total actual cost will be refunded or released to Tigard. 5. Tigard shall, upon completion of the project, provide power for the project signal at its own expense, and will bill King City for 50 percent of all related power costs. 6. Tigard shall adequately maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops as well as all pavement markings and signing installed on Tigard right-of-way in accordance with the plans and specifications. 7. This agreement is conditioned upon Tigard applying for and obtaining a permit to "Occupy or Perform Operations upon a State Highway". Tigard agrees to comply with all provisions of said permit. ! 8. Tigard agrees that any change in the use of the properties ( lying between 99W and S.W. 109th Avenue Extension, shall have access provided to 109th Avenue and include review by ODOT. 9. Tigard shall authorize execution of this agreement during a regularly convened session of its City Council. KING CITY OBLIGATIONS 1. King City hereby grants Tigard and State the right to enter onto King City property for construction purposes and for installation and maintenance of traffic signal equipment including vehicle detector loops. 2. King City shall adequately maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops as well as all pavement markings and signing installed on King City property in accordance with the plans and specifications. 3. King City shall annually reimburse Tigard for its share (50 percent) of all power costs associated with the project signal. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. State, Tigard, and King City agree and understand that a mutual review of the project plans and specifications will be conducted prior to advertisement for construction bid proposals, and that State's prior written approval is necessary before such advertisement. 4 - M. C. & A. No. 11729 CITY OF TIGARD and KING CITY 2. The contractor, its subcontractor, if any, and all employers working under this agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide Workers' Compensation coverage for all their subject workers. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. The Oregon Transportation Commission, by a duly adopted delegation order, authorized the State Highway Engineer to sign this agreement for and on behalf of the Commission. Said authority has further been delegated to the Traffic Engineer pursuant to Subdelegation Order HWY-4, paragraph 3. APPR A RE STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation, By Highway Division Region Ma er By State Traffic Engineer Date APPROVED AS TO CITY OF TIGARD, by and LEGAL SUFFICIENCY through its Elected Officials By By Asst. Attorney General Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM By City Recorder By City Attorney Date CITY OF KING CITY, by and through its Elected Officials CITY OF TIGARD BILLING ADDRESS: By Mayor City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 By Tigard, OR 97223 City Recorder Date 5 - ,Alf Oo. • • 1 i •t.r\J ~ ~ ~ r,..R ~~'~j J^~J., << ' • ..r•:u "I,' "~I~ -i. ~r ~c'_ + t,•'L, Nit 1 „ ti J a :S.G J r t_ . 'r , r.. '9•~~ r,~• ~ 1 y:. i I r\ a • ~l ~ Ilk ~ ks 'Is 't.t •u4, ..:1'~~af\j~L ~',1.•.. ~`i'1y~..; ~ A, 4~ a.,.u.i-S, w.d r"~i t/..~ -~^..'.~~I~•. TRECE • % . c, ~ • .r a t"' ~ • _ ~ ~i_:.~; i• Pro dsed-•Prxsy. t ~ ; ~;:-+t_~'r'E~~N~,~~, , R• COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: D, --1-993 DATE August 5th {L II ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: "Gage'! Natural PREVIOUS ACTION: July 27th Area LID PREPARED BY: Duane Roberta DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: !__Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED THIS ITEM ON JULY 27TH, AND ADOPTED A RESOLUTION TO PROCEED BASED ON INFORMATION THAT SUGGESTED THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OWN MORE THAN 50% OF THE PROPERTY (TAX LOTS) HAD SIGNED All INITIATION PETITION. SINCE, IN FACT, THE PERCENTAGE TURNS OUT TO BE LESS THAN 50%, THE ISSUE IS BEING BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION PASSED ON JULY 27TH ARE ATTACHED, WITH THE CHANGES UNDERLINED. 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 BY ADOPTING THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION. INFORMATION SUMMARY_ SEE ATTACHED MEMO TO COUNCIL DATED JULY 29, 1993, WHICH WAS INCLUDED WITH THE 7/29/93 COUNCIL NEWSLETTER. 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 (SEE PACKET FROM JULY 27TH) 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 (NEW ONE, ATTACHED. WOULD INITIATE ON THE COUNCIL'S OWN MOTION) 2) POSTPONE ANY COUNCIL ACTION UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CITY RECEIVES ENOUGH SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS TO MEET THE 50% REQUIREMENT FOR LID INITIATED BY PETITION 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. DRAIdsun CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO' HAVE PREPARED A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING A NATURE PRESERVE 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. WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition stating interest in the formation of a local improvement district to provide a nature preserve. The petition was signed by 79 property owners and staff estimates approximately 169 property owners will be benefitted; therefore the owners of 47% of the proposed affected property have signed the petition; WHEREAS, a public meeting was held on June 10, 1993 at the Tigard Senior Center to explain the local improvement district process and to answer questions; WHEREAS, the area to be included within the proposed local improvement district is the area shown on "Exhibit All attached. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and accepted the Preliminary Evaluation Report entitled "Gage" Natural Area LID Preliminary Evaluation Report on July 27th. which was submitted by the Community Development Director and which recommend approval-, subject to additional signatures being submitted; and WHEREAS, uRon a_review _after the Council meeting, it was found that the 2roRerties for which additional signatures were submitted at the July 27th Council meeting had already been counted or were not in the proposed district, and therefore owners of less than 50% of the tax lots in the proposed Local Improvement District area have indicated sup ort for generating more information through the Preliminary Engineering Report process; and WHEREAS. there have been continual changes in the indications of suRport or o2position, making it difficult to determine exactly what percentage of the Broperty owners desire to continue on to the next step of the process, and WHEREAS, it would be to the benefit of the City Council and the RroRertty owners to have more gRecific information available upon which to base decisions. WHEREAS. Section 4.A.1.b of the Tigard Municipal Code gives the City council the authority to initiate a Local Improvement District on its own motion. RESOLUTION NO. 937 Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1. The City Council hereby initiates the Gage Natural Area Local Improvement District in accordance i.th Sects on 4 A 1 b. of the TigarcL Municigal Code section ~ The staff is -hereby directed to have prepared a Preliminary Engineering Report, and the Council intends that the report consider the following: a. The scope of the work; b. Financial information; co The proposed district boundaries; d. Estimated costs. Section EQ, The total cost of the preparation of the Preliminary Engineering Report shall be paid by the City of Tigard. Should the improvement district be established the cost will be assessed to the district. PASSED: This day of, 1993. i Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 93- Page 2 KENTO EXHIBIT o a Proposed LID Boundary Q ND A DURHAM ~ ao JULY 13. 1993 . MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor Edwards and members of the city council, FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Developmen DATE: July 29, 1993 SUBJECT: Gage property Local Improvement District This memo is to advise you of a technical concern about the proposed LID for the Gage property. In the staff report in your packet, staff reported that owners of slightly less than 50$ of the tax lots within the proposed LID boundary had signed a petition in favor of moving forward to the next step. This percentage included subtracting out those lots in the area around Churchill Drive who petitioned against the LID. We .also said in the staff report that we would recommend proceeding with the LID to the next step, subject to receiving additional signatures that would move the percentage up to at least 50%. We advised Mrs. Gage and other supporters of the LID that they would have to bring in more signatures prior to the Council meeting of July 27th. As you will recall, Mrs. Gage brought in a petition Tuesday night at the Council meeting signed by six property owners. Based on that, I told. the Council that we had received signatures on petitions which would represent just over 50% of the tax lots within the proposed LID-counting the six that had just been submitted. That would have been the case, had all six signatures represented additional tax lots. As it turns out, upon checking the next day, all six of the signatures represented tax lots that had already been counted, or which are outside of the proposed LID Boundary. Meanwhile, two additional property owners expressed to staff at the meeting their support for moving forward. WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? ` As of the Council meeting on Tuesday, July 27th, council had received indications of support of gathering more information from owners of 47% of the tax lots, not counting the six names submitted by Mrs. Gage, and counting the two tax lots whose owners indicated support at the meeting. Approximately 24% have expressed opposition, including particularly the area around Churchill and the remaining 29% have not yet declared either support or opposition. IS THIS IMPORTANT? in a broad sense, the petition is only a preliminary expression of interest, asking the Council to allow the staff to gather more information. So in that sense, there was at one time 58% interested, which drops to 48% at latest count. And with 24% definitely opposed. In that sense, there appears to be enough support to warrant spending more time and public funds on this LID. In a technical sense, however, the LID ordinance requires that property owners interested in proceeding hold more than 50% of the property estimated to be benefitted before the Council proceed to the preliminary engineer's report stage. I would interpret this to mean that owners of 50% of the tax lots in the preliminarily proposed boundary have expressed interest. As mentioned previously, the actual percentage is 47%. CAN THIS TECHNICAL FLAW BE CORRECTED? Yes, by two different methods. The Council could pass a new resolution initiating the LID itself. Or the City can ask the supporters to submit more signatures to get to at least the 50% mark. (The problem I see with the second choice is that the ownership within the neighborhood keeps changing, and individuals-change their minds. And this petition gathering process has been going on for a couple years, and is a now a source of conflict within the neighborhood). Recommendation: Council should adopt a new Resolution on Aug 10th correcting the technical deficiency, and allowing the process to continue. This way, the technical flaw is corrected, the City can proceed to gather more information. Ultimately, subject to Council wishes, the neighborhood will have a public hearing on the subject, and the issue will be settled. / If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. i feQ. August 4, 1993 rP, Jerry Edwards, Mayor City of Tigard AUG 0 5 1993;: 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. j Tigard, OR 97223 i_.. RE: Gage Property Situation Dear Mayor: I am writing to express the feelings of our household regarding the proposed greenway at the end of Bond and Churchill Streets. My husband and I purchased our home in December, 1992 and were unaware of the Gage property problem wherein they keep trying to get the City of Tigard to purchase their property. We do not want to pay the City of Tigard for this property when we feel it is a bad idea to make it into a greenway. Since the property is at the end of our street, we will gain no advantage if this area is made into a greenway. Matter of fact, we feel it would be a disadvanta7e to us to have this area developed with walkways. It would definitely bring more foot traffic down our street from Tigard Eigh School students. As it is now, we are constantly picking up trash left behind and disappointed by the people who pick the flowers in our yard. We feel that if the City of Tigard wants to develop the subject property, the homeowners whose property backs up to it should be the ones paying for its development. They are the ones that now now have the open space and are enjoying it. I hope you will take into account our negative feelings when you vote on this subject. We will be very k disappointed if the City of Tigard votes to purchase the property from the Gage sisters. Sincerely, Barbara Gonzale 7915 SW Bond Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 j Mary Phyllis Baumer t` k 7978 S.W. Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 August 3, 1993 Mr. Jerry Edwards AUG Q 3 1993 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. j Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Edwards, When the person first came around with the petition regarding the Gage property, we were very careful to find out if signing this petition indicated assent or approval on our part, as to taking part in acquiring the Gage property. If it had truly meant that, none of us would have signed. The petition assured us that it meant only that we would be given information. When a meeting was announced, only three of us received a notice. Imagine our chagrin when we went to the meeting, to be shown a chart that indicated by colored-in spaces that we supported the petition to acquire the Gage property. This was not suppose to be the case. When we remonstrated this, only the Baumers and the Raasas were removed from the chart. ( Therefore, as a result of this misunderstanding, I asked both Mr. Murphy and the other person who showed slides at the last meeting if we, on Churchill Way, 80th between Churchill Way and Bond Street, and Bond Street between 79th and 80th could secede. These gentlemen told me that if I got 100 percent of the people in our neighborhood that this could happen, just as the Ashford Oaks section had done previously. Mr. Murphy also was very adamant that there was a deadline of July 1st for any petition and that nothing would be accepted after that. I fulfilled these requirements totally. I did ask if more signatures would be required, but was told that since it involved just this ne-ghborhood that only those would be necessary. Why, then, were six more signatures accepted for Miss Gage at the council meeting? These should be invalid. We are at a great loss to understand how Mr. Murphy can arbitrarily make the decisions to include our neighborhood in the boundaries for the Gage property. Our request for not being included in the acquisition of the Gage property, and fulfillment of the petition criteria are the same'as Ashford Oaks, so why are we forced to remain while they are out? We understood that our being in or out should be up to the City Council. We also feel very much "had" by being cuckolded into signing a petition under false pretenses. At the meeting before the City Council meeting, Mr. Murphy "just happened" to find Mike Najewicz's letter. That letter had been in his hands since 11:00 a.m. the preceding day when Mike faxed it so that the City Council members would have time to read it before the meeting. r Mr. Murphy also said that he didn't know if the property was for sale - this was amply discussed at the first meeting and he knew the answer. He also knew why the Churhill, Bond, 80th Ave. area opted out, because I had discussed this with him at great length prior to the meeting Our neighborhood would receive no benefits from that property. Some of us are elderly and retired, some young people just scratching by. One young man cried when I took .the petition around. He would have to sell and move. None of us would let our children go into the park area. With the convenience store so close by on Hall Blvd., High School kids already frequent the area. One family moved because a stalker used the proposed park property as an access to their house. Mr. Murphy has a list of the crimes* in this area - broken into cars, burglaries, etc. We are categorically opposed to being taxed for the buying and upkeep of this park area. Please continue to work to end this project. It is not wanted, not needed, and not proper. Sincerely, Mrs. Mary Phyllis Baumer l CT i . Responses to content of Staff Report 'GAGE" NATURAL AREA LID Preliminary evaluation report July 27, 1993 Pmc 1 - 2nd paragraph - "reviewed by Council some three years ago but no action was taken" - Recommendation/suggestion was that a petition again be considered after property owners on Titan properties were on the premises to be considered for involvement in the LID. In this three year interim, at least two presentations were made for the LID before the Park Board. They were supportive but not activist. In the meantime, the Park Board has been disbanded. K" 2 - Signed petitions in favor of further analysis (submitted 5193) - actually submitted April 16th to Pat Reilly - Signed Petitions against being included in LID (Submitted 5/93) - actually submitted June 11, 1990 by Sue Seibold PAGE 5 -appreciate delineation of "permitted uses" in the R-12 district - - when I have stated these, opponents accuse me of TREATS N" 33 - (after page 5) - - reference to third petition - accepted about 2 weeks after the Informational Meeting - Acknowledgment of petition violates "Table I process which spells out: "Intiation" - completed "Feasibility" - today's agenda - Council decision "Formation" - (next step) -Citizens have opportunity to remonstrate Changing of rules and procedures does NOT enhance credibility of staff or demonstrate a TRUST relationship among community members whom the City is charged to serve RUM ,r - 2 - RESPONSES TO CONTENTS OF STAFF REPORT July 27, 1993 ]PAGE 7 - re street connection - existing development precluded alignment - - dereliction of decision on behalf of Planning Dept. - at time of these developments, culdesacs were FASHIONABLE - buyers were looking for such locations to avoid traffic flow and congestion - Waymire's 81st Court could have left a lot for road - Titan properties could have left a lot for road - Consensus of attendees at Informational Meeting - overwhelming support not to open street - Extending the street would destroy the neighborhood and the charisma of the proposed natural area PAGE 7 - Comprehensive plan - last Tigard inventory done in 1979 - - Tigard presently in violation of State Goal 5 - updating of open space, scenic and historic areas and natural resources - would evolve into current inventory - because of inventory not being current, last year a map and letter from Wetlands Conservancy was submitted for recording the property as a forested wetland - Paragraph 2 - reference to "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." We supporters urge adoption of the Staff report for the City Council to proceed with the preliminary engineer's report and an appraisal of the subject property. 97,2.!Z1l C.. y ~ /99 3 al &LweL GI re- 503' 6 iSb P~ Now- ATTENTION: CITY OF TIGARD July 29, 1993 PETITION TO EXCLUDE THE HOMES LISTED BELOW FROM C'Urv Cstanc;l 6A ANY INVOLVEMENT IN PURCHASING THE GAGE PROPERTY. The homeowners that have signed below, are requesting that the City of Tigard exclude our homes from any involvement in the funding for possible purchase or development of the Gage property. We do not want our tax money spent on it's purchase or development or finance costs associated with it's study or acquisiton. NAME (Printed/Legal signature) ADDRESS ,Pk i/ i4A X38.SL~I , 97ad 1. ♦ 2 . $ W S ra aP 3_ 'rda 1, ~(,v d~-F• /Tzrl 5. i n n lCit\ S~ -T! j r 6. U.,n 15319 9W S011 . T• ay 7. 1 An At- $ , 833 10 10 821 v T 11. 7~l . W L-fA 12. ZZ~kl 13. L Q 14. 7 A,- ko in (Ia( c~()✓►aU24"~luie 15. 8 6 Iq a 17. 18. 00, now Coven c~ l COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE .a ` "GAGE" NATURAL AREA LID On July 27th City Council authorized a Preliminary Engineer's Report to further.. s improvement (LID) in tudy a proposal to form a local ne neighborhood. If focrmed, this district CITY OF T' G R would provide funding for the acquisition and preservation of a four OREGON acre natural area site located between Bond and Ashford Streets. City Council authorization was based on indications of support for gathering more information from the owners of 50% of the tax lots within the proposed district. A verification of names on a petition submitted at the City Council meeting int-dcates that the number of owners expressing interest in getting more information is, in fact, less than 50%. Given this circumstance, City Council is scheduled to reconsider its authorization for the Preliminary Engineer's Report at its regular 7:30 PM meeting on August 10th. Staff recommends that Council re-approve proceeding to the Preliminary Engineer's Report by initiating the formation of the district and authorizing the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report on its own motion. Although the LID discussion presently is set for August 10th, Councillor Schwartz, because he will be unable to attend the August 10th meeting, has asked that this discussion be re-scheduled to August 24th. Therefore, the LID discussion may or may not take place on the 10th as scheduled. If Council does decide to postpone the discussion as requested, the new date will be listed in the meeting notice section of the Tigard Times. The format of the August 10th or a later City Council discussion will be the same as for the July 27th discussion. This is not-a public hearing and no time is set aside for formal public testimony. However, you may wish to be present to hear the points raised. A public hearing is provided for later in the LID process, if City Council decides to consider establishing an improvement district. Copies of the most recent staff report are available at no charge at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. Examination copies are available at the Tigard Public Library. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Duane Roberts, Ed Murphy, or Nels Michaelson at 639-4171. p1Vnotice.DR August 5. 1993 I OWN M E M O R A N D U M TIG_ARD POLICE DEPARTMENT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council PROM: Ronald D. Goodpaster'O.-, Chief of Police DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJECT: The Proposed Gage LID I have received a copy of incidents of breaking of laws in the last 8 years in the neighborhood of Gage property that was distributed to the Council on 7-29-93. I have contacted the author of that, Mr. Duke Kaasa, and discussed these incidents with him to obtain more information so that I could research them in relation to the Gage property. Item number 1 referenced an attempted rape of an 11-year old girl. This was an attempted kidnap of a 13-year old female on 79th near Durham that occurred March 1, 1991. The second topic was an exposure on Bond Street. This occurred in the 8000 block of SW Bond on March 24, 1993, and an arrest was made in the case. The third item was five or more cars that had been broken into. In checking the files, using the boundary of the proposed LID, I found that there were approximately 7 vehicles that had been broken into in the area. The fourth item referred to 3 homes that had been broken into and merchandise stolen. In talking with Mr. Kaasa, these occurred in the general 76th and Bond area. One occurred approximately 5 to 6 years ago; one occurred approximately 3 to 4 years ago; and one occurred more recently. The fifth item listed was a reference to marijuana and drug use in the 4 acres of the Gage property. In talking with Mr. Kaasa, the primary concern regarding drug use was identified to a house that was not adjacent to the Gage property and approximately two blocks away. After reviewing the criminal reports and non-criminal reports for calls for service in the proposed Gage LID boundary area, I could find no reported incidents of suspected narcotic activity in the Gage property. The seventh item listed referred to the police being called many times to disturbances at two homes, one on Bond and one on Churchill Way. The police records show that we have residents on those two streets that had domestic problems and also a juvenile 4~- Z problem. The ninth item referenced a stolen vehicle and also in talking with Mr. Kaasa was the same as mentioned in item number 10, the car recovered stripped. This was a vehicle that was stolen from the 7900 block of Bond. In talking with Mr. Kaasa and after reviewing the reported incidents, I was not able to determine any connection between them and the Gage property. Mr. Kaasa stated there was a person that was "stalking" a resident that used the Gage property to conceal his movements. He also referred to high school students using narcotics in the property. I checked our files and am unable to locate reports on these incidents. I tried to contact the victim of the "stalking" incidents (who now lives out of state) unsuccessfully. i :z C REPORTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE PROPOSED LID BOUNDARY AREA 89-1915 7916 SW BOND 05-08-89 THEFT F/MOTOR VEHICLE 89-2426 7962 SW CHURCHILL WAY 06-15-89 TEL. HARASSMENT 89-3408 7963 SW BOND 08-23-89 HARASSMENT 90-0994 8050 SW BOND 03-09-90 THEFT OF MV PARTS i 90-1703 15729 SW 82ND 04-26-90 THEFT-OTHER 90-2054 15745 SW 82ND 05-19-90 PLATES-FAIL TO DISPLAY l 90-3622 SW 82ND & BONAVENTURE 08-27-90 THEFT-OTHER 90-4226 15769 SW 82ND 10-04-90 JUVENILE PROBLEM , 90-4230 8400 BLOCK & BONAVENTURE 10-04-90 SOLICITORS 90-4236 8400 BLOCK & BONAVENTURE 10-05-90 CRIM. MIS.-OTHER 91-0344 15752 SW 82ND 01-23-91 CODE VIOLATION t 91-1020 7895 SW BOND 03-03-91 TELEPHONE HARASS 91-1234 7915 SW BOND 03-18-91 CRIM. MIS.-OTHER 91-1974 8070 SW CHURCHILL CT 05-04-91 THEFT F/MOTOR VEHICLE 91-2084 7929 SW CHURCHILL 05-12-91 THEFT F/MOTOR VEHICLE 91-2218 7895 SW BOND 05-20-91 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 92-1341 8398 SW BONAVENTURE 03-08-92 CRIM. MIS.-OTHER 92-1441 7931 SW BOND 03-14-92 MIP/PARTY 92-2200 8090 SW BOND 04-21-92 FOUND PROPERTY i 92-2274 8020 SW CHURCHILL 04-26-92 DOMESTIC PROBLEM 't 92-3640 79TH & CHURCHILL 07-08-92 NON-INJURY ACCIDENT 92-5159 8020 SW CHURCHILL CT 10-08-92 CUSTODY PROTECTIVE 92-6193 15889 SW 81ST CT 12-06-92 CRIM. MIS.-RESIDENCE 93-3007 8045 SW CHURCHILL CT 06-27-93 THEFT F/MOTOR VEHICLE Information is from 1-1-89 to 7-7-93. f I did not find any relationship between the reported criminal activity and the Gage property. a i a REPORTED NON-CRIMINAL CALLS FOR SERVICE V IN THE PROPOSED LID BOUNDARY AREA 12/12/91 15954 81ST SUSPICION 04/10/92 8363 LANGTREE ASSISTANCE RENDERED 11/20/92 8300 BLOCK LANGTREE JUVENILES 06/07/92 8389 ASHFORD BUILDING CHECK 04/07/93 8384 ASHFORD SUSPICION 07/30/93 8048 ASHFORD FALSE ALARM 06/05/93 7900 BLOCK CHURCHILL MINOR ACCIDENT 06/06/93 7946 CHURCHILL NOISE/PARTY 08/20/92 15770 80TH LAWN DISCOLORATION 11/22/92 8464 BONAVENTURE ASSISTANCE 12/10/92 8310 BONAVENTURE FALSE ALARM 05/10/93 8332 BONAVENTURE JUVENILES IN TREE 03/23/92 7931 BOND NOISE 01/02/92 7947 BOND CHECK BUILDING 07/17/92 7900 BLOCK BOND SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 08/24/92 8000 BOND SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 05/12/93 7964 BOND SUSPICIOUS PERSONS Information is from November 1991 to date. I did not find any relationship between these calls for service and the Gage property. of/rdggage.2 • Cpas,~,e,,,i"' t. Vto ME 0 9 9998 Mayor Jerry Edwards City of Tigard L."i' 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 August 8, 1993 Re: Gage Property LID Dear Mayor Edwards, This letter is written in support of formation of a Land Improvement District in reference to the Gage property located in the area of Ashford Oaks in Tigard, Oregon.' As residents of the area, with our home immediately abutting the Gage property, both my wife and I are in favor of formation of the LID in an attempt to maintain the Gage property in its present "natural" state. At the informational meeting held to discuss the procedure of forming an LID, most of the opponents of this project were vocalizing opposition based on concern that making this area a natural park would significantly increase the traffic pattern and increase crime in the area. 1 have no idea what they base their concerns on, as the area would not change significantly from its current state and over the last two years living adjacent to this property I have seen no crime and little human activity occurring in this small area. I feel the opponents to the project have brought up these emotion-evoking concerns to try to defeat this project. I would say that developing this site with multi-family dwellings would do much more to increase traffic and crime; so these individuals should actually be supporting the LID. As we see more and more areas with natural vegetation and animals being cleared for housing developments, we are loosing the "country" atmosphere that makes Tigard such a great place to live. The Gage property is a natural, beautiful little area that adds some distinction to our neighborhood and the loss of this area would certainly be felt by all. A natural park would serve to maintain the atmosphere that we currently enjoy. We are committed to the formation of the LID and understand that there is a financial commitment that would be incurred should it come to fruition. We would gladly welcome this obligation as we feel it was preserving the "refuge" from the big city housing tracts. We hope you will carefully consider the value this natural park will in terms of the livability of the City of Tigard. 6744, lt). &""'"K ~ ~ Ont~LQ Llf1. / pC..dA , Steven W. Beadnell Dennel M. Beadnell 8102 SW Ashford St. Tigard, OR 97224 (503)639-6213 c : e-3,6-f AUG 1 o i9s3 August 8, 1993 Mayor Edwards Citv Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Edwards: Please consider this my formal request that City Council 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 for the Gage property. This natural area was the single-most important factor in my determining to purchase the home and property adjacent to the Gage property. Its preservation is of utmost importance to me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, rZLC V1c~ Riki Tokuno 8040 S.W. Churchill Court Tigard, Oregon 97224 cc: Judy Fessler, Wendi Hawley, Paul Hunt, Jerry Schwartz Ll David W. Pearson 8018 SW Ashford St. Tigard, Oregon 9772224 August 9, 1993 The Mayor & Members of the City Council AUG 10 1993 City Hall - Tigard, Oregon 97223 I am writing to urge you to move forward with the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the "Gage Woods" LID. It is my belief that the neighborhood has followed the appropriate proceedure to date and that the report should be prepared. As you know, the LID proposal has proven controversial. My understanding is that in recent weeks, heavy personal lobbying has caused a number of people who originally supported the LID to change their position. Clearly, we can chase the issue back and forth as long as anyone has the energy to continue twisting arms. My point is that it would be best for the community to complete the Preliminary Engineers Report which was called for by a majority of property owners in the area. This report would give us all a factual basis for evaluating the proposal. As things stand, there is considerable confusion regarding the precise nature of the proposal and its costs. This confusion provides ample opportunities for mis-information and shifting opinion in the community. To some of us, the process looks like the proverbial shifting bar in the high jur,,p. We believe that we presented a majority petition to the council.and that on that basis, the process should move to the next step. Now, we find that the process seems stalled because some have been persuaded to change position. I believe that there is ample room i.n. the process for objections to be raised. We should be allowed to move on to that stage. Please consider this issue carefully. I believe that we have an opportunity to materially enhance the quality of life in our community. We are asking you to give us the chance to make a clear case to our neighbors. The Preliminary Engineer's Report will help us to achieve that. Thank you for your consideration. 3 F I • j .'1 u~rt ;1 A U G 1 0 1993 8 August 1993 Mayor Jerry Edwards City Nall Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Engineer's Report on Gage Open Space Dear Mayor Edwards: We are writing to express our strong support for these actions: * A preliminary engineer's report be completed on the four acre Gage parcel * A public hearing be conducted on the proposed LID (Local Improvement District) Due to the rule that public testimony was not allowed during the 27 July City Council meeting, we are writing to express our views. We are the original owners of 8060 SW Churchill Ct. and our property directly abuts the Gage parcel. We have supported the "neighborhood nature site" concept since its origin several years ago. The reasons we support the concept include: * It's our best chance to keep a road from being constructed through the Gage property (thus making Bond a through street with consequent traffic problems) * It creates a beautiful walking site that increases the living quality of our neighborhood. * It avoids alternative high density housing like apartments with an increased likelihood of crime and traffic problems. * It preserves wetland, trees, plants and birdlife in an increasinly congested, urbanized city. We understand and appreciate the Council's sensitivity to levying a tax on taxpayers who do not support the LID. However we are greatly distressed to see that the Council is considering stopping the public hearing process simply because a few vocal opponents are putting pressure on the Council. It is appearing to us that signatures on the opposition petition (withdrawing names originally signed on to the expression-of-interest petition) may not at all reflect a true opposition to the LID. In the past week or so we ourselves went to five homes that signed the opposition petition simply to ask them what they were told about the LID formation. Some reported that they were told the LID would cost up to $1,800 per year (not that sum over 10 years); that if they didn't sign the opposition petition that there was no way to stop the LID from forming; that the LID was inviting a hotbed of drug crime into our neighborhood; or that the C,O t Gages were "unloading" this property because they couldn't sell it to a developer. The first two reasons are simply false, the middle is an opinion without any basis in fact (contradicted by Tualatin's experience with their Natural Park), and the last makes wild and nasty assumptions about the Gages' motivations. None realized that the park might be the only way to stop the city from building a road through the Gage property or keeping an apartment complex from being built. of course we understand that there may be valid reasons to oppose formation of an LID. But how can such opposition be formed before anyone even knows the parameters or cost of the project? The Engineering Report will give us these parameters and costs. In short, people are simply not getting the facts about the process or the substance of the park issue. Many people feel like only half truths have been told them to date. It appears that almost everyone on both sides of the issue is in favor of an open public hearing so that just the facts about the LID can be presented. Dorothy Gage has offered to pay the $1,400 for the Engineering Report, so the City has no financial reason to hold up the Report. The citizens of our neighborhood are owed the facts about the LID, presented in an unbiased way by the city, before an accurate assessment of support or opposition can be determined. People are so frustrated with the uncertainty and rumors swirling arouund this project that they just throw up their hands at the idea of yet another petition. We urge you and the Council to establish a time and place for an open public hearing on this matter to allow our neighborhood to clear the air and exchange facts in a civil way. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Thomas &'Penny Love cc: J. Fessler W. aw ey P. Hunt J. Schwartz E. Murphy l t i L~rr •nr.,~c tt:e v 7r d, 6R Q7.la3 G~ a:~L AUG 0 9 1993 l August 8,1993 ( ~J Mayor Jerry Edwards 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Or 97223 Dear Mayor Edwards and City Council members: We support the Tigard City Council to, designate an L.I.D:-on the Gage property and conduct an engineering report to determine the feasability of this project. It is vital that the future of this property be determined by a public hearing. Sincerely, . vu~ ,7. David R. Derhalli Laurie B. Derhalli 8086 SW Ashford St. Tigard, OR 97224-7390 . 1. 08/10/93 13:54 $ 583 823 3161 P.01 O,y J Post-ri° brand fax transmtdW memo eorpe~s > / t Co. If a Dept. none # F'=• Fax0 '3. Dorothy Gage P.O. Sox 19495 Portland, Oregon 97280 August 10, 1993 Honorable Jerry Edwards and City Councilors Mayor, City of Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Nayor Edwards: It has come to my attention that some property owners who surround the property being considered for a greenspace natural area, Local Improvement District (LID), have been receiving threatening, harassing 'phone calls. These have included personal threats, obscene remarks and intimidating statements. Y have suggested to these parties that they contact the Tigard Police department and report these incidents. I have also contacted the Tigard Police regarding the above and they confirmed this action. Three to date have been called to my attention. As a result of these experiences, property owners, supportive of the LID preservation of the property, are terrified at the prospeot of circulating more petitions among their neighbors. It was suggested that we continue to collect signatures on behalf of the LID but this turn of events has impeded these efforts. What actions can be taken to put a stop to this insidious practice? It creates an environment which negates the pursuit of data which as the caller or callers intend causes interested parties as well as City Staff to invoke caution at the expense of logic and reason. Your attention to this assault on and perversion of the democratic process is requested. Sincere-- DG/e Dorothy Gage cc: Chief Ron Goodpaster Family Representative G AU G 0 9 1993 # f-a-' r ~ yt.Lfl ~ ~ v L(2- 5 r? 4d -AO tom- ~ du Ci de W ct,l TI-ii ' r i i August 2, 1993 i f Mr. Jerry Edwards 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 t Dear Mr. Edwards, i r We were told that by having a petition with 100% of the needed s signatures that our Bond One neighborhood that includes Churchill 5 Way between 80th and 79th, Bond St. between 80th and 79th, and 80th between Bond and Churchill Way could be excluded from participating in the acquisition of the Gage property. Our neighborhood is categorically opposed to being included and taxed for . this property. We have elderly and retired people, and young people just scratching by. We will not allow our children to go into that area. Our neighborhood has already experienced crimes that we feel will be increased with the development of this property into a park. The undersigned request the City Council exclude the undersigned from the Local Improvement District and to stop its formation. ' 1/7 6~c'y~ r August 2, 1993 Mr. Jerry Edwards 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Edwards, We were told that by having a petition with 100% of the needed signatures that our Bond One neighborhood that includes Churchill Way between 80th and 79th, Bond St. between 80th and 79th, and 80th between Bond and Churchill Way could be excluded from participating in the acquisition of the Gage property. Our neighborhood is categorically opposed to being included and taxed for this property. We have elderly and retired people, and young people just scratching by. We will not allow our children to go into that area. Our neighborhood has already experienced crimes that we feel will be increased with the development of this property into a park. The undersigned request the City Council exclude the undersigned from the Local Improvement District and to stop its formation. Lei - re, awl ;t441 ~7 Dave & Sue Seibold 153 74 SW Thurston Lane Tigard, Oregon 97224 Aug. 8, 1993 Dear City Council Members: We want the city council to be aware of our frustrations over the last 3 years in opposing the Gage Park property purchase. i i We feel angry so much of our time and energy has had to go into this matter, and now it continues to be an issue. For 3 years, petitions have been circulating for people to sign to "look into" forming an a LID, with the assurance that signing the petition won't cost anything. While, through our petition efforts, our property is not in the proposed boundary anymore, the city proposes spending tax dollars to study the Gage Park proposal. These are our tax dollars too, therefore we are loudly objecting to this proposal. We feel as though the Gage sisters have harassed our neighborhood with constant badgering to purchase their property. We do NOT believe this is what was intended when the LID portion of the city laws was formed. Why in the world would we want to purchase someone { elses back yard 8 blocks from us? We are furious that private individuals can attempt to make neighbors purchase a piece of property, in the name of "park" or "green space", or whatever they choose to call it. In dealing with the city planners over the last 3 years, we are convinced that they very much want the property, and would welcome the taxpayers to purchase it. We are again submitting our petition, showing Thurston Lanes opposition, to remind the Mayor and City Council we do NOT want any of our taxpayers money used to purchase, or study the purchase of this property. Even though this is just the Thurston Lane petition, we are aware of many other neighbors, closer to the Gage property, that are also very much opposed to this LID. Thank You, Dave & Sue Seibold Bill & Linda Andrews /1 fsw ~.worw~.~resn ~ ~ .iE! `~'IYH M S ~ ....sruw~~~ r.~+.+...t.... er• nr,..~.,....•T.,... ~ ST A ~i € can IWtl:i a •L;oA•:.t^:~►)1'OfwtV"Ylw M1 f.%Hd71 tt7rr t/ ••1 0464 cn c4s .I 808 to 9469 b ' r 8434 r 144. O 3 a ► .g42t ' 8454 8447 ; i I o N 1C 806 to 6. 8454 429 1r Y, 9405 .9 I. s` ess~ e X 831+5 3 l I 837. tti 8a72o L... 8356 8389 I 8140 838'5 6''1$4 D `S~•LDe I ~asl 8340 B47 03 . 6,% S.W.64ih AV E, e343 d 8332 m 2 8332 0 e32c W ` 6:+101 a vs 8312 X8323 8915 530) `rP 15316. 15029 N +s l `L',' w I ~i ~y m 8301 , 287 ~sa a' r ..15, 9294 m 9292 - $2.s I 9 1,322 _ a2cb 1 1s• 15041 tT• it in n 8274 8270 4263 153314 1505, 1 G t`rv m Q 8261 15063 l 9236 mw t7t 15367 . Z ti 1.,6 1 1 '1245 I Nib A 15396 t50?:, !55 d O V ~ ..b co o~ . 15089 150 s t 1978 ` SW 82 nd AVE. ;-227 9212 82nd ass N ~~N a222 y a~ A r Lr•+ co X" w ` ,v, a I N % N 8 03 ~ . N ~ is 15 43 Z, C _ W., ~ ~ °1 g2 d• D e ni p m N te- $ l.is N ,iRS__ 3134 o+ t Z 1552 1 e~ 75 S.W r-81st O N 110 • a to y 15174 - 8+59 -4 376 15191. ,ogq N 9132'Q rte. 808 $rW. 81101 085 • 8072 I V A AW p l ( L ~ o ~ 152~o N c b\ d A N O Q+ p O CD ' 80TO 8065 , 8099 • , 15232 I .4 o d O p W W W W 1~ 55 I 8090 g o p o p p p o f 9nQ4 0~G •~v. a ~i N w 15254 • 8020 ~N M HQ °a~ • S.W., KENTON DR. 15270 N SW Oth AY c, ~2 I - o %A CA a. f 8 Q00 A O pO p~ C~ ~S +0 t)~ 6 A It ~N I el rb G O~i ~W N \ mG N N N tt► 80'6 -4% S2' 7598 O O O OJ u. t N r ^ 7996 r~ j 7994ti 1 ~ _ ~o •n 7996 7995 7993 7980 7479 7978 7977 Sw~R 7964 X7493 7.962 7961 t-•- 19 r y tiN . ` 7 5 ~ .x T936 794E T, 7046 ` 7948 7%,47 c^ , 4' N. - 1!'236 m I:' 2 Iw (e v v+ i 793p 79 \ 2 m t" ' a 7y32 793 C.-, U. LA I ti+ t7t 7yIs CD '1914 b 79 3 ^t/ 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 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 sale of her property by the area home owners and we are tired of having to, defend our rights as tax payers. It is for this reason we want our area excluded from all future plans that she may have. NAME ADDRESS 2. .i , N L (PuLem( , 4-~ _(Yli s Mrs.~7 c o r'j7 ti 5 ~tlri~✓ y1..cs '-1':. r,'~.~~/~` 7y +1~~ fsb~ ~.~J ~NaI~XTeiJ LA; j 6. {''vt=b'=2~c Sa ti 1534 5-3 vw t L.A T'46A.1 8. le-4 IJ, 9. i /'t 5•,,.;. 'tL,,~> 'T ` is ~~ZLy C W c5 ki. /22L L2[A6r 4,g 2Z =,,2 0- 7, 11. ' 41, 2t w 'fu .a r, F. n S =r 7. r •uc 12. 13. v✓ Aeilrgel) s" ~aa5/ -Ar 14. - vz~T7uy 5. - C rt r.e L, 16. 17. ;2'1 19. cl L. r r Zc 20. 21 22. < u ZN Si are Ls 17zz`f 23. ~ 97.1:1 24. V) 1:534 / S LO iYtt"j l X, e l7 It CF 2$.4.[ ~s2~ r ry~ ~/Itc,rc.-~ 7L?~ j~c%>Z.Z~~ i.,t [r '1712Y 26. 27. 28. r 29. ge,j 7-a ( (I~zrl'1 9 ' e: >S L, 8/4/93 r.- Mr. Jerry Edwards 13125 SW Hall Blvd. AUG 09 1993 Tigard, Oregon 97223 f This letter is in opposition to the Gage property and in objection to the course of events leading to this LID. My objections are: I feel it is unequivocally wrong that the appraisal fee for the Gage's selling of their property is being paid for by tax money. The City of Tigard did not pay for my appraisal fee. I feel this was a poor economic decision by counsel members. I also feel it was wrong to change the boundaries after the petitions were in. This served only to sway the percent of yes votes and was not in the interest of fairly assessing the situation. Clearly the original outline contains houses affected by the LID, which are now conveniently excluded from the planning process. While some of us wanted to know more about the LID, I did not want it to authorize a $2000.00 appraisal and who knows what else. I question your calculations on the 50% rule. It would seem to be a more representative assessment if you review the original numbers and count only yes's and no's for the total(excluding houses that did not vote from the total or counting them as "no answer vote."). I object to the Gage property as a natural area: This area designated as park would be accessible to all Tigard residents and there is no where to park except on the streets. I do not like the idea of non neighborhood residents parking on the streets for safety and congestion reasons. There are many small children in this neighborhood whose safety would be compromised. The natural area(Gage Property) is so close to the high school and secluded enough that patrolling the area and providing supervision would be impossible. This would create an ideal area for teens to loiter and create an environment unsuitable for neighborhood residents and younger children. ~tl i j i I i And finally this proposal would impact us financially in two ways. Obviously the first is increased property tax. Secondly, I feel our property values would suffer a and make selling our homes di-Mcult if the park becomes reputed to be a haven for unsavory activity as well as a possible safety liability to the neighborhood. can understand the Gage's wanting to sell their property and the homeowners wanting to preserve the woods behind their lots; but lets not bring the surrounding neighborhoods into the sales arrangement. e ainly their are better solutions. Kir~A. Markovitz 1 a 4 l i I i i l i i 3 i i s i i S, i i i Council Agenda Item No. 4 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director DATE: August 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Gage LID Final Count The results of the Gage "Natural Area" petition and letter count are as follows: Owners of 79 (46.7%) of the tax lots within the proposed LID boundary signed in favor of initiating a preliminary engineers report. Owners of 73 (43.1%) of the tax lots within the proposed LID boundary against any further action. These percentages are based on the most current opinions of those located in the proposed LID boundary as indicated by petitions and letters received prior to 5:00 PM on August 16. These letters and petitions are included in the Council packets of August 10 and August 24, 1993. The Council should bring the materials from the August 10th meeting with them to the August 24th meeting. Staff will present an oral report and a map showing which tax lots have indicated support for, or opposition to preparing the preliminary engineer's report at the Council's August 24th meeting. At the time, it appears that the options available for the City council are: 1. Initiate the engineer's report on the Council's own motion (see Resolution in August 10th packet). 2. Ask the petitioners to bear the cost of the engineer's report, should the LID be initiated but not formed. 3. Amend the proposed boundary, project description or method, and have the City initiate a new petition. 4. Drop the proposed LID from further Council consideration. rm/Gege.Mem i r ADDMONAL INFORMATION { ME MO'RAN DUM TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Ronald D. Goodpaster - Chief of Police DATE: August 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Additional Information Ref: The Proposed Gage LID Area in my memorandum to you dated August 9, 1993, I made reference to a reported stalking incident of a resident that backed up to the Gage property. I was advised of this information by a resident and was unable to find any confirming information regarding it in the police files. The resident who was the victim of the stalking has since moved out of state. I was able to contact her on the telephone and discuss the incident with her. She indicated that she was not the victim of any kind of stalking, that she had no problems while living adjacent to the Gage property. She had indicated that the incident that may be being referenced is a domestic situation that occurred in her neighborhood and had nothing to do with her. She indicated she was not aware of any kind of stalking situation occurring in the neighborhood when she lived there. of/rdg0811 =WPM CELL ONE MRRKETIN6 ID:5032486995 AUG 16'93 16:00 No.027 P.01 i AU G 16 1993 1 B: TO: / ! a 4c 6 e~;a`_ post L&.oc% FA~# : Aft (4-, J-1- 72? 7 FROIVi: eT®b9Z Mat7t;c c For-rl~zaa, Oncy®~a WaTES: c[ C k Irs be e -s A total of _ pages, including this page, have been sent. Please call me at 5031274-6133 if you do not receive this number. My FAX number foa- your, reply is 503/248-6995. Thczrt~Cd ! CELL ONE MARKETING ID:5032486995 RUG 16'93 16:00 No.027 P.02 August 16, 1993 Gerald Edwards City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or. 97223 Dear Mayor. Edwards, I am writing to present a recommendation on how to proceed with the Gage property issue that is currently causing so much frustration both in our neighborhood and at city hall. For the record, I live at 7945 SW Churchill Way. I have been watching the events unfold and continue to come back to the conclusion that there must be a better way to address this issue than to continue arguing and reading the multitude of petitions. Following is my suggestion for a creative approach to" resolving the solution. While I am not aware of all the legal issues you must take into account, it would seem that if local government can not be creative once in a while, who can? I will be out of town during your next city council meeting on Tuesday August 24th, but would be happy to discuss my suggestion further with you this week. Please pass this recommendation on to the city council members in that I have not been able to write each of them individually. Gage Property Resolution Suggestion Stec 1 Have the Gage sisters pay for an independent appraisal/engineering report. (This would provide the needed information to fully evaluate the situation without asking the tax payers or those that think they are against the LID to pay out any money up front.) Ste- 2 Obtain an agreement from the Gage sisters to donate a percentage of the lands cost to the city for preservation. (One of my biggest frustrations { [and many other neighbors) is that the people that stand to gain the most CELL ONE MARKETING ID:5032486995 RUG 16'93 16:00 No.027 P.03 3 r financially [the Gage sisters) are also the ones leading the fight. If they are truly so concerned about preserving this area, why do they not donate a portion of the total cost to the city?) Step 3 Form a cross sectional team that would develop the recommendation for how to proceed. This team would consist of neighbors, city staff and potentially the police and Gage sisters. These interested parties would } formulate a recommendation that takes into account the desires of their i peers (paths vs. roads, access to area, neighborhood safety, etc.). This puts the key decisions back into the hands of those impacted and reduces the opportunity to blame city hall for everything. ' t Step 4 3 I Hold an informational meeting between the neighbors and the cross sectional team to present the recommendation and answer questions. (This gives all neighbors a chance to clearly understand what is being proposed. They should also have had input into the process through their r neighbors that are on the cross sectional team.) SteI2 5 The city would mail a survey that replaces all prior petitions. The survey would clearly explain the recommendation and the projected impact on each household. Each residence would have the opportunity to return the survey indicating whether they are for or against the recommendation. Based on the results of the survey, the city council would either drop the issue of an LID or comply with the necessary legal requirements to initiate an LID. I feel that this process allows the neighbors to drive the process, eliminates many of the roadblocks and could quickly resolve this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you have. My work number is 274-6133 and home number is 598-9599. Sincerely, John Marick i i S~ 1 1 e~® or 1 1 c~ 5 THE FAC'T'S! PROPOSED NATURE AREA. PIAN 16 1993 4 ACRE, NEIGHBORHOOD NATURE SITE: ONLY TRAWS-PEDESTRIANT / BICYCLE TRAFFIC -NO CARS, PARKING OR PICNIC TABLES. COST FOR EACH HOME OWNER: $12.00 PER MONTH FOR 10 YEARS. OR, OWNERS ABUTTING THE PROPERTY WOULD PAY $18.50 AND ALL OTHERS WOULD PAY $10.50 PER MONTH OVER 10 YEARS. THE AREA'S CURRENT ZONING IS R-12.AR?LTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.,. THIS WOULD ALLOW APARTMENTS, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, MOBILE HOME PARKS, AND HOSPITALS. THIS WOULD ALLOW PATTI LANE TO BE ATTACHED TO BOND STREET AND WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC. 58% OF HOME OWNERS IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT ORIGINALLY SIGNED A PETITION TO PURSUE THE NATURE PARK: SINCE THEN A NUMBER OF HOME OWNERS HAVE CHANGED THEIR DECISION DUE TO MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY. THE ONLY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ILLEGAL DUMPING. THE POLICE CHIEF ANTICIPATES THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NOT INCREASE ACTIVITY. THE CITY'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROCEED WITH THE INITIAL PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEERING REPORT. THE SIGNING OF THE PETITION DOES NOT OBLIGATE YOU FINANCIALLY AT THIS TIME. IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE FINAL ENGINEERING, REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL OF THE ABOVE. INFORMATION WAS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE RF.PORT TO THE, CITY COUNCIL PREPARED BY M[ PHY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI DEVELOPMENT. THE NATURE SIGHT WOULD INCREASE ALL HOME VALUES APPROXMiATELY 10%. MAIL OR DELIVER YOUR SIGNED PETITIONS TO CITY HALL ATTENTION ED MURPHY. TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD, TIGARD 97223 BY MONDAY AUGUST 16TH. I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED NATURE SITE: SI NAME(Pl r ADDRESS PHONE H,t s 7- FROM YOUR ANONYMOUS NEIGHBOR (ANONYMOUS DUE TO THE THREATENING AND INTIMIDATING BEHAVIOR OF THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL) 6 1993 LITACTS! AU6 PROPOSED NATURE AREA. ,L--/ 4 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD NATURE SITEm. ONLY TRAILS-PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE TRAFFIC NO CARS, PARING OR PICNIC TABLES. COST FOR EACH HOME OWNER: 512.00 PER MONTH FOR 10 YEARS. OR, OWNERS ABUTTING THE PROPERTY WOULD PAY 518.50 AND ALL OTHERS WOULD PAY S10.50 PER MONTH OVER 10 YEARS. THE AREA'S CURRENT ZONING IS R-12JMR.LTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS WOULD ALLOW A.PARTIIENTS, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, MOBILE HOME PARKS, AND HOSPITALS. THIS WOULD ALLOW PATH LANE TO BE ATTACHED TO BOND STREET AND WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC. 58% OF HOME OWNERS IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT ORIGINALLY SIGNED A PETITION TO PURSUE THE NATURE PARK SINCE THEN A NUMBER OF HOME OWNERS HAVE CHANGED THEIR DECISION DUE TO MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY. THE ONLY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ILLEGAL DUMPING. THE POLICE CHIEF ANTICIPATES THAT THE PROPOSED EUPROVEMENTS WOULD NOT INCREASE ACTIVITY. THE CITY'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROCEED WITH THE INITIAL PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEERING REPORT. THE SIGNING OF THE PETITION DOES NOT OBLIGATE YOU FINANCIALLY AT THIS TIME. IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. AIL OF THE ABOVE "i' t EMATION WAS T x7r'N DIRE. TI.vFROM THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PREPARED BY D MITTRPHL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- THE NATURE SIGHT WOULD INCREASE ALL HOME VALUES APPROXM ATELY 10%. MAIL OR DELIVER YOUR SIGNED PETITIONS TO CITY HALL ATTENTION ED MURPHY. TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD, TIGARD 97223 BY MONDAY AUGUST 16TH. I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED NATURE SITE: SIGN fURENAME(PRINT) ADDRESS PHONE iPt~vl P.cw l , R6' 5 w Ai .a y- q q Z. FROM YOUR ANONYMOUS NEIGHBOR (ANONYMOUS DUE TO THE THREATENING AND INTIMIDATING BEHAVIOR OF THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL) ~o~(n guy ~1,~l5Zccvtc~ ~i,~td1T SvPPGv~ 9viu~ ~ L~P~~ wi~-~ -Iti~~ ~ry, J re cv'h 1~1ark ` ~L'Gt+~. ~ct u521 15 3 THE FACIS! PROPOSED NATURE AREA, 4 ACRE IG O HOOD NATURE SITE: fem. ONLY TRAILS-PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE TRAFFIC-NO Cam. G OR PICNIC TABLES. EV DUNG COST FOR EACH HOME OWNER: '93 RUG 16 Pf1 4 03 $12.00 PER MONTH FOR 10 YEARS. C i -i 'f O r 71 G p OR, OWNERS ABUTTING THE PROPERTY WOULD PAY S18.50 AND ALL OTHERS WOULD PAY 510.50 PER MONTH OVER 10 YEARS. THE AREA'S CURRENT ZONING IS R-12,MLrLT]PLE-FANILYRESIDENTLkL. THIS WOULD ALLOW APARTNIENTS, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, MOBnX HOME PARIQ;, AND HOSPITALS. THIS WOULD ALLOW PATTI LANE TO BE ATTACHED TO BOND STREET AND WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC. 58% OF HOME OWNERS IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT ORIGINALLY SIGNED A PETITION TO PURSUE THE NATURE PARK SINCE THEN A NUMBER OF HOME OWNERS HAVE CHANGED TI-lEIR DECISION DUE TO MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY. THE ONLY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ILLEGAL DUMPING. THE POLICE CHIEF ANTICIPATES THAT THE PROPOSED IldPROVEMENTS WOULD NOT INCREASE ACTIVITY. THE CITY'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROCEED WITH THE INITIAL PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEERING REPORT. THE SIGNING OF THE PETITION DOES NOT OBLIGATE YOU FINANCIALLY AT THIS TIME. IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE FINAL ENGINEERING REPORTS RECOMMENDATIONS. Al T OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS TAKEN DERE.CTLY EROM THE REPORT T.O TTTF C`ITV OITNCIL PREPARED BY ED MIIRPIff DiRE.C:TQR OF COMM[nVITY DE.VE .O N E T. THE NATURE SIGHT WOULD INCREASE ALL HONE VALUES APPROX'hiATELY 10%. MAIL OR DELIVER YOUR SIGNED PETITIONS TO CITY HALL ATTENTION ED MURPHY. TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD, TIGARD 97223 BY MONDAY AUGUST 16TH. I W LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED NATURE SITE: SIGNATURE L. R)NT) ADDRESS PHO FROM YOUR ANONYMOUS NEIGHBOR (ANONYMOUS DUE TO TEE THREATENING AND INTIMIDATING BEHAVIOR OF THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL) 1 • r r1 i ~ i s I WOULD TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED NATURE SITE: SI ATURE AM PRIM I) ADDRESS ~ p ( 211s ' Ly2 .sue--.5t OUS NEIGHBOR (ANONYMOUS DUE TO THE THREATENING AVIOR OF THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL) AUG 1 6 1?93 I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED NATURE SITE: S1C}NATURE. NA,,ME(PRIN'n ADDRESS PHONE l r P OM YOUR ANONYMOUS NEIGHBOR (ANONYMOUS DUE TO THE THREATENNG VIOR OF THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL) r6AUG 1993 l1 MCI S„ I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT TIC PROPOSED NATURE SITE: RECE/SIGNATURE NAIME(PRM) ADDRESS PHONE V 'r h sqv r FROM YOUR ANONYMOUS NUGHBOR (ANONYMOUS DUE TO THE THPLEATENING AND I`: M, IMATING BFIIA\,7OR OF 7II0SE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL) ~i WE August 16, 1993 AUG 16 1993 City Council: r,i Jerry Edwards, Mayor Judy Fessler Wendi Hawley Paul Hunt c John Schwartz 13125 SW Hall Blvd. City Hall Tigard, OR 97223 j JL Dear City Council, I am writing this letter to respectfully request that the City Council obtain an engineering report and conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed Local Improvement District (LID) for the four acre parcel known as the "Gage natural area". I was one of the original signers of Ms. Gage's petition requesting a public hearing. I do not at this time know if I would support the creation of a LID to acquire this property. My support would depend on the nature of the proposal. However, to make an informed decision, all property owners affected should know all the facts, which can best be obtained through an engineering report, followed by a public hearing. Thank you very much. i Sincerely, ter' ~ James A. Shields 15795 SW 80th Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 Wrap AUG 16 1993 L Z:2 l u-. August 16, 1993 City council: Jerry Edwards, Mayor C • ~''`^r''~ Judy Fessler Wendi Hawley Paul Hunt John Schwartz 13125 SW Hall Blvd City Hall Tigard, OR 97223 Dear City Council, Please accept this letter as indication that I am interested in the facts concerning an LID of the four acre parcel known as the "Gage Natural area". I understand these facts can only be obtained by an engineering report. Based on the report the City Council and the community can make an informed decision on how and if to proceed; in the form of a public hearing. I understand that the report is not a commitment to proceed. Thank you. Si cerely, Cara Elmen 8210 SW Patti Lane Tigard, OR 97224 s• ' PETITION STATING INTCREST 114 THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL iMPROVEMENT DISTRICT t No, 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: RECEIVED i purchase of Tax Lot No. 2S1 120C 0200 as a neighborhood nature S'te~ AU G 1. 6 199 .clearing of debris and development of soft trails through the site; .signing at entrances to the site and improvement of sidewalk accesses; coirpletion of improvements to streets Lazmadiately abutting the site. The suggested boundary of the local COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT lrovement district would include the S subdivisions known as Ashford Oaks, Bond Park, and Langtrec Estates. We understand that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest -Ln+Lviceivinff°the benefits of the proposed Smprovezmut and are not committed to supporting any local taprovement district that may be proposed as a result of the City's investigation. .M_.. tPhano Number i Owners signature Property address: (Zip) Printed name of property own": FaU, 1992 now= RECEIVED AU6 1 6 1523 PETITION STATING INTEREST IN TtIE FORMATION OF R I LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT I i 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. 2S1 12CC 0200 as a neighborhood nature SYtei clearing of debris and development of soft trails through the site; .signing at entrances to the site and improvement of sidewalk accesses; completion of improvements to streets immediately abutting the site. i The suggested boundary of the local improvement district would include the subdivisions known as Ashford Oaks, Bond Park, and Langtree Estates. 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 i supporting any local improvement district that may be proposed as a result of the City's investigation. 'Phone Number ; Own is signatu Property address: (Zip) Printed name of property i owner: /S7f W ~sD~l~ C~ tCc f-e 36 , ~ 2,2V 1 .l L 7[..5 S-W 6044 K70Et3EZ- -'T LAIC,- (~h Z/-6a36 T/~A,~~ 9 7zz~f _ - i , Fall, 1992 ~JwC L PETITION STATING INTEREST - IN THE FORMATION OF A G n LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT We, the undersigned, request that the City of Tigard investigate the feasibility L~ 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. 2S1 12CC 0200 as a neighborhood nature site- .clearing of debris and development of soft trails through the site; .clearing .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. 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 name of Property owner: Fall, 1992 r onn jr, AUG 16 1993 r.+l A T aU61-. 6 1993 l C• ilan~ AU G 16 1993 r -7a a 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----~r~_~ - _ __~-rte .'l AU6161993 U ~'-LLL u LjLUJ August 16, 1993 Tigard City Hall Mayor Edwards 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 j Dear Mayor Edwards, 3 I attended the City Council meeting on August 10, 1993. 1 was in attendance to show my support for moving forward on the engineering report on the Gage Property. It was my understanding that NO public testimony would be allowed. I was astounded when two people from the opposing side of the issue were allowed to speak. i i I understand that the Gage Property has raised a major controversy in the surrounding neighborhoods. Much of the controversy is due to mis-information. Anyone can get a \ petition signed in their favor; depending on how it is presented. Please take this into consideration. Mayor Edwards and City Council members it is time to gather real information. Please have an engineering report done on the Gage Property only then will we all be able to make an informed decision. r Best regards, 4"'- Laurie B. Derhalli 8086 S.W. Ashford St. Tigard, OR 97224 C: co.-.,.:1t AUG 16 1ggg 0 ~ t413~ :7::~li"i7 ILI fie-ca~41~49-i,P _ ,A,u.~x i~--,t,d~<<--h.~-p , o1G~e- .~1 ~n~~c,c~u%-rte--~ i.►~..~ -,!ytc7. .(._Q Cr}~.tA-ion..uf_~1[tD=.RJC~e%1-~R.[1C~-- at~, Lc-du P-AvL'-'tis-1~-6f(Att,Lh.e---$wi---- _ v J -SSW/'-~~ ~ ~ ~r AX. a_ u9ust NO, lag3 ~e'r r y E ci wn.rd s , M ay Cw ! AU G 16 1993 City HOM iiLi"- TcOocl, OR q~ 22.3 t7e~ctr l~layer l_.cl v~ct.r~~iS, V\/C- a.Yi✓ 4) sil{~~X Y t C{ tllc Cr1QI n cef I I-) f c_'Poi 1 o"od i ilc PAbl lc hcav I Y)g Tha w, I I -fell c w n JJreOcuci JJto J ))C C-~1 flat LLr a.l A v co, We ax-e In,cd of pctltlen~, F r711s~nfo►r1Ya~ICr1 beinc~ pn ssed the Cr15i r1Ct'Y 5 refDcl"t sc,(bSCcl%-(er)t. pi~blIC, Iica_nC~ ~C that we may hc in-f6F o)C6 rl t 1 i c ll u► e S+,_Nctrcly, J J uc►y ~c ssic UvPr,ci ~ ricatitii~/ Fo-Lo Hunt )Om c!6)",C(rtZ ~Q... AUG 16 1993 August 16, 1993 City Council Jerry Edwards, Mayor Judy Fessler Wendi Hawley Paul Hunt John Schwartz Re: Gage Property Issue We would greatly appreciate an engineering report to provide us with the information we feel is necessary to make a valid decision to this issue that has been forced upon us. We would also appreciate a public hearing on this matter. As a community we feel not prepared to make any decisions until we are informed on all matters. We do not appreciate anyone making decisions for us regarding the purchase of property we cannot afford. \ Sincerely, Rocky and Denise Racanelli 7964 S. W. Bond Tigard, Oregon 97224 Bret and Evelyn Toll 7980 S.W. Bond Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 August 15, 1993 RECEIVED Tigard City Council: Jerry Edwards, mayor '93 M 16 P[I 3 5$ Judy Fessler Wendi Hawley CITY OF TIGARD Paul Hunt John Schwartz City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear City Council Members: We would like to address the issue of the Gage Property Natural Preserve proposal. We recently moved into the neighborhood on February 29th. The first we heard of the proposal was in May when we signed a petition asking to not be included in the Local Improvement District. The information we were given at the time we signed the petition was incomplete. Since signing the petition we have done further research and learned more about the proposal. We would like to request our names withdrawn from the June petition. Furthermore, we would like to encourage you to procede with the report and hold ! a public hearing so that we may calmly and inteligently discuss this issue when we have solid facts before us. Thank you for your concern. Sincerely, 4A6j T4 Bret L. Toll Evelyn J Toll ~Cf Clare C Janes C~ L4,; A 15765 SW 80th Ave. Portland, OR 97224 Li w ~ u 6k p4o h c~ use c vd r.~c~ cc, 0 a,, 1lp,,, /03ad2fd" ~ y Jeanie Willis 15752 S.W. 82nd Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97224 AUG August 12,1993 3 1993 Tigard City Council Tigard C i t y Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear City Council: I am writing to encourage you to go forward with the formation of the LID to purchase the Gage property. This has been an excellent opportunity for the neighborhood to participate in a project that directly affects them. Also, this creates an avenue for the city to comply with the wishes of the people without taxing the entire city. I realize a small portion of the city funds are to be spent on an engineer's report. However, in this day of reduced city budge concerns, this may be an avenue of relief. Occasionally, there are projects worth paying for. However, the cost of the LID can be reduced by removing the street improvement of $32,000. Many of my neighbors are opposed to the connection of Bond Street and Patti Lane. Also, I have empathy for those people who say they cannot afford the estimated cost of $10.00 to $i8.00 per month. In any project we undertake as a city there will be those who cannot afford it. Some people have voiced their negative feelings about this project. Angry can be very loud. I would hope that calm, rational voices can be heard during public meetings where testimony will be allowed. This would enable us to make an inform decision. A few of my reasons for wanting a greenspace are: preservation of trees, plant life, birds, and small animals, a place for our children to visit, increase property values, and an increase in our quality of life. Thank you for your time, I know this has been a difficult process, but I also feel that all the work that we have done will be worth it when this process is complete. Again THANK YOU. Sincerely, Jeanie Willis PETITION STATING INTEREST IN THE FORMATION OF A LO RECEIVED A--U;6 1 3 1993- We, the undersigned, xequost that tho 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. 281 120C 0200 as a neighborhood nature s tRi .clearing of debris and development of soft trails through the Sites .signing at entrances to the site and improvement of sidewalk accesses, completion of improvements to streets i=%"Uately abutting the site. 3 The suggested boundary of the local .improvement district would include the subdivisions known as Ashford Oaks, Bond Park, and Lsngtree Estates. We understand that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest -in-weoetving•-the benefits of the proposed Improvement and are not Committed to supporting any local improvement distsiot that may be proposed as a vasult of the City's investigation. f Ebm . umber . ~ Owner'aM ignature r.~ Property address: (Zip) Pcinted nun of propsaty OWCOW: jrlq~ Fall, 1992 ~ ~ ,Z7 Ax;, ,o4 C,,Zoj ,002, 6400, a,4 e.: nL11 August 13, 1993 RtCE1VED Mr. Jerry Edwards, Mayor AUG 1 31993 Mr. Duane Roberts, City Council Member Mr. Ed Murphy, City Council Member CUMMUNRYDEVE10P&9EW Mr. Nels Michaelson, City Council Member Ms. Wendi Hawley, City Council Member Mr. Paul Hunt, City Council Member Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear City Council Members: Re: "Gage" Natural Area LID This is to inform you of our support to try to establish a greenspace in our neighborhood. We hope you will take into consideration the facts in this matter as we see them. (1) We have lived at our present address since September 6, 1992. We have two small children who love to ride bikes and play in our cul-de-sac (along with the many other children in the neighborhood). This cul-de-sac limits the extra traffic that would be present because people would be using the Patti Lane/Bond Street road connection to Durham Road and Hall Boulevard. We understand that the current proposal of the Gage natural area includes a road connection of Patti Lane and Bond Street. We are opposed to this part of the proposal. It would not make sense to have a natural area with cars cutting through to Durham Road and Hall Boulevard. (2) We would love to have a place for all the neighborhood families to visit and play in that is so close by. Also, what better way for us to make a contribution to an endangered environment than by preserving this lovely greenspace of wetland, trees, plant life, birds etc.? (3) We are concerned about the value of our property. We plan to live here a long time. However, if apartments or houses were to be built on the Gage property, this would not only lower our property value, but the property values and quality of life for all the residents in Ashford Oaks, Langtree Estates and Bond Park neighborhoods. We hope that the Council will proceed with the Preliminary Engineer's Report so that we will be on our way to creating this nature area for all of us to enjoy for many years. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sally & Joe"Alexander 15785 SVI 82nd Ave./Tigard, OR 97224 08/12/93 13:15 a 503 823 3161 P.01 Post-it'- brand tax trans ittal m®m 1 BoT popes PETITION STATING INTERES1 IN TKE FORKATION OF A C • LDCAT, iMPROVEMMT FISTRIC ®ep Phone # We, the undersigned, request that the City of Tigard of forming a local improvement district to provide Fare ,*SF- Far at, that may service and benefit property owned by us: purchase of Taft Toot No. 2S1 12CC 0200 as a .clearing of debris and development of soft tra is through tAe site; .signing at entrances to the site and improvement of sidewalk accesses: completion of inprovemanta to atrceta inttdisttly abutting Lime sit=. The suggested boundary of the local improvement district would include the subdivisions known as Ashford Oaks, Bond Park, and Langtree Estates. We understand that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest in receiving Lite benefits of Lite propoacd improvemont and are not committed to aupporting any local improvoin nt district that may be proposed as a result of the Cityts investigation. OPhotfc Number O.m 's aigneture Proporty address: (Zip) Painted name or property owner: 8 ~~4FS sw 's a.(~ r a? ar:s a : 139'_ o? vv'E o a 4asV Sw L~. t~« la e►rra _ 6~0- 5u43 Doi' 7 i~ e.~s ~ • o C X o ,6 At- S `83 Ye cc•,~ Cn,.,,~o~wc~. S DIeRT ~GA,ewAf;. LZ~ -Gq~ ~ -o? ~ a Z3 5~/ l-an~tr~ Erg G, mss .~i~- S 38 o ~ +a~ s Dop (yj xvXnO 1J~1~~<> r`(1 ~fi `lU tiw C~ ~n1.¢n Vn"Q\b 1 trxrr.~:n~ E'er c'' f I e ilk Fail, 1992 08/12/93 13:16 Z 503 823 3161 p,02 1►"ITION STATING INSCMT IN THC FORMT1014 OF A lam la DISTRICT Etc, the undersigned, requoat that the City of Tigard investigate the feasibility of fotming a local LfWtovasaeat dbetriat to provide the follovinQ Improvemants that amy servioe and basefit pre+perty, owned by ua: .purchase of Vau lost No. 289. 1200 0200 as a naiyhborhoaAetatg~f~ f~fR~ : .clearing of debris and dovelopmnt of soft trails through the 41 .eig~aaing at ontrancov to the site and Improvement of sidewalk accesses,: .co Wletion of bV"memants to atroats ImodUtoly abutting the site. SU suggested boundary of the local UproveaeAt district mould include the aalbdimLsiom known as Ashford Oaks, 1lond Bark, and Cangtroe Botates. toe t Matte" tAa2 by slgaLalg tb&* petition me are only acknowledging an Interest -•$W l aAg•the :benefits of the proposed 1nprov*m%%t and are not avmmLtted to out uppeg 1n~g any sLd l taprovemsnt district that may be proposed as a result of the ®+alerga signature ?sc,~-.ty addcam0: (Z$p) psimted tulle of pxopstty 'e_111 4er ~e 1 6 - ~3 3C a o S ~mv r --z ILACIS 8~9? sty ~dr~,u~e~~~.~ A•+P F-~,~.d,~ 6~~9~9 rs pan, 1992 F 08/12/93 13:17 Z 503 823 3161 P.03 k r1 ' PCTI9ION &TATIOG INTEREST e. IN TOD Polu"TION of A 1ACAL ixPPmvzW'Hr ols-mlor we, the undareigned, request that Lite CLty of TLgard Lnvosti9a00 r.he feasSbLllty of forming a local Lnrcovoment dletrict to provide the following irgprovonents that racy service and benafit property osneed by ue: .purchase of Tax Lot Po. 231 1200 9200 as A nolyhborhood natUFC Sfte; olcaring of debris and devalopwent of soft trails through the eiL,o; .eigning at entrances to the aite and isprovenent of aidausik acceascs; • .ooaplation of J.Pprovements to etrests Lnaasdiatoly abutting the alto. "a augg9soted boundary of the local Improvaannt district WOYid includs • the subdivisions known as Ashford Oaks, Bond Park* and L.angsroe estates. Wo Understand that by signing this petition vo are only acknowledging an /.merest In taoeiving the bsnogits of the proposed dmpsovemnt and are not eorm"ttad sv supporting any local lagarovemnc dLetrict that may be proposed as a casult of the CYtyes Investigation. O.rr►er's signature Property addsassr (zip)N. pvtoted :lase of vg"rty OdgOKS .4 IF r~y3 Fall, 1992 AUG 16 1993 S. Mayor Jerry Edwards City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 August 10, 1993 Re: Gage Property LID Dear Mayor Edwards, This letter is written as a letter of complaint in regard to the City Council meeting held 8/10/93. The notice I received announcing this meeting, dated 8/5/93, indicated that "This is not a public hearing and no time is set aside for formal public testimony". My wife attended the meeting on my behalf this evening and informed me that at the meeting, two opponents to the Gage LID were allowed time to speak. This inconsistency concerning the availability of time for public testimony resulted in my not being present to give testimony to support the LID. This inconsistency is totally inappropriate and unacceptable way for our city government to run. The information provided prior to the meeting should be consistent with what is done at the meeting. I would like to express some concerns about the various petitions that are now being circulated primarily by those opposing the LID. I have heard some individuals taking petitions door-to- door being quoted as telling the people they are soliciting signatures from that the LID could cost each household up to $1,000.00 per month if it is formed. Who would hesitate to sign a petition opposing the LID if it would cost them this much? Obviously, there is no control over what the person carrying the petition says to the homeowners and the facts can be distorted to benefit one's argument for or against the LID. These petitions are being used to determine whether the project should be considered. I feel that the Preliminary Engineer's Report should be completed so that accurate information concerning the cost of this project can be used by homeowners to determine their level of commitment to the project Currently, many figures with indeterminate accuracy are being thrown about, distorting the accuracy of the petitions. I am deeply concerned that this issue has become one of heated emotions rather than individuals carefully evaluating the project and determining what is best for our community and for their own families. Distortion of facts and misinformation only adds fuel to this emotional fire. I would suggest that the Preliminary Engineer's Report would go far to help cool emotions and bring some creditable information to the front on which we can base our decisions. I am currently strongly supportive of the LID formation, but still have reserved my final decision pending accurate information regarding the financial impact it would have on the homeowners in the area. It is my understanding that this is how the normal LID process is meant to work. i - -_l/ S/ 74--N-6Z 4145 ---72D SCF-Z~ /r 5L OPPOSED TO LID 08/16/93 09:00 S 1 503 653 9963 AQUA-TRONICS INC 01 AU6 116 1993 P. 0 L r f.d C.....1 iu V 15 0 Mayor Jerry Edwards, City of Tigard, Oregon August 16, 1993 We have lived in the Tigard area for thirty years. We moved to S.W. Thurston Lane in April of 1989 and have had this ongoing battle over the Gage property almost from day one. Last winter, I circulated a petition that included 31 homes beginning at 79th, down Thurston Lane to Ashford, east on Ashford to 79th and then back to the beginning point of 79th and Thurston Lane. 1008 of those 31 homes are in full agreement that we want to be excluded from any future plans the city may have regarding the Gage property. You have a copy of this petition. The city is now wanting to spend $2,000.00 of our tax dollars to study the issue. You want to spend this tax money on a project that will never happen and it is a total waste of money. Have you forgotten where this $2,000.00 is coming from? How are we being excluded when our hard earned tax dollars are being spent to study an issue that we want no part of? We do not want one dime of our tax dollars spent on any part of this project. If Dorothy Gage wants to sell her property, she should pay for the appraisal to see what she could list it for. If the price is right, maybe some of the people in the area would purchase the property. At least they would have that choice. No one should have an unwanted tax of this type placed on their home when they are in the absolute majority. You say you are getting mixed signals on how many homes are for and how many are against this project. I can understand this because my name was also used against my permission as someone for the project when it was going to be a park instead of a greenway. You are also getting mixed signals from your own staff. Ed Murphy told ,ne that nothing could be done unless over 50% was for the project. He then told the paper that it did not require an absolute 508, the 478 he counted was close enough. Its easy to see that Mr. Murphy is wanting the project and some of us have a great deal of concern as to his bias when providing you with information. The percentage is much closer to 80% not wanting additional taxes than his 53%. Unless you have walked through the Ashford Addition from door to door as some of us have, I don't know how you can say it is a close call. It is not close, and if need be, we will obtain legal help to dispose of this problem once and for all. Merrill s Carol Haddon 15307 S.W. Thurston Lane / Tigard, Oregon 97224 Home 639-7190 Work 653-2232 t RECEIVED y'3o /f AUG 1 6 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI 15830 s.w. 80th Ave. j Tigard. OR 97224 August 16, 1993 i f I Jerry Edwards, Mayor ' City Hall Tigard, OR 97223 ~ i Dear Mr. Edwards, Once again the issue of the Gage property and whether or not to leave it as a natural area has come up. I would like to let the members of the City Council know that I am opposed to proceeding with an engineering report. I would prefer that the owners put up the land for sale and stop trying to have the neighborhood buy it. Sincerely, i • I Gerald M. Bowes t x RUG-90 3 16:29 FROM BANK OF AMERICA TO 96847297 P.01/03 1 FAX TRANSMTTAL I Date: August 16, 1993 a`JL Time: 3:27 pm t NUM BBR OF PAGES (INCLUDING HEADER SHEET): 3 FROM: Mike Najewicz Telephone Number: (503) 275-1166 Fax Number: (503) 275-1396 TO: The Honorable Gerald R. Edwards i Telephone Number: Fax Number: 684-72941- SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: i Please see attached letter regarding "Gage" Park LID. URGENT R X NORMAL DELIVERY NR RUG-Le 16:29 FROM BANK OF AMERICA TO 96847297 P.02i03 August 16, 1993 ► : AU& 1 E 1993 U-. --~J VIA FACSIMILE 684-7299 ~W1M~.....Yiiii The Honorable Gerald R. Edwards City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: "Gage" Park LID Dear Mayor Edwards: We understand you have received a lot of correspondence on the above subject. We wish to restate several points made previously by my letter dated July 26, 1993 addressed to Mr. Ed Murphy. 1. THE INITIAL PETITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY HAVE BEEN ALTERED. The initial petitions submitted by staff to City Counsel which claim to maintain 58% has been altered. The petition as signed by all of the residents contained the names of three subdivision, Ashford Oaks, Bond Park and Langtree Estates. Sometime after its execution, the petition was altered by the deletion of the Ashford Oaks subdivision. No one has the authority to alter a legal document after it has been signed. To alter such a document and represent it as the petition signed by all of these people is improper, if not illegal.. This matter should be investigated. 2. ACQUISITION OF A NATURAL AREA IS NOT PERMITTED AS A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF CITY ORDINANCE 13. Again, I raise this point because I believe it has not been addressed with an adequate legal opinion. All of my research indicates that there is no provision within the City Code for the acquisition of natural areas. 3. THE CITY MUST ESTABLISH CORRECT BOUNDARIES FOR THE CREATJON OF ANY LID. The exclusion of Ashford Oaks is improper and in violation of the Ordinance. Including Ashford Oaks as contained in the original petition drops the percentage in favor to under 50% (that is why the petition was altered?). Document #0=737 RUG-16-1993 16:30 FROM BANK OF AMERICA TO 96847297 P.03i03 The Honorable Gerald R. Edwards August 16, 1993 In conclusion, I believe it would be a grave error for the City to initiate a Local Improvement District on its own motion. The residents of these neighborhoods do not wish to pay any additional taxes for the acquisition of this land. If it is such a valuable area and such a vital need, the interested parties may directly purchase the property or the City of Tigard should act to acquire the property with the cost to be distributed among all the taxpayers of Tigard. To acquire this at the expense of a few neighboring property owners is wrong and should not proceed. We would request that the City take no action on this petition whatsoever and expend no more taxpayers' dollars for this project. Sincerely, NI M. ~/'q~ ,V Michael and Kathy Najewicz MFN:sdh Document #0002737 -2- AUG 16 1993 gl c( 3 Dt'c.v\ get v-d c- ,4y (01A%AC. Mc►~GP✓3 ! LJc ka%/ fe~;,,jf w,vved Ikle ~G. A&A4-ete KS o.v`eC%,_ , I%J L kooje. CUtnnC fo 0 ceerS4ct cl lss,.e~ ~~1f~CC~Y:XIYG T~ 6/Uc(4Nr4 ~ A-e(k, l~ S Ntz~l~,r~ Ave- c-,- w z CPC3 Kv f' ws ~ + tk e 051 Y\ yr S'~vcP~l . i,~Ie 6c l icvQ oN l^l Y ~~c 3e ~rc f~w~i~~ I~r 6a~cr~ 4i-j, Yea^~tiv uv-e o- c.-,'ll ( t, e/7-1 f-1•eKc. ~ s ~ ~~tlc,(~.E.ti. ~ ti-6~ cosf . (Are--~ Gl C~JZ ju Cc a~Oc✓i t C~ C~ ply ✓ wtu lt; ' H..'l w~%Ir w~_ 6,rlt at v~ oc ; e vC~c4- v.~ c~ v j4,~, f y o v- /I ve s, - Cif Ge l~~agx f{,~s ~,~mSec wou &c"/1\4 - Cv A Ki 14 v, 14 ICY e i m i (ey o` I cc -/~tti/✓ ~c~ u v^ a ✓ 6 %'f rurll>' (J~V C~ W ~ u v. aX GV ~ ~ i f i i dACkV& -D, j All, c . ~ I• f i%~'!~~^"~ (:fie-~• -,-~f'~ 1 ' / / t 9J ~ - I l f Mr. a /,ts. 1I ngarc s,w. 8Robe" 2nd Ave~'SO" 1 T9ard OR 97224 AUG 16 196 t,; PETITION STATING INTEREST n EN THE FORNATION OF R LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RE C L' I 'Y L, hi U u 1 3 1993 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: -a .purchase of Tax Lot No. 2S1 120C 0200 as a neighborhood nature S tei .clearing of debris and development of soft trails through the -W: .signing at entrances to the site and improvement of sidewalk accesses: completion of inprovementa to streets Immediately abutting the site. ree Estates. dude the The sLsiona known as Ashford Oaks, Tiondd Parrk,e and Langt district aubdiv go undaratend that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest lving-the benefits of the proposed LiMcovesment and are not consaitted to supporting any local Improvement district that may be proposed as a wasult of the Cityls investigation. 'Phone Number Ownar's signature Property address: (Zip) Printed name of property owner. J M , F&11, 1992 A/9 2, 'Z7 C; ATTENTION: CITY OF TIGARD aid... August 12, 1993 'PETITION TO EXCLUDE THE HOMES LISTED BELOW FROM AUG 16 Zggg ' ' NY INVOLVEMENT IN PURCHASING THE GAGE PROPERTY. The homeowners that have signed below, are requesting that the City of Tigard exclude our homes from any involvement in the funding for possible purchase or development of the Gage property. We do not want our tax money spent on it's purchase or development or finance costs associated with it's study or acquisition. NAME (Printed/Legal signa u e) ADDRESS S owe 3. P c? Sty zq~-~ ° 5. '6 S•w, C 6. -42 7. o < < SG,J 9 ~ ~L -v-- ~i3 3t~1 10.. Jz-9tzzs- 11. NIA I WA Z~1_ Z S by L/ 1,14 V 12• 5~~1.a~ ib s 13. S P,1 o` a.. t r.al ~t n i b 14. S ct4 15. 6 16. eh ~1c eR 1 ~G 3 SW -Yia PL i ~b 17. 4 p c W f,)6naU4ufit re . L.- . Scv I ~0 ~t,c L~Tr 9ct r 18. Cf! 19. r 20. 1. 2. 23. 24. 25. RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1993 J ~~l vl~ C 7Y~ i gGUv~-~c%u-Lc- v . ~Q August 12, 1993 i . ~ j 13 199 f i AU G Honorable Jerry Edwards Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Mayor, Please allow me this opportunity to state my opposition to the Gage Property/LID Proposal. Briefly, my family and I believe any further exploration of this idea would be a waste of public and/or private funds for the following reasons: >Only properties abutting the parcel would benefit from a "Natural Area" LID. I cannot foresee any benefit to homeowners whose lot, like mine, is a distance from the parcel. >Safety is a big concern. The Gage parcel is only two hundred yards away from the Tigard School's ABLE facility on Durham Road. I've observed groups of teenagers from the alternative school congregate in the woods on many occasions. While there have been no unpleasant incidents thus far, I don't think I'd like my wife or child strolling through the "Nature Park" with it's deep cover and limited visibility. >Supporters are misrepresenting their numbers. Proponents have circulated petitions asking for residents' signatures only to gain "additional information" on the plan. Yet those who've signed are now counted as "supporters" of the project. I've talked to three neighbors who are on the City Staff's map of "supporters," yet all three have indicated they are very much against the LID since the costs have been disclosed. Consequently, I believe the backers of this plan are fewer than advertised. >The LID may not prevent street connections. Some residents at the informational meeting expressed support for the LID if it would prevent connection of Bond Street to Patti Lane. Representing the City of Tigard, Ed Murphy said it is possible, even likely, that a connection will be made even if the LID is approved. The hopes of Bond Street residents that the LID would prevent a rise in through-traffic past their homes is therefore unfounded. >It's too expensive. Additional taxes averaging $1500 per lot are extremely high for no apparent benefit. Taxpayers have already expressed their inability to cope with rising governmental expenditures by passing Measure Five. Assessing this type of burden on unwilling homeowners merely to maintain the status quo for a woodlot is unthinkable. Forcing us to pay this increase will certainly make us more reluctant to support whatever City bond measure might pop up next. >Development Is the logical use. Since the proposed "Nature Park' will have no improvements... no ballfield, no playground equipment, no picnic tables; I don't see how it would benefit me or my family to pay for this thing. It will not boost my property value since I live a distance away. A section of Ashford Oaks lots were removed from the proposed LID at their request. If it's that simple, I'd like you to remove my lot, BOND PARK FOUR, lot 86. 1 see nothing wrong with the Gage property sold to a developer for consduction of a few more nice homes. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of these points. I am hopeful you will come to the conclusion that I have... the Gage LID is an unpopular burden with few benefits for those of us living in the affected area. Sincerely, Jerry hten q - Z 15932 SW 81st Court Tigard, OR 97224 503 684 6458 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 40 dat4lg3 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Adt=t q- , DATE SUBMITTED: August 4, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Metzger Park LID PREVIOUS ACTION: PREPARED BY: PJR DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCII~ Should the City of Tigard allow the Metzger Park LID assessment to be levied upon properties within the City? STAFF RECOMMENDATION To modify resolution, providing for continuance of levy for a defined period of time, allowing Metzger Park LID/Washington County the opportunity to seek alternative revenue sources. I would recommend three years. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached please find correspondence from Washington County on this matter. Staff has researched files and finds no commitment made at the successful 1987 annexation election with respect to the Metzger Park LID. Council did adopt resolution prior to unsuccessful annexation election implying continuance of LID. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt attached resolution prepared by Washington County. However, Section 2 provides only limited protection for the City of Tigard in the event of compression under the cap. 2. Modify attached resolution stipulating approval on an annual basis only. 3. Modify attached resolution stipulating approval for a definite period of time, allowing the pursuit of alternative revenue sources. 4. Reject the resolution, thereby excluding properties within the City from the LID assessment. FISCAL NOTES There is no immediate financial impact on the city. Should the City properties be retained within the LID, at the time of financial compaction under the $10/$1000 property tax cap, then the City would be financially impacted to some degree. h:\ log in\pet\rwtzgerl „ate. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: August 18, 1993 SUBJECT: Metzger Park - LID 1. User Fees: There is a difference between LID participants and non-participants. Examples: A. 6 Hour Event: In LID - $200, plus cleaning fee Out of LID - $300, plus cleaning fee i B. Meeting: No charge to Metzger group $20/hour to non-Metzger group 3 2. Mailing to LID participants The list of participants arrived to us too late to initiate mailing to all +1,000 participants. Mailing was made to 23 large taxpayers. Attached is copy of the letter. For your information, we have asked the "Times" and "Oregonian" to publicize the issue and encourage communication with us. PJRAh attachment h:\1og1nVo\pjr0818.93 TIGARD ugust 17, 1993 G®N A CF--, Dear Property Owner: As you may be aware, your property is within the Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID). As such, you pay taxes which support the operation and maintenance of this County park. As a City of Tigard property owner, you also pay City taxes for the operation and maintenance of all City parks. The Tigard City Council has been asked to approve (by August 31) the continuation of the Metzger Park LID assessment on properties within Tigard's city limits. Without Council approval, the assessment cannot be levied on properties within the City of Tigard. The assessment was estimated by Washington County at 9-1/2 cents ($.095) per $1,000 of assessed value, or $9.50 per year for a property valued at $100,000. Tigard property owners contribute approximately 70% of the total assessment dedicated to the park. The Council discussed this matter and decided that they would like to hear from those who are impacted before they make this decision. This item will be on the August 24 agenda for Council action. Although there is no scheduled public hearing, the Council asked that anyone who has an interest in either continuing or discontinuing the assessment call Cathy Wheatley or Liz Newton at 639-4171. Written correspondence is welcomed as well. We are expecting assistance from the Oregonian and Tigard Times newspapers to get the word out to affected residents. This letter is an extended effort to hear from you as one of the area's larger property owners. We apologize for the fast turnaround time, but would truly appreciate a quick note or phone call to assist the Council as they make their decision next Tuesday. <<. In order to provide,the City Council with-the information in. advance of their. meeting, we request-that written correspondence.be received by noon, August 23. The same deadline applies to.telephone calls.;. Thank you for your consideration. Since a ck J. illy Cit Admi trator 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 s~ i i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator i DATE: September 2, 1993 r SUBJECT: Metzger Park LID As I mentioned in the Council newsletter last week, a letter was sent to those taxpayers identified as paying the most toward the Metzger LID. No responses were received from those businesses. In addition, in response to the newspaper article asking for input on the LID, we received six responses. Four persons were in favor of continuing with the LID payments and two residents indicated they did not wish to pay more or asked to be eliminated entirely from the LID. (See Attachment) Residents who responded: Received one response from a non- Tigard resident: Jim Hein Lois Abeling 11260 SW 83rd Lives in Metzger Tigard, OR 97223 Leave as isl 620-2781 No increaselll Thinks "they" have already mismanaged funds. Sheila Kasten 9885 SW Ventura Court h:\login\cathy\mtz.1 Tigard, OR 97223 244-6689 Levy returned to the way it was have them eliminated from LID. Mr. Lindle Seacco 10500 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 244-4235 Wants to continue paying into LID ( Mrs. Lyon 10440 SW 87th Tigard, OR 97223 244-1563 Glad to payl Charlie Bitz 7175 SW Mapleleaf Tigard, OR 97223 244-6995 Wants to continue paying into LID Mrs. W. M. Gates 9700 SW 74th Tigard, OR 97223 245-2849 Satisfied with Metzger Park Jack Reardon Washington Square, Inc. PO Box 23635 Tigard, OR 97281 639-8860 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON .3 'Wy2, 1993 f~ JUL. 2 6 1993 Patrick Reilly, City Manager City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Pat: Enclosed is a Resolution for consideration by the City Council. If adopted, this Resolution would provide the necessary approval of the City for the Metzger Park LID assessment which is levied on properties within the City. You will recall from our discussion that after Tigard requested properties within the City be excluded from the district, County Counsel advised that the maximum annual assessment established in the district subsequent to annexation should have the approval of the Tigard City Council. Without approval by the City, the operations and maintenance assessment levied on property within the City would have to be reduced to the pre-annexation amount. The 1988 annual maximum assessment of $40,500 currently provides two-thirds of } the operating revenue for Metzger Park. Reverting to the 1981 annual maximum assessment of $27,000 would reduce the operating revenue by one-third. Such a reduction in revenue would severely denigrate services of the Park's operation. You have expressed Tigard's concern of the assessment's impact on the tax rate and potential compression at the property tax limit. We estimate that the LID assessment is $.095/$1,000 of the 1992-93 non-school tax rate of $7.20/$1,000 levied in Tigard. We have inserted language in the Resolution to address this concern in the event the tax rate is projected to approach the $10/$1,000 limit. The County would work with the City to resolve the problem so that the City's ability to levy taxes within the limit would not be restricted in the LID assessment. As we discussed, this Resolution will be placed on the Council's August 9th meeting agenda. The County will need to certify an assessment amount to the tax assessor shortly thereafter. If you need any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Connie L. Fessler, Asst. Director Support Services Department Enclosure Support Services Department Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 155 North First Avenue, Suite 320 Phone: 503/648-8661 Residents who responded: Jim Hein 11260 SW 83rd Tigard, OR 97223 620-2781 No increase!!! Thinks they" have already mismanaged funds. Sheila Kasten 9885 SW Ventura Court Tigard, OR 97223 244-6689 Levy returned to the way it was have them eliminated from LID. Mr. Lindle Seac co 10500 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 244-4235 Wants to continue paying into LID Mrs. Lyon 10440 SW 87th Tigard, OR 97223 2441563 Glad to payl Charlie Bitz 7175 SW Mapleleaf Tigard, OR 97223 244-6995 Wants to continue paying into LID Mrs. W. M. Gates 9700 SW 74th Tigard, OR 97223 245-2849 Satisfied with Metzger Park Received one response from a non-Tigard resident: Lois Abeling Lives in Metzger Leave as isl h:\login\cathy\mtz.1 i' Attachment 1 Page 1 Winmar Pacific, Inc. Washington Square, Inc. PO Box 21545 PO Box 21545 Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle, WA 98111 i Nesbitt Partners Fringe Land Ore Ltd. i Portland Venture Ltd PO Box 21545 6320 Canoga, No. 1620 Seattle, WA 98111 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 US Bank Portland Office Associates Real Estate Mgmt Div., T-3 Windsor Capital Group PO Box 8837 7222 Commerce Center Dr„ #245 Portland, OR 97201 Colorado Springs, CO 80919 Washington Square Plaza Anita and Robert McGill Cafard Company PO Box 1557 PO Box 422 Beaverton, OR 97075 Florham Park, NJ 07932 R. Barry Menashe Sears Roebuck and Co. 6426 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy Tax Department 970W Portland, OR 97221 600 Sierra Madre Villa Pasadena, CA 91107 Mary E. Nelson c/o Canyon Furniture, Inc. Washington Square, Inc. 11295 SW 135th Ave. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., #288-1 Tigard, OR 97223 PO Box 10001 Dallas, TX 75301 David & Linda Hudesman Lamonts Apparel, Inc., Financ.Rptg. 3650 - 131st Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dayton Hudson Corporation Target #345, Tax Dept. 14-1 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 May Department Stores Co. Property Tax Department 611 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Attachment 1 Page 2 *Legacy Health System Larry Hill 500 NE Multnomah St. Portland, OR 97232 James Liebe Watson Scherzer Partners 5440 SW Westgate Dr., #222 Portland, OR 97221 Seafirst Corp. Bank of America of Ore, Dept. 2814 PO Box 6400 Portland, OR 97228 SF Oregon Co. Ltd. Melvin Mark Brokerage Co. 10220 SW Greenburg Rd., No. 150 Portland, OR 97223 Utah State Retirement Fund Cushman & Wakefield, Attn: Jeff West 200 SW Market St., #200 Portland, OR 97201 George H. Killian c/o AGA, Bullier & Bullier, Inc. 11515 SW Pacific Hwy Tigard, OR 97223 *Letter was returned, marked "not deliverable." We received no responses from any of these people Page 2 i i Council Agenda Item No. 5 1 Consideration of the Metzger Park Local Improvement District: An information update will be submitted on this Agenda Item in the Thursday Council Mail. 's WASHINGTON COUNTY Inter-Department Correspondence DatCctober 19, 1992 r To Doug Olson, Facilities Manager From Sue Rebman, Facilities Management F Subject Metzger Park Local Improvement District Statistics (Metzger Park LID) The following demographics on Metzger Park Local Improvement District have been campiled as of this date, October 19, 1992, and are a reflection of the most current data available. Mr. Bob Haas, LUr Planning; Mr. Dan Malaer, A & T Mapping, and their staff provided county data. Sandra Ordaz, center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, provided population density and latest census statistics (1990). Questions 1. What is the total population of the Metzger LSD? 6,730* 2. Mmt is the total population of the City of Tigard? 29,340 3. What is the total population of the City of Tigard within the Metzger Park LID? City of Tigard: 3,240 City of Portland: 100 Unincorporated: 3,390 (6,730)* 4. What are the total number of tax parcels/lots in the Metzger Park LID? Assessable tax parcels/lots: 2,114 Nonassessable tax parcels/lots: 16 Total tax parcels/lots: 2,130 -1- E Metzger Park Local Improvement District Statistics (Metzger Park LSD) October 19, 1992 Page #2 5. What are the total rnmber of tax parcels/lots in the Metzger Park LID with the city limits of Tigard? Total parcels/lots: 1,146 Percentage: 6. What is the tax assessed evaluation of the Metzger park LSD? $423,359,478.00 7. What is the tax assessed evaluation of the Metzger Park LID located within the city limits of Tigard? Non-Washington Square : $171,951,960.00 Washington Square: $132.199,323.00 Total: $304,143,283.00 Percentage: 71.8% 8. What portion of Washington Square is in the Metzger Park LID? All of Washi.ngtm Squares i.s located within the Metzger Park LSD and according to A&T data provided also within the City limits of Tigard. 9. What percentage of the Metzger Park LID consists of Washington Square? Percentage of Metzger I TD: 31.2% Number of Tax Parcels/I0ts: 33 Tax assessed value:$132,191,323.00 10. What is the tax rate per $1,000.00 within the Metzger Park LID? $.0955/$1,000.00 i 11. What are the total taxes to be collected on the Metzger Park LID for this year? $40,454.04 _2_ f Metzger Park Local Improvement District statistics (Metzger Park LID) October 19, 1992 Page #3 12. What are the dimensions of the Metzger Park LID? How many acres/square miles? The dimensions are x'Cply 2 miles long by 1 1/4 miles wide. There are an estimated total cf 1,280 acres within the Metzger Park IM. 13. How many acres/square miles of the Metzger Park LID are within the city limits of Tigard? Tire are an estimated 700 acres of the Pet, Paris LID within the city limits of Tigard. Census Data. CitV pave ation 9gtIaxle l~il City of Metzger 3,149 .8 3,936.3 City of Tigard 29,344 10.2 2,876.9 Sandra Ordaz, Portland State University, was not able to provide a census base on the area known as the Metzger Park LID; however this data should give an indication the total persons/square mile within the immediate area of the Metzger Park LID and City of Tigard (as of 1990). Attachments 1. Attachment I: The report generated by A&T showing the tax information for Metzger Park LID. The highlighted areas reflect the City of Tigard tax parcels/lots within the Metzger Park LID, and the Washirigton Square tax parcels/lots both within the Metzger Park LID and the City of Tigard city limits. (Please see report legend.) 2. Attachment II: A copy of the demographics provided by the city of Tigard in November of 1991, presumably based on 1990 statistics. 3. Attachments III & IV: a. Mao ONE: Showing Metzger Park LID in relation to the Portland Metropolitan area. b. May TM: _The other reflecting the streets and boundaries of the Metzger Park LID. -3- ~~WASHRNGTON e 9585 S.W. Washington Square Ad. - Portland. Oregon 97223 Mailing Address: P.O. Sax 23635 -'Tigard. Oregon 97223.00% (503) 639-8860 - FAX (503) 6205612 FAX TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: -TIME: FROM: PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLO NG PAGE(S) TO: NAME: COMPANY: FAX TELEPHONE WE ARE TRANSMITTING A TOTAL OF PAGE(S) 011fCU1D0l1C +1HFS COVER LEDER IF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE PHONE US AT (603) 659-8860OR RETURN A MESSAGE ON FAX NO. (503) 620-5612 COMMENTS: T0* d ZOO* ON SP: OT 16, PZ 6% ZI9SOZ92OS: 131 32iunOS N019NIHSHM WAn 09 9585 S.W. Washington Squnre Rd. w Portland. Oregon 97223 M3ilin.1 Address. P G Som 23635 • Tigaid. Orrrgon 97223-0095 15031639-8660 May 5, 1988 Bonnie Hayes, Chairperson and Fellow Board Members Board of Commissioners Washington County 150 N. First Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Dear Board Members: On March 23, 1988, a letter was authored by Walter L. Peters, Chairman, Metzger Park LID Advisory Board, informing you of the Park Board's vote to request a raise in the Local Improvement District assessment by $13,500, for a total of $40,500, and requesting the Board of Commissioners initiate the assessment increase process for Metzger Park Improvement District. Subsequently, in your meeting of April 12, 1988, you voted to approve the request. As a member of the Metzger Park Advisory Board who voted against the proposal and the representative for a property owner which pays a substantive portion of the assessment, I would like to point out my reasons for opposition to any increase in this LID assessment. 1. The requested assessment of $40,500 is $12,000 more than the budget need for 1988-89. No concrete reasons were presented justifying the need for nor was a budget provided outlining how the Park would spend an additional $13,500 annually. 2. $17,024 is the amount budgeted for maintenance of the park grounds and basic building maintenance and county charges for assessment collection. The remainder of the budget includes $17,166 funding for a park. coordinator (county employee) and other operating costs of $6,935 ($6,000 electricity) related to the building only. With only $8,000 income from the rental of the building last year, the park is spending $24,100 to "coordinate" and heat the building essentially for limited rental for non-community activities. Even though there is some use of the building by the community, it is very limited. I have been unable to obtain from the park coordinator an exact schedule of activities of a community iZO'd Z00'oN 9b:01 26,bZ End ZI9SOZ92OS:131 3aunOS NOl9NIHSHM Page 2 Washington County Board of CoMmissioners May 6, 1988 i. nature; however, they are admittedly few and are not of the nature requiring the services of a park coordinator. In view of the present use of this building, it is unfortunate it was constructed in the first place. However, to continue to put tax dollars into the operation and "coordination" of the building is, in my viewpoint, subsidizing a county job for no real benefit to the community and a disservice to the LID tax payers. 3. It is inevitable that, some time in the near future, Metzger Park will be included in a city.. When this occurs, the most likely course of action would be to turn the park over to the city. It is very unlikely the city will be willing to spend the funds necessary to maintain and operate a building for such limited use and return on investment. Major commercial properties, including Washington Square, Embassy Suites Hotel, the Washington Circle project, which includes Target and Lamont's, and Lincoln Center, fund a major portion of this LID. As you know, all of these properties, as well as many of the residents of the LID, are now in the city of Tigard. Ways to combine services and reduce costs should be the major focus of the community and governing agencies rather than an increase in one of the layers of taxation which, once in place, becomes very difficult to ever reduce. If the building were being used by the community and, therefore, there was s justification for the expense of a park coordinator and large utility bills, I would have no objection. However, I see this as a simple business decision which eliminates the high cost of maintaining and operating the building for the limited purpose it presently serves. The time to reduce the use and cost of maintaining the building is now. I feel the Board can work with the present assessment of $27,000 per year, which is more than an adequate amount to maintain the park, including limited use of the building for community activities. I ask that you consider these points and my objection as a matter of record for. the public hearing scheduled for May 24, 1988. Respectfully, ' a . ack F. eardon, CSM/CMD General Manager and Member, Metzger Park Advisory Board JFR:crw cc: Dan Boyden, Trammel Crow Gary Gray, Nesbitt Partners Ron Roberts Walter Peters 20' d ZOO * oN 9V:01 26, bZ find ZT9SOZ92OS: X31 321dflOS N019NIHSUM COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM (o CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: ARSUst 24th, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: Auguat 12th, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final- Decision-, PREVIOUS ACTION: July 27th, 1993 no Orch T1. SUB 93-0002- PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD ;qk CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: - - aaamasmmamasassmsaaaaaaaaaaamaaaammaam ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approval of the final decision on Ames Orchard II. _ -sssc_a=aaasasaaaasaaaasaaaaaa®maamcmmaaaaammm STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached final decision to approve the preliminary subdivision plat. raamasaaaaam=samamamama8aaaaaamamaaaaaaaaamaam INFORMATION SUMMARY This subdivision proposal was heard by the Council at a public hearing on July 27th. At that meeting, the Council approved "Plan B", and reviewed the ( draft final decision. Two letters were received after the Council hearing - one from Steve Pfeiffer representing "Vista Point", the proposed subdivision to the north of Ames Orchard II, and one from Jack Orchard, representing Ames Orchard II. Both letters are concerning the condition of approval that deals with making improvements to SW Gaarde Street extension. (See Condition #6 in the final decision). Both letters are attached to this report. emosmaaammmaaaam maaama~aacma PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Adopt the Resolution approving the preliminary subdivision plat Reopen the hearing for additional testimony only on the wording of Condition #6, modify as may be appropriate, and then adopt the Resolution :mmaaamaaaaamaxaaasmamsa m - FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. *jM/CC"N.WW MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Direct DATE: August 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Ames Orchard II, and Responsibility to Improve SW Gaarde Street Extension SUMMARY: Both the developers of Ames Orchard II and Vista Point have submitted letters suggesting changes to the condition of approval on Ames Orchard II relating to the requirement to participate in the construction of Gaarde Street extension. Staff has reviewed the letters, and discussed the matter with both parties. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Council has required "Vista Point" to improve Gaarde Street, and has offered to assist by allowing the developer to initiate a reimbursement district. The Council, if they adopted the attached final order on "Ames Orchard II", would be obligating "Ames Orchard II" to participate in that reimbursement district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the language in Condition #6 of the final decision. ANALYSIS: The essential question is: what happens if Ames Orchard II precedes Vista Point? It appears to staff that Ames Orchard cannot be responsible for constructing SW Gaarde extension in advance of Vista Point for the following reasons: 1. Most of the right-of-way for Gaarde extension will be dedicated through the Vista Point subdivision. 2. Vista Point is more dependent on SW Gaarde Street extension than is Ames Orchard II. 3. If Ames Orchard II constructs a portion of SW Gaarde Street extension, if will not serve any lots nor connect to any streets, and therefore will be functionally useless. r Page 1 It also appears to staff that the appropriate method of handling this issue is to make both developments responsible for some share of the Gaarde extension. This street will be constructed either by the developer of Vista Point with a reimbursement from Ames Orchard II, or by a Local Improvement District. In either case, the Council would decide at a public hearing how much each party needs to contribute to the road extension. Below please find the related conditions of approval for Vista Point; the language proposed by Jerry Offer in his memo to the Planning Commission dated April 5, 1993, and the proposed condition in the final decision for Ames Orchard II, and a portion of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of July 27, 1993. Vista Point final decision adopted by Resolution No. 93-19, dated April 27, 1993: 11#19. The SW Gaarde Street extension shall be built to major collector standards from SW 121st Avenue to proposed Lot 52 with development of phase I. Prior to or concurrent with construction of phase II, the applicant shall construct the SW Gaarde Street extension to a point 140 feet south of the northern edge of the subject parcel. The collector street improvements shall be 44 feet in width for phase I and 40 feet in width for phase II. The applicant shall not be responsible for the second lift of asphalt for the section of roadway to be built with phase #31. The City of Tigard will initiate the formation of zones of benefit for the reimbursement of costs incurred for development of the extension of SW Gaarde Street and the extension of sewer to the subject property." Jerry Offers memo to Planning commission dated April 5, 1993: "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 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 development of Ames Orchard II follows the development of Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developer of Vista Point shall be responsible for designing and Page 2 constructing improvements to this section of road, with the exception of sidewalks which would be the responsibility 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 released only for the construction of improvements for this road segment." The recommended Condition #6, Ames Orchard II draft Final order: 116. The applicant shall participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of 121st where it abuts the north property line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent proceedings. If the Ames Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property abutting SW Gaarde to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show that each individual lot in the ( subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision." A portion of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of July 27, 1993: 11• 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(x) as this 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 H" was acceptable to them." am/I1mea11.Nem Page 3 STOEL RIVES BOLEY RECErvE© `i s JONES & GREY 1993 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 2300 STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204.1268 Telephone (503) 224-3380 Telecopier (503) 220-2480 Cable Lawport Telex 703455 Writer's Direct Dial Number (503) 294-9523 August 6, 1993 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Ames Orchard No. 2 - SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004 Dear Ed: Subsequent to the recent hearing before the City Council regarding the above matter, I received a copy of the proposed findings and conclusions, together with recommended conditions of approval, submitted to the Council for final consideration. As you recall, my testimony before the council on behalf of Matrix Development Corporation conveyed our request that this subdivision be subject to a requirement for construction of SW Gaarde Street to city standards along the northern boundary of the site. While we continue to support the future establishment of a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to allocate the cost of Gaarde Street construction between these applicants and Matrix, we also believe that any such allocation must follow the actual construction of the required frontage prior to either project going forward. To this end, we requested that the Council impose the specific language developed by Mr. Jerry offer and submitted to the Planning Commission during an earlier proceeding in April, 1993. During the Council hearing, the staff and applicants proposed to resolve our stated concerns regarding Gaarde Street improvements with a condition requiring formation of a reimbursement district. We and the Council were advised that the specific language addressing this alternate approach would be included in the proposed findings. Despite our stated concerns, condition no. 6 of the incorporates this approach by PDX1-67875.1 VORII AND, S(Af Tff HFLI. 1:1. VANCOU\'CR. BOISE. SALT LAKE CITN, W'ASHINGrON. OREGON I\'ASFIIN(,10% N'ASHINGTUN WASHINGTON IDAHO UTAff DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STOEL RIVES BOLEY )ONES &CKEY Mr. Ed Murphy August 6, 1993 Page 2 requiring only that the applicant or the owners of individual lots participate in a future reimbursement district. Under this scenario, the developers of Ames Orchard will have no obligation to construct any portion of the required improvements to Gaarde Street notwithstanding the fact that final development of the project and the subsequent sale of lots may precede any implementation,•if at all, of the Vista Point preliminary approval. For the reasons set forth below, Matrix Development Corporation strongly objects to the proposed resolution of our concerns through the language reflected in proposed condition no. G. As stated during our testimony, section 18.164.030 establishes the minimum requirements for construction of street improvements concurrent with subdivision development. Specifically, this section provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "A. Improvements 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street; a. Streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with this title; b. Any new street or additional street with planned as a portion of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this Code; Taken together, these sections, as well as other pertinent sections of the Code require that any approval of the Ames Orchard subdivision must be accompanied by a condition requiring construction of the entire portion of SW Gaarde Street abutting the northern boundary of the site. We readily agree that such improvements may be the subject of a reimbursement district under which the cost of such construction will be shared by Matrix or other benefitted parties. However, there is no opportunity under these mandatory provisions to allow the Council to defer such required improvements to construction at a later date by a third party under the theory that the current developer may be PDX1-67875.1 t, • STOEL RIVES BOLEY JON ES 4SICKEY Mr. Ed Murphy August 6, 1993 Page 3 required meets its obligations under the above provisions through future reimbursement in an unknown amount. Based on the above analysis, we respectfully request that condition no. 6 be modified by the Council to require actual construction of all necessary improvements to the pertinent segment of SW Gaarde Street as a condition of final plat approval. While we do not object to the establishment of a reimbursement district to insure an appropriate allocation of the cost of such improvements among all benefitted parties, we a do not believe that the formation of such a district can be accepted as a substitute for the mandatory construction of these improvements. Indeed, we ask for nothing more than what -v was imposed on the Vista Point project; namely the requirement q that the construction of these improvements be undertaken at+ the time of final plat approval with the understanding that a reimbursement district could be formed at a later date. For purposes of implementing this request, we suggest that the above-referenced language offered by Mr. Offer to the Planning Commission be substituted for the current version of condition no. 6. To the extent that you or the applicants would like to discuss an alternate form of language which equally addresses our concerns, we would be happy to meet with you at your earliest convenience. In the mean time, please include this letter in the record of the current proceeding before the Council regarding this matter. Very truly yours, ? f Steven L. Pfeiffer x cc: Mayor Jerry Edwards Jim Coleman Larry York Jack orchard s PDXI-67875.1 SENT BY: 8-12-93 ; 3:41PM ; BALL,JANIK,& NOVACK 503 684 7297;# 2/ 4 BALL. JANIK 6 NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 5.W. MAIN 5TREE7 SUITE 1100 101. I'L00",1101 TEN"111YWANL11,9VE. kW PORTLAND, OREGON 97264-3274 WASHINGTON, 0. C, 2000+ TELEPHONE (503) ZES-2526 TELEPWONL I7.OE1636-3307 JACK L. ORCHARD TEl CCOPT (5031 299-105a TLLL~OeY 1.'.02) 702-69,97 August 12, 1993 Ay Telecopy, Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Ames Orchard 2 (City of Tigard Case File No. SUB 93-0002ZVAR 93-0004) Y Dear Ed: r Mark Rockwell and I have reviewed Steve Pfeiffer's August 6, 1993 letter on behalf of Matrix Development concerning the S. W. Gaarde extension condition (Condition 6) for the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision approval. Mark and I earlier had reviewed the language which City staff had prepared in its recommended Condition 6. That language is acceptable to the Applicant and we believe, in keeping with the City Council's announced decision on the subdivision appeal. The following comments about the Pfeiffer letter are in order so that the City can better understand Ames Orchard's position on this issue.: 1. In contrast to Matrix Development's Vista Point project, Ames Orchard 2 does not require the Gaarde extension in order to provide access to Ames Orchard 2 or to meet City development standards. As was demonstrated at the public hearing, Ames Orchard 2 has both adequate circulation and public safety access from existing public streets and has made provision for secondary life/safety vehicle access, all in such a way that neighboring properties are not adversely impacted by traffic infiltration- 2. Matrix Development's citation of City Code §18.164.030 is a bit misleading in that Ames Orchard 2 complies with that section without the construction of the Gaarde extension. To reiterate, Ames Orchard 2 has approved access to public streets, SENT BY. 8-12-93 ; 3:41PM ; BAU.,JANIK,& NOVACK 503 684 7297;# 31 4 . r BALL, JANIK S. NOVACK Mr. Ed Murphy, Community Development Director City of Tigard August 12, 1993 Page 2 i i the streets within Ames Orchard 2 have been engineered for improvements meeting City standards and no new streets or additional streets external to Ames Orchard 2 are either planned or required as a part of the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision. 3. The Gaarde extension was not part of the City's transportation plan at the time the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision application was submitted. However, as Ames Orchard 2 representatives stated at the recent public hearing, the project developers are willing to cooperate through the mechanism of the reimbursement district in assisting in the funding of the Gaarde extension, as and when that extension is appropriate, but only in conjunction with the Vista Point project. There is no legal basis for requiring Ames Orchard 2 to construct the Gaarde extension or any part of it. Ames Orchard 2 has publicly committed to cost-sharing or reimbursement once the City or r Matrix Development undertakes the extension project. i 4. Matrix Development is correct that the Vista Point project is obligated to construct the Gaarde extension as part of its development. Ames Orchard 2 has publicly committed that its share of that cost would be addressed through a reimbursement district or other equitable mechanism. If Vista Point does not develop, there is no immediate need for construction of the Gaarde extension. The extension, if it is to be constructed to the full extent envisioned by the City, should be done at one time, minimizing disruptions to area residents and avoiding con.8truction_ of road segments, which will then have different useful lives because of a difference in the timing of their construction. The point made at the Ames Orchard 2 public hearing was that it was not possible at this time to determine what constitutes an equitable cost-sharing, especially in light of the fact that the Gaarde extension is not needed at this time. Ames Orchard 2 can meet all of its public street, safety and circulation requirements without the Gaarde extension. Therefore, an equitable cost-sharing through the reimbursement district is both an appropriate and legal mechanism to assess Ames Orchard 2 for the future benefit derived by Ames Orchard 2 for the Gaarde extension. SENT BY: 8-12-93 : 3:42PM BALL,JANIK,& NOVACK 503 684 7237;# 4/ 4 SALL. JANIK & NOVACK Mr. Ed Murphy, Community Development Director City of Tigard August 12, 1993 Page 3 As always, the Ames Orchard 2 project team is most willing to discuss the Gaarde extension issues with City staff and with the City Council. However, the public hearing on the subdivision appeal has taken place and the final order and set of conditions need to be adopted by the City Council. The proposed form of order and conditions offered by the staff is satisfactory to Ames Orchard 2. Staff has thoroughly considered the area-wide street system, circulation and public safety issues (as well as neighborhood-based traffic concerns) in formulating Condition 6. That condition clearly obligates Ames Orchard 2 to financial participation for the Gaarde extension based on benefit to Ames Orchard 2. Sincerely, c. L . Jc Gc ~ t<~ Jack L. Orchard cc: Mr. James Coleman Mr. Robert Ames Mr. Mark Rockwell Mr. Steve Pfeiffer JL0/cra/GJN/Ct7T1gard.812 r _ _ _ _ a F ~ Q: (A - ~ ~ ~ N, r' 3 c{n ~J V J E r - - - - - ~ _ 4 f P P P f P -~~.f~ ~'t a F f = e p.., P P-m ~ to ,.-y fo Ko ~ IGS 3-SEi ~ Ao al 2; 3 A e it t ~ ` 1 ~ s.. 'SSf P, P.. 4„4616 f. PI P. , } ';_=7L SF f '=.L345F - { ~ P.- ,,,rte i 5 ~n f, ~ ~ ~ 1 - ~ z # f f - z ~ j l P ' ~ ~ _ a e f 2 f f 49 ~f ~ n s 32 ' ~ A c4 f ~ P 4V P Sg ~8 61 ~ I~ P a N R I 1- 1= I~ ~ t ~ p# A I 1 1 ~ ~ A ~ ~ - < xxe ~ S~ Li P i o. f re o~ r ~us:w ~t~~~r r IRY~!« :s~w~ws'~ : . f 1 P 1 A 1 ~ ~ '8 v ,2 P 1 1 E - x 5: /q~► tL~61 ~ / ~ o t , ~ 13,458 ~;R,: 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 8 xc„:d#8 55F E r f," 0 4,1!#3 ~f a P 1 ~ 1 t I f ! P I f r` t ~-~-.a . t~ . r 1 ~ ' 1 3t 4oa i G6` j e< ' q• ~aey' .aa~ st6' iaa ~ , 1 1 >1GL® t~ QIC i 1' ;4. ~ s 1 I' 1 1 ! 1 1 n ?EL. 4 nn I 1 Z 1 ~V i ,yd ~ 1 tf,S3A 1 tt,SSO 1 !t,9~O tt,S3O SM 1 A } $ 8I ~I 8' 12.414 g ~ ~ ; 1 ~ 53.734 1 1 I 1 1 P t 36Q ~ ~ ~ I 1 t ~i . ~ i ' F I, tb' SIC t+a t1C ttO' ~U5' ! ~ • o . 1L. 1 ~ o0o soo 800 ; M 32 _ & ~ _ _ . ; ~ r...~` 700 ~ ,5,` 23.612 SF ~ I 1 ~ A A ~ ~ ~ ~ I . ~1 500 ~ ~ ~ yo so ~o ,>.o a o cT -a.i . ~ f a o 1 _ 8.28 NSF ~ . t ~ I I i~ ~ _ _ ~ m Y Zm 1 1"a W 700 600 ~ , ; . - - fr ~ y ___I I it I • .r~ - ~ „5~ , : 6200 100 6, W ; - O --ice - - ` I J I ~ ~ W ;I I I. ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g I I I ~ ~~0 2300 ~ I t W S.W. DUCHILLY COURT i ! i ~ ! J- I III i! A 1100 I i I-~ 800 ~ I I ~ ~ i I ~ ~ 6300 ~ r 1300 1400 I I ~ _ ~ ~ i ~ ~oJ~ ~ \ ~ _ - I 1200 ~ ~ x X~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ PAWcCT AMES OHCH. N0, 294-0Dt I 'YPE DEVELOP, PLAN 08/29/93 PGENSA N0. 6 1 OF 1 .MARCH z. _ - ~ ~ ~ ' ,,n . , , ....-ar - - R I . 30 I~'~I'~I'~L'I - ' ~ IF THIS OOJ%ONBNT IS LS68 1 • ; a-. LEGIBLH TNAN TNIS NOTATION I. ' y 4 6 ~ 'e.:~ - ( IT IS~OU6 TO TNS WALITY OF~„'q - _ 1>'~',' 1 "a"~ e~!b , ~ TN~OFIGINAL 1)000MSNT. 8 L 'B Z t SI " f ' ~ t ~il [ L S'' ~ 9 ~ [ I . ' 1 _ ~ ~ I Inlmll II ~ u6i~m~miud uil u , ~nnnldoglm6nl~oilnl i~oh~nlmhl~i~l6n uolip mlolllnhullluholmdml i. ~nln~~i ~I y ~ . y _ - 4.~~7. I y. _ :i ~ i . if. ~ - 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: AUG ST 2n. 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: AUGUST 12. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Q 93-0008 PREVIOUS ACTION: AUTHORIZE AFPLICMT ZgA 23-0002 1 -4, TO SUBMIT CPA 9-57 - / [Aft PREPARED BY: JOHN ACKER DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OR REQUES'T'ED BY: CRITERION EOUX!gIES sssaaasasssacrssas aarcara-.....~. ..•sa aass_acaaaa=asocaaaz~aassczosassommmesasaaas G ' Should the City approve a proposed quasi-judicial amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map and zone map from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential and from C-P (professional commercial) to R-25 (residential, 25 units per acre). omrta~asac*-!- -^**-^a~~---a ao-na=osassaaasaao=assaaaaaanaaanmffimQmsaaaaaa STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposal meets all applicable criteria, therefore, staff recommends approval of CPA 93-0008 and ZON 93-0002. esaam=aa - aasasasasasc^=a=a=ssx=acsassmaaasaaaaamamrsaeaa+mQ INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposal is for a 5.06 acre site in the Tigard Triangle between 72nd and 70th Avenues north of Beveland Street and south of Elmhurst Streets. I"iroperty to the north and west is designated Low Density Residential and zoned R-3.5 (3.5 units per acre). Property to the east and south is designated Commercial Professional and zoned C-P. In June, the City Council granted Mr. Mark Rockwell permission to initiate this application outside of the normal times that comprehensive plan amendments are heard. The Planning Commission heard the proposal on August 2, 1993, and recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment. amsaasamama:saga - - -s PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES none cssaassaaasssasm~~ a-.a FISCAL NOTES_ a Ehl Fn v Ein FT 0 N 61 VI rrFrFTF MIN 1 92 33 MIEP C4tW dr Q rFFm bTM7n all AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 24, 1993 - 7:30 PM HEARING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall - Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. Goner al information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0008 Zone Change ZON 93-0002 REQUEST: 1) Plan Map amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential 2) Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Professional) zoning district to R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) zoning district APPLICANT: Criterion Equities 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Sotirios and Eleni Sofos Terry Tollen, 4923 S.W. 35th Place Monte Cook, Portland, OR 97221 Jack Miller 50 NW let Portland, OR 97209 LOCATION: Between 70th and 72nd Avenues north of Beveland Street and south of Elmhurst Street. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM 2S1 1AB lots 800, 801, 900 and 1000 SITE AREA: 5.06 acres PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The City Council adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zone Map amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zone Map amendment. 2. Background Information The site is within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. The site has been planned and zoned for Commercial STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 1 Professional use since the Tigard comprehensive plan was adopted in 1983. ( In November, 1992, after over a year of work and extensive public input, the Planning Commission approved and the City Council accepted a master plan for the Triangle. The triangle master plan identifies the subject site as high-density residential. More detailed planning study has been accomplished to add detail to the accepted master plan. This proposal for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is compatible with the master plan. 3. Vicinity Information Adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned R-3.5 (residential, 3.5 units per acre), and those to the south and east are zoned C-P (professional commercial). The abutting property is developed with single-family residences on all sides. The west boundary of the property has approximately 500 feet of frontage on 72nd Avenue. SW 72nd Avenue is functionally classified as a major collector street on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. On the east, there is nearly 500 feet frontage on the right-of way for 70th Street. The 70th Street right-of- way is unimproved at this location, but if developed, f would be classified as a local street. 4. Site Information The area is presently zoned as Professional Commercial. The site consists of 4 tax lots that total 5.06 acres in size. The site is mostly vacant, rectangular in shape, and is relatively flat. There is a stand of mature trees on the site along 72nd Street. The remainder of the site is mostly open and covered with grasses and weeds. 5. Proposal Description The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone Change from the C-P (Commercial Professional) zoning district to the R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre maximum density) zoning district for the approximately 5.06 acre site. The applicant has submitted a statement titled A Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change prepared by Alpha Engineering. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 2 Although development plans for the site need not be considered at this time, density transition, landscaping, and buffering requirements can be met on the subject site. 6. Agency Comments The Engineering Division, Building Division, Portland General Electric, and Tualatin Valley Water District have reviewed the proposal and have no comments. The Tigard/Tualatin School District comments that capacity of Tigard High School is presently exceeded and the proposal has the potential to add three students to the high school. Elementary and intermediate schools have adequate capacity. No other comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 7.8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2 and 12.1.1 (locational criteria for the Medium-High Density Residential Plan designation); and the change or mistake quasi-judicial Plan Map Amendment criteria of both the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. ( The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program. The citizens involvement program is in transition to a more responsive and inclusive structure at this time. The proposal was sent to all members of the former neighborhood planning organization for review. All public notice requirements related to this request have been satisfied including advertising the hearings in the Tigard Times, direct notice to surrounding property owners, and posting the site. 2. Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) is satisfied because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Community Development Code requirements to the review of this proposal. 3. Goal #9 (Economy of the State) is satisfied although the proposal would reduce the City's inventory of developable commercial land, because 1) the reduction of C-P zoned land is not a large amount compared to the total amount of developable land in the immediate vicinity and; 2) STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 3 allowing high density residential development near C-P, C-G, and I-P zoned developable properties may provide an attractive mix of land uses thereby helping spur ( commercial and industrial development in the area. Other communities have shown that such a mix of land uses can successfully co-exist without adversely affecting commercial or industrial growth. The applicants have pointed to the neighboring Kruse Way area of Lake Oswego where such a mixture of land uses exists. 4. Goal #10 (Housing) is satisfied because the proposal would provide for additional housing opportunities as promoted by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, division 7). Approval of this proposal would increase housing opportunity on developable land by 127 dwelling units. Approval would also increase opportunities for multi-family development. The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires that the City maintain a minimum housing opportunity for developable land of 10 units per acre and a minimum mix of 50/50 for single- family and multi-family housing. 5. Goal #12 (Transportation) and Goal #13 (Energy Conservation) is satisfied because the proposal would provide the opportunity for intensive housing near major transportation corridors (Highway 217 and I-5) as well as near employment centers. This promotes the efficient use of the transportation system thereby promoting energy conservation. Staff has determined that the proposed Plan Map Amendment/Zone Change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because members of former Neighborhood Planning organization #4 and surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the request and of their opportunity to comment on the proposal. Two public hearings on this request are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the City's Community Development Code. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the proposal would provide the opportunity for additional multi-family development and would increase the net housing opportunity on buildable lands in the City. 3. Plan Policy 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 will be satisfied because the proposal would allow for development of the site in ways that may be more compatible with adjacent residential areas. Future residential development of the site will be subject to density transition requirements as well as landscaping and buffering requirements which will tend to lessen impacts on adjacent properties. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 4 4. Plan Policy 6.6.1 will be satisfied through the imposition of buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code to any future development proposal for the property. 5. Plan Policies 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, and 7.6.1 are satisfied because adequate public sanitary sewerage, storm drainage, public water supply, and fire protection service capacities are available to serve future uses of this site, either with its current Plan and zoning designations or if the site is redesignated. The City of Tigard notifies applicable public and private utility providers of pending development applications. 6. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal. The school district states that the proposal will not create the potential to exceed capacity in the elementary or intermediate school. The district does note that Tigard High School already exceeds capacity and that this proposal has the potential to increase high school enrollment by three students. The district also notes that there is excess capacity in the district's Tualatin High School and there is the option of considering increasing the capacity of Tigard High School by adding portable classrooms. 7. Plan Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because development resulting from the proposed redesignation of the site would tend to reduce the anticipated traffic onto SW 72nd Avenue and other nearby streets as compared to development under the current zoning. SW 72nd Avenue is classified as a major collector street with good connection to several arterials. Although residential use of the site would be anticipated to generate more nighttime and weekend traffic than most of the permitted uses in the current C-P zone, that traffic would be expected to be on SW 72nd Avenue, not on local streets in adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Engineering Division will review any future development proposal for the site and may require improvements to affected public streets to reduce potential adverse traffic impacts.. 8. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of approval of any future development of this site. Necessary street improvements would be required to be installed by the developer at the time of redevelopment. The Tigard Engineering Department would review any future development proposals for the site with regard to necessary road improvements. 9. Plan Policy 8.2.2 is satisfied because Tri-Met offers bus service on SW 68th Parkway and on Hampton Street each less than one quarter mile from the site. Therefore, the proposed redesignation would locate an intensive type of STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 5 development within close proximity of an existing public transit route. ( 10. Plan Policy 9.1.2 is satisfied because the proposed radesignation would provide the opportunity for high density residential development in proximity to transit routes, major highways, shopping, and employment centers thereby promoting efficient use of the transportation system and reduced energy consumption. 11. The locational criteria for Medium-High Density Residential uses specified in Policy 12.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The subject properties are not committed to low density development. b. Density transition, buffering, and screening requirements of the Community Development Code may be used to help make future development on the subject properties compatible with neighboring low density, single family residences. C. The subject site has direct access to SW 72nd Avenue, a major collector street, and is in close proximity to Highway 217 and I-5, which are both functionally classified as arterial. d. Serious development limitations such as steep slopes or poor drainage are not evident on the site. Essential public facilities are present and have sufficient capacity to serve future development on the properties. e. Public transit is available on SW 72nd Avenue and Hampton Street within one quarter mile of the site. f. The site is within one quarter mile of a business and office center on Hampton Street and within one quarter mile the corner of SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street which is presently undergoing development as a consumer commercial area. The applicant also suggests that housing opportunities in the Tigard Triangle will provide a mix of uses that compliment employment centers much as the Kruse Way corridor is developing. g. The applicant anticipates that private open space and recreational facilities will be provided as part of development of the site. In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 6 a change in the neighborhood or Community which affects the subject parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been a mistake or inconsistency with regard to the original ( designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1.1.1, Implementation Strategy 2% COMMU-nitj DGVelopment Code Section 18.22.040(A)). The applicant's statement asserts that a change in circumstances has occurred in that there is now a significant demand for housing opportunities within close proximity to employment centers. This sort of demand was not as evident just a few years ago. Substantial growth in the region has let to increased traffic congestion and increased commuting times. Proximity to one°s place of employment is now a major factor in deciding where to live. The housing industry has responded by developing densities of housing close to employment centers. The applicant points to the neighboring Kruse Way area as an example of such a mixed use, mixed residential density area that has developed in recent years. Opportunities within the Tigard Triangle for developing any type of housing, especially multi-family housing, are extremely limited except for multi- family development above the first floor in mixed use developments. The Planning Division staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that increased demand for housing near employment centers constitutes a change in circumstances. Our assessment is based not only on our discussions with developers but also on discussions with potential residents of the City looking to live nearby or within easy access of their places of employment and with present residents who are concerned about their increased commute times. The present Plan Map designates the most land for higher density residential development far from employment and commercial centers. The primary multi family designated areas are at the far western and southwestern edges of the city. The Planning Commission and City Council are well aware of difficulties that have arisen as these areas have developed and as rapid growth has occurred in the city in general. A common complaint in recent years has been the great increase in traffic in the newly developing areas and in developed areas through which the new residents must travel to reach I-5, Highway 217, and local employment centers. Providing higher density housing opportunities nearer the Triangle, the 72nd Avenue corridor, Washington Square/Lincoln Center, the Central Business District, and near I-5 and Highway 217 is a logical response to undesirable consequences of growth. There has also been an increase in mixed use developments and less strict segregation of land uses in other cities. Because mixtures of uses can result in decreased traffic and fuel consumption, staff supports integration of land uses where uses are compatible through proper site planning. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 7 1 i We find that the subject site in ideally located with regard to the Plan"s locational criteria for medium-high density residential especially with respect to proximity to employment centers and highway and transit access. C. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the City Council adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0008 and Zone Change ZON 93-0002 based upon the foregoing findings. ~l STAFF REPORT - CPA 93-0008/ZON 93-0002 - ROCKWELL - PAGE 8 AI PHA ENGINMEM 4G INC. ( ENGINEERING • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • SURVEYING A REQUEST FOR A COMPRFIEENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CFIANGE FROM COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL (C-P) TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (R-25) RESIDENTIAL l Prepared for: CRI'T'ERION EQUITIES 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Prepared by- ALPHA ENGINEERING 9600 SW Oak Street, #230 Portland, Oregon 97223 June 4, 1993 \X'E~T • S111T[ 230 9600 S.W. OAK & PORTLAND, OREGON 97223. 503-452-5003 • FAX 503-452-4043 June 3, 1993 Jerry Offer, Associate Planner Current Planning City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard OR 97223 RE: Hampton Park Development Dear Jerry, Enclosed is a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and a zone change. This application is intended to prepare the property for a future application for a multi-family development. Included is the information and the number of copies requested by the City. Under a separate cover, you will receive the $727.00 application fee and a written authorization from the property owner. My Client would appreciate having the public hearing with the City Council scheduled as soon as possible. I appreciate all of the assistance your staff and yourself have provided to help us complete this application. Please contact me if you need any further information. Sincerely, ALPHA ENGINEERING Mark Dane Staff Planner cc: Mark Rockwell 2Z7_- "/03/93 09:32 VS03" "4 7297 CITY OF TIGARV- X001/002 'L ITYY OF IGARG, OREGON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMDMENT1ZONL CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE At2ENDMENT APPLZC TION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY -*-X AL so f')Or1try : CASE NO. MARK£~ OTHER CASE NO'S: A!-rF%A ENGINEERatS4 116W OAK, 07-30 RECEIPT NO. F'o~T ~ANo 'R 223 . APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: yl C5'f 51 D1; of 5 • w. ~D'i'!i AV E ~ PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION EA-'f 51D~-: of 5.W. 7ZND PAVE (A) Application form (1) 500TROF aM"U1Z16T Sj~T, N0M 6rr 86VF-LAND "AD , (B) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. HAP No: Z'SI 1 A6 authorization Sy LOTS No.. 800a 601 Itoo -1- 1000 _ (C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE 5•o 6 Ar-FtE5 (pre-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* Sers wit 5 of &,Qn0Ki%A1i0N (D) Filing fee (t ) ADDRESS PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes " APPLICANT* Gf~rsEKvo*i ~G2u1't1~7 _ (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS I637-5 5w ecoNe.5 rl~-Ry-y ecw4 PHONE: 635 - Z'1016EU location (pre--app check. list) CITY LAi<ro•oss~ F, ZIP oFR Rno35 (F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from G-F to-Z5M~£,°,Sny and a Zone Change from C-4> to R- 7-5 N.P.O. Number: OR• The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code City Council Approval Date: 0737F 23P Revd: 5/87 PROPOSED: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Medium-High Density (R-25) Residential. LOCH la''Si4: A 5.06 acr-- parcel of land &on4 ng o the east side of SW 72nd Avenue and the west side of SW 70th Avenue between SW Elmhurst Street and SW Beveland Road. LEGAL DESCR.UMONS: Tax lots 800, 801, 900, and 1000, Tax Map 2S1 1 AB Tigard, Oregon. Total area: 5.06 Acres. r i 5 3 1 S 1 ' INTRODUCTION This application is to seek an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to change a 5.06 acre Commercial Professional parcel to Medium-High Density (_R,-25) Residential. In the Comprehensive Plan Policies, the Commercial Professional Zone and the Medium-High Density (R-25) Residential Zone must meet the same locational criteria, to suggest that the land uses are somewhat interchangeable. We believe that a change in circumstances has occurred since the original designation on the Comprehensive Plan and the remainder of this narrative will serve as the supporting documentation. The Tigard Triangle area is developing as a high quality business center much like the Kruse Way Corridor to the east of the site. The Kruse Way Corridor has an added dimension to this business center concept, by providing a mix of housing types so the public can live close to their employment. A similar situation is possible in the Tigard Triangle but there is a shortage of sites that would be viable to develop high quality multi-family in close proximity to the business centers. The subject site does not have the size or site configuration necessary to develop as a business park or office park to effectively compete as a viable commercial use. It also appears as though a commercial use would intrude more into the residential area just by the nature of its design requirements. A multi-family project must meet more strict design requirements and screening and buffering to fit into the site more positively. We will have designed for this amendment proposal a suitable residentially scaled attractive project that proposes significant screening, setbacks and buffers from the existing residences. The multi-family market is now strong and, in this case, provides a housing choice that is not available at this time to complement the Tigard Triangle. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is an approximately 5.06 acre relatively flat parcel of land. The property fronts on a major collector, SW 72nd Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. Single-family development abuts the site on all sides. A nice collection of mature trees exist along the SW 72nd Avenue frontage and will remain with the proposed project. The site is rectangular in shape and is adjacent to an existing residential area and can f have access to all public facilities. t 2 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES PLAN POLICY 1.1.2 IIl WLEMENTATION STRATEGY change is consistent with Plan Policies and change in circumstances affecting parcel or neighborhood, or . a mistake in original land use designation As will be discussed in detail, this request for a change to Medium-High Density Residential is consistent with all the applicable Plan Policies and locational criteria for Medium-High Density Residential designation. Changes in circumstances have taken place affecting this parcel, neighborhood, metropolitan housing policies and the preference the public has indicated in the past few years to live closer to their places of employment. As the Tigard Triangle area continues to develop, a pattern much like the Kruse Way area is resulting, an area of high quality development on major transportation corridors where people can work in the office and business centers and have a choice of quality housing opportunities, mixes of single-family and multi-family; in effect, a mixed use development on a broader scale. The subject parcel meets all the locational criteria outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for a Medium-High Density Residential Zone designation. Development of nearby business centers and the absence of high quality multi-family housing in the immediate area make this an ideal site to provide housing for the continuing development of the business and office parks. Metropolitan housing policies have caused a change in circumstances since the original adoption of Comprehensive Plans, increasing housing density requirements on communities to approximately 10 units per acre, up from an original mandate of approximately 8 units per acre. Recent decisions by Metro to limit extending the Urban Growth Boundary changes the circumstances to continue to develop more intensely. These recent policies, Metro wide, along with the continuing demand for multi-family housing and the public's increasing desire to live closer to where they work to mi* imi a commute time and increase leisure time make this an attractive, ideally located Medium-High Density Residential site. PLAN POLICY 2.1.1. NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW OF PROPOSAL For a comprehensive review of our proposal by the neighborhood, we will implement all the strategies outlined in the Plan Policies. We will inform and meet with the appropriate Neighborhood Planning Organization up until the scheduled hearing date. The Plan Amendment process assures that affected owners are notified. The City also assists the process in providing meeting areas in City Hall. PLAN POLICY 6.1.1 INCREASED HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES The policy is satisfied by offering housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. All services are available to this site and the proposed design preserves the trees and character along the 72nd Avenue frontage to the maximum extent. The proposal would provide for additional multi- family development and would increase the net housing opportunity on buildable lands in the City. The City is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal housing opportunity mix of single-family and multi-family units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. This redesignation request would further the City's compliance with these requirements. 3 PLAN POLICIES 6.3.2. AND 6.3.3. COMPATIBILITY WITH LOWER DENSITY ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL ZONE These policies will be satisfied through strict buffering and screening criteria in the Community Development Code. The increased setbacks, density limitations and height restrictions will mandate a development more compatible with adjacent residential areas than the existing zone designation of Com- rcial Professional. PLAN POLICY 6.6.1 BUFFERING AND SCREENING This policy will be satisfied through the Design Review process. Any future development will be subject more stringent buffering and screening requirements. PLAN POLICIES 7.1.2. 7.2.1 7.4.4 7.6.1 PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE CAPABILITIES The Policies are satisfied because no development is proposed for this application. However adequate public service capacities are, and will be made available to serve future development on the property. Water is currentlty available on SW 72nd Avenue, with sanitary sewers close by. Site drainage will be directed to nearby storm sewers. Erosion control techniques will be included as part of the site development plan, at the time of any future constuction. PLAN POLICY 7.8.1 ADEQUACY OF SCHOOL SYSTEM The Tigard School District is being informed of this proposal. It is our understanding that the School District is also reviewing proposed changes to school attendance boundaries to alleviate overcrowding in existing classrooms and to provide additional capacity to serve future growth. PLAN POLICY 8.1.1 SAFE AND EFFICIENT STREET SYSTEM AND PLAN POLICY 8.1.3 ROADWAY EMPROVEMENTS The proposed development directly abuts SW 72nd Avenue a developed major collector street. Street right of way will be dedicated along SW 72nd Avenue upon the application for future development. At that same time the applicant will up-grade necessary improvements on SW 70th Avenue to serve as access to the project. Tri-Met service is available abutting the site at SW 72nd Avenue. PLAN POLICY 8.2.2 LOCATING INTENSIVE LAND USE IN AREAS SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSIT This policy is satisfied because Tri-Met offers bus service on SW 72nd Avenue, less than one quarter mile from the properties. The proposed redesignation would locate an intensive type of development on an existing public transit route to maximise use. PLAN POLICY 12.1.1 LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLAN DESIGNATION The proposal is in complete agreement with the outlined locational criteria for Medium-High Density Residential use. 1. Density transition, buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code will assure that the development will be compatible with adjacent residences. 2. Any proposed development plan will maximize the privacy of the existing residential area. 3. The subject parcel fronts on and has direct access to SW 72nd Avenue, major collector street. 4. The subject site is relatively flat, with some tree cover, and is able to be fully serviced; so no development limitations exist. 5. Tri-Met service is available on 72nd and so public transit is available within one quarter mile. 4 6. Convenience retail services are available nearby. Also relevant is the part increased housing opportunities will play in the development of the Tigard Triangle, an area that will provide a mix of uses; employment centers with complementing housing areas, much like the Kruse Way Corridor is developing to the east of the subject site. 7. The proposed development will provide its own open space and recreational facilities. l 5 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT This application follows the Plan Amendment process and the subsequent notification procedures required to insure the general public may become involved in the planning process. Additionally, neighborhood meetings will be held to present our proposal to the immediate area. GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING By following the designated process and by providing a factual basis to support said change, this amendment conforms to said goal. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL GOAL Not applicable. GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS Not applicable. GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORICAL AREAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES Not applicable, except for open space requirements of the Medium-High Density (R-25) Residential Zone. Note a tree survey will be completed to identify any signifigant trees on site, so that they may be accomdidated where possible in the future development plans. GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCE QUALITY The development would conform to all environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS Not applicable. GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS Not applicable. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF STATE The subject project will provide jobs and services to residents of the State. Development of the site will have a positive influence on the tax base. GOAL 10 - HOUSING The proposal will provide for additional housing opportunities as promoted by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires that the City maintain a minimum housing opportunity rate for developable lands of 10 units per acre and a minimum 50/50 opportunity mix for single-family and multi-family housing. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Urban services exist on or in close proximity to the subject site. The proposed Plan Amendment would allow for the use of these facilities and services in an efficient and reasonable manner. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION The proposed use would make efficient use of a major transportation corridor. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION Greater efficiency is achieved by placing increased intensity along high capacity transportation corridors. GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. ti 6 !TA[[f I~ Z w ✓ w ■ A 1? •o } ~qP acsscA •i j 1•. iTUATA !T~ ~ i~~ ~ 1 V • 1 CSI SITE, sr m R met LOCATION ~ ~ % oliJVaaa aR[cr ~ ~1 I ' e i I pl J ~jJ A M s .[!T[NlIOM G / N EP r Vy ay I.T su • woo • L> 7-1 7TT . r ELEMENTARY 1 ~ e sr. _sl [ .1 SCHOOL it r wa cA !c t ' !f VAR • \ L A K f'Ah R~r 4 ■ i w,RM! 3T. ~~7 I ' os it ! O % El V/ ^ f r 6~ ' s.. new e[RreR w[ t r, f ( i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 40 glaq '3 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ced AGENDA OF: A , DATE SUBMITTED: August 4, 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Metzger Park LID PREVIOUS ACTION: PREPARED BY: PJR DEPT HEAD OX CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL N Should the City of Tigard allow the Metzger Park LID assessment to be levied upon properties within the city? STAFF RECOMMENDATION To modify resolution, providing for continuance of levy for a defined period of time, allowing Metzger Park LID/Washington County the opportunity to seek alternative revenue sources. I would recommend three years. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached please find correspondence from Washington County on this matter. Staff has researched files and finds no commitment made at the successful 1987 annexation election with respect to the Metzger Park LID. Council did adopt resolution prior to unsuccessful annexation election implying continuance of LID. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt attached resolution prepared by Washington County. However, + Section 2 provides only limited protection for the City of Tigard in the event of compression under the cap. 2. Modify attached resolution stipulating approval on an annual basis only. 3. Modify attached resolution stipulating approval for a definite period of time, allowing the pursuit of alternative revenue sources. 4. Reject the resolution, thereby excluding properties within the City from the LID assessment. FISCAL NOTES There is no immediate financial impact on the city. Should the City properties be retained within the LID, at the time of financial compaction under the $10/$1000 property tax cap, then the City would be financially impacted to some degree. h:llogin\pat\metzgerl i' MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: August 18, 1993 SUBJECT: Metzger Park - LID 1. User Fees: There is a difference between LID participants and non-participants. Examples: A. 6 Hour Event: In LID - $200, plus cleaning fee Out of LID - $300, plus cleaning fee B. Meeting: No charge to Metzger group $20/hour to non-Metzger group 2. Mailing to LID participants The list of participants arrived to us too late to initiate mailing to all +1,000 participants. Mailing was made to 23 large taxpayers. Attached is copy of the letter. For your information, we have asked the 'Times" and "Oregonian" to publicize the issue and encourage communication with us. PJR/jh attachment h:\1og€nVo\pjr0818.93 I IN OF IG A u August 17, 1993 OREGON Dear Property Owner: As you may be aware, your property is within the Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID). As such, you pay taxes which support the operation and maintenance of this County park. As a City of Tigard property owner, you also pay City taxes for the operation and maintenance of all City parks. The Tigard City Council has been asked to approve (by August 31) the continuation of the Metzger Park LID assessment on properties within Tigard's city limits. Without Council approval, the assessment cannot be levied on properties within the City of Tigard. The assessment was estimated by Washington County at 9-1/2 cents ($.095) per $1,000 of assessed value, or $9.50 per year for a property valued at $100,000. Tigard property owners contribute approximately 70% of the total assessment dedicated to the park. The Council discussed this matter and decided that they would like to hear from those who are impacted before they make this decision.- This item will be on the August 24 agenda for Council action. Although there is no scheduled public hearing, the Council asked that anyone who has an interest in either continuing or discontinuing the assessment call Cathy Wheatley or Liz Newton at 639-4171. Written correspondence is welcomed as well. We are expecting assistance from the Oregonian and Tigard Times newspapers to get the word out to affected residents. This letter is an extended effort to hear from you as one of the area's larger property owners..=;:.We 'apologize for ,the fast turnaround time, but would truly appreciate .a quick note:-or phone call: to:assist.the Council.-as they make their, decision next Tuesday::; st. , In order to provide~~the City;CoimciUwith'thefrinformation' in,* advance of-_their~' ''7 : meeting;; we request=,that.-written-correspondence _.be received by:noon; August 23:~~' The same deadline applies to telephone cal1s..4, Thank you fir yourtconsideration. r4r.<z Y f•.y Since Cit Admi trator . 13125 SW Hall Btvd.,'Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: September 2, 1993 SUBJECT: Metzger Park LID As I mentioned in the Council newsletter last week, a letter was sent to those taxpayers identified as paying the most toward the Metzger LID. No responses were received from those businesses. In addition, in response to the newspaper article asking for input on the LID, we received six responses. Four persons were in favor of continuing with the LID payments and two residents indicated they did not wish to pay more or asked to be eliminated entirely from the LID. (See Attachment) t Residents who responded: Received one response from a non- Tigard resident: Jim Hein Lois Abeling 11260 SW 83rd Lives in Metzger Tigard, OR 97223 Leave as isl 620-2781 No increaselll Thinks "they" have already mismanaged funds. Sheila Kasten 9885 SW Ventura Court h:\login\cathy\mtz.1 Tigard, OR 97223 244-6689 Levy returned to the way it was have them eliminated from LID. Mr. Undle Seacco 10500 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 244-4235 Wants to continue paying into LID Mrs. Lyon 10440 SW 87th Tigard, OR 97223 244-1563 Glad to payl Charlie Bitz 7175 SW Mapleleaf Tigard, OR 97223 244-6995 Wants to continue paying into LID Mrs. W. M. Gates 9700 SW 74th Tigard, OR 97223 245-2849 Satisfied with Metzger Park Jack Reardon Washington Square, Inc. PO Box 23635 Tigard, OR 97281 639-8860 WASHINGTON r COUNTY, OREGON .3 Wv, 1993 ((J~ JUL, 2 6 1993 U Patrick Reilly, City Manager City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Pat: Enclosed is a Resolution for consideration by the City Council. If adopted, this Resolution would provide the necessary approval of the City for the Metzger Park LID assessment which is levied on properties within the City. You will recall from our discussion that after Tigard requested properties within the City be excluded from the district, County Counsel advised that the maximum annual assessment established in the district subsequent to annexation should have the approval of the Tigard City Council. Without approval by the City, the operations and maintenance assessment levied on property within the City would have to be reduced to the pre-annexation amount. The 1988 annual maximum assessment of $40,500 currently provides two-thirds of the operating revenue for Metzger Park. Reverting to the 1981 annual maximum assessment of $27,000 would reduce the operating revenue by one-third. Such a reduction in revenue would severely denigrate services of the Park's operation. You have expressed Tigard's concern of the assessment's impact on the tax rate and potential compression at the property tax limit. We estimate that the LID assessment is $,095/$1,000 of the 1992-93 non-school tax rate of $7.20/$1,000 levied in Tigard. We have inserted language in the Resolution to address this concern in the event the tax rate is projected to approach the $10/$1,000 limit. The County would work with the City to resolve the problem so that the City's ability to levy taxes within the limit would not be restricted in the LID assessment. As we discussed, this Resolution will be placed on the Council's August 9th meeting agenda. The County will need to certify an assessment amount to the tax assessor shortly thereafter. If you need any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, e . A Connie L. Fessler, Asst. Director Support Services Department Enclosure Support Services Department Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 155 North First Avenue, Suite 320 Phone: 503/648-8661 Residents who responded: Jim Hein 11260 SW 83rd Tigard, OR 97223 620-2781 No increaselll Thinks "they" have already mismanaged funds. Sheila Kasten 9885 SW Ventura Court Tigard, OR 97223 244-6689 Levy returned to the way it was have them eliminated from LID. Mr. Undle Seacco 10500 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 244-4235 Wants to continue paying into LID Mrs. Lyon 10440 SW 87th Tigard, OR 97223 244-1563 Glad to payl Charlie Bitz 7175 SW Mapleleaf Tigard, OR 97223 244-6995 Wants to continue paying into LID Mrs. W. M. Gates 9700 SW 74th Tigard, OR 97223 245-2849 Satisfied with Metzger Park Received one response from a non-Tigard resident: Lois Abeling Lives in Metzger Leave as isl h:\login\cathy\mtz.1 Attachment 1 Page 1 Winmar Pacific, Inc. Washington Square, Inc. PO Box 21545 PO Box 21545 Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle, WA 98111 Nesbitt Partners Fringe Land Ore Ltd. Portland Venture Ltd PO Box 21545 6320 Canoga, No. 1620 Seattle, WA 98111 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 US Bank Portland Office Associates Real Estate Mgmt Div., T-3 Windsor Capital Group PO Box 8837 7222 Commerce Center Dr„ #245 Portland, OR 97201 Colorado Springs, CO 80919 Washington Square Plaza Anita and Robert McGill Cafard Company PO Box 1557 PO Box 422 Beaverton, OR 97075 Florham Park, NJ 07932 R. Barry Menashe Sears Roebuck and Co. 6426 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy Tax Department 970W Portland, OR 97221 600 Sierra Madre Villa Pasadena, CA 91107 Mary E. Nelson c/o Canyon Furniture, Inc. Washington Square, Inc. 11295 SW 135th Ave. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., #288-1 Tigard, OR 97223 PO Box 1000', Dallas, TX 75301 David & Linda Hudesman Lamonts Apparel, Inc., Financ.Rptg. 3650 - 131st Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dayton Hudson Corporation Target #345, Tax Dept. 14-1 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 May Department Stores Co. Property Tax Department 611 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Attachment 1 Page 2 *Legacy Health System Larry Hill 500 NE Multnomah St. Portland, OR 97232 James Liebe Watson Scherzer Partners 5440 SW Westgate Dr., #222 Portland, OR 97221 Seafirst Corp. Bank of America of Ore, Dept. 2814 PO Box 6400 Portland, OR 97228 SF Oregon Co. Ltd. Melvin Mark Brokerage Co. 10220 SW Greenburg Rd., No. 150 Portland, OR 97223 Utah State Retirement Fund Cushman & Wakefield, Attn: Jeff West 200 SW Market St., #200 Portland, OR 97201 George H. Nllian c/o AGA, Bullier & Bullier, Inc. 11515 SW Pacific Hwy Tigard, OR 97223 *Letter was returned, marked "not deliverable." We received no responses from any.of these people Page 2 Y 4 ~y Council Agenda Item No. 5 Consideration of the Metzger Park Local Improvement District: An information update will be submitted on this Agenda Item in the Thursday Council Mail. l WASHINGTON COUNTY Inter-Department Correspondence Datoct.ober 19, 1992 To Doug Olson, Facilities Manager From Sue Rebwan, Facilities Management Subject Metzger Park Local 3pprovement District Statistics (Metzger Park LID) The following demographics on Metzger Park Local izt>provemant District have been oiled as of this date, October 19, 1992, and are a reflection of the most current data available. Mr. Bob Haas, LUr Planning; Mr. Dan Malaer, A & T Mapping, and their staff provided County data. Sandra Ordaz, Centex for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, provided population density and latest census statistics (1990). Questions 1. What is the total population of the Metzger LID? 6,730* 2. What is the total population of the City of Tigard? 29,340 3. What is the total population of the City of Tigard within the Metzger Park LSD? City of Tigard: 3,240 City of Portland: 100 Unincorporated: 3.390 (6,730)* 4. What are the total number of tax parcels/lots in the Metzger Park LSD? Assessable tax parcels/lots: 2,114 Nonassessable tax parcels/lots: 16 Total tax paroels/lots: 2,130 -1- f Metzger Park Local Isrprovemient District Statistics (Metzger Park LID) October 19, 1992 Page ##2 5. What are the total number of tax parcels/lots in the Metzger Park LSD with the city limits of Tigard? Total parcels/lots: 1,146 Percentage: 6. What is the tax assessed evaluation of the Metzger Park LSD? i $423,359,478.00 7. What is the tax assessed evaluation of the Metzger Park LSD located within the city limits of Tigard? Non-washington Square: $171,951,960.00 Washington Square: $332,199,323.00 Total: $304,143,283.00 Percentage: 71.8% 8. What portion of Washington Square is in the Metzger Park LSD? All of Washington Square is located within the Metzger Park IM and acoozdinq to A&T data provided also within the City limits of Tigard. 9. What percentage of the Metzger Park LID consists of Washington Square? Percentage of Metzger LID: 31.2% Number of Tax Parcels/Lots: 33 Tax assessed value:$132,391,323.00 10. What is the tax rate per $1,000.00 within the Metzger Park LSD? $.0955/$1,000.00 11. What are the total taxes to be collected on the Metzger Park LID for this year? $40,454.04 -2- c Metzger Park Local Drproven-ent District NNW Statistics (Metzger Park LID) October 19, 1992 Page #3 12. What are the dimensions of the Metzger Park LID? How many acres/square miles? i The dimensions are appni mate? y 2 miles lorry by 1 1/4 miles wide. i There are an estimated total of 1,280 acres within the Metzger Park IM. 13. How many acres/square miles of the Metzger Park LID are within the city limits of Tigard? 03are are an estimated 700 acres of the Metzger Park IM within the city limits of TUjard. Census Data: Mileage Densi CitV Population Square City of Metzger 3,149 .8 3,936.3 City of Tigard 29,344 10.2 2,876.9 Sandra Ordaz, Portland State University, was not able to provide a census base on the area known as the Metzger Park LID; however this data should give an indication the total persons/square mile within the immediate area of the Metzger Park LID and City of Tigard (as of 1990). Attachments 1. Attachment I: The report generated by A&T showing the tax information for Metzger Park LID. The highlighted areas reflect the City of Tigard tax parcels/lots within the Metzger Park LID, and the Washington Square tax parcels/lots both within the Metzger Park LID and the City of Tigard city limits. (Please see report legend.) 2. Attadrnent II: A copy of the demographics provided by the City of Tigard in November of 1991, presumably based on 1990 statistics. 3. Attachments III & IV: a. Map ONE: Showing Metzger Park LID in relation to the Portland Metropolitan area. ~r b. Map Tw: _The other reflecting the streets and boundaries of the t~ Metzger Park LID. -3- n" 0 70 N 9585 S.W. Washington Square Rd. • Portland, Oregon 97223 Mailing Address: P.O. Sax 23835 • Tigard, Oregon 97223-0045 (503) 639-8860 a FAX (503) 620-5612 FAX TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: TIME: FROM: -16-Ak , PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLO NG PAGE(S) TO: I NAME: COMPANY: FAX - TELEPHONE WE ARE TRANSMITTING A TOTAL OF PAGE(S) IM MM-EMS COVER LETTER IF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE PHONE US AT .(603) 639-8860 OR RETURN A MESSAGE ON FAX NO. (503) 620-5612 COMMENTS: TO' d ZOO' ON Sb: OT 26, bZ 6nH 7TaCn7acnc: I IAwnnc kin 10hlTUCUm 9G RC 9585 S.W. WaShington Squafe Rd. ° Purttand. Oregon 97223 t.lathng Add(aass. P G °oo-f 23635 + Ttgxtn. Ofrguf% 57223-0095 t5o3) 639-8860 May 5, 1988 Bonnie Hayes, Chairperson and Fellow Board Members Board of Commissioners Washington County 150 N. First Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Dear Board Members: On March 23, 1988, a letter was authored by Walter L. Peters, Chairman, Metzger Park LID Advisory Board, informing you of the Park Board's vote to request a raise in the Local Improvement District assessment by $13,500, for a total of $40,500, and requesting the Board of Commissioners initiate: the assessment increase process for Metzger Park Improvement District. Subsequently, in your meeting of April 12, 1988, you voted to approve the request. As a member of the Metzger Park Advisory Board who voted against the proposal and the representative for a property owner which pays a substantive portion of the assessment, I would like to point out my reasons for opposition 1.c, any increase in this LID assessment. 1. The requested assessment of $40,500 is $12,000 more than the budget need for 1988-89. No concrete reasons were presented justifying the need for nor was a budget provided outlining how the Park would spend an additional $13,500 annually. 2. $17,024 is the amount budgeted for maintenance of the park grounds and basic building maintenance and county charges for assessment collection. The remainder of the budget includes $17,166 funding for a park. coordinator (county employee) and other operating costs of $6,935 ($6,000 electricity) related to the building only. With only $8,000 income from the rental of the building last year, the park is spending $24,100 to "coordinate" and heat the building essentially for limited rental for non-community activities. Even though there is some use of the building by the community, it is very limited. I have been unable to obtain from the park coordinator an exact schedule of activities of a community ZO'd Z00'oN 9b:OT 26.bZ 6nH 7Tggn7qcnq:iqi gAHnnq Nn1PNTPgHM Page 2 Washington County Board of Commissioners May 6, 1988 nature; however, they are admittedly few and are not of the nature requiring the services of a park coordinator. In view of the present use of this building, it is unfortunate it was constructed in the first place. However, to continue to put tax dollars into the operation and "coordination" of the building is, in my viewpoint, subsidizing a county job for no real benefit to the community and a disservice to the LID tax payers. 3. It is inevitable that, some time in the near future, Metzger Park will be included in a city.. When this occurs, the most likely course of action would be to turn the park over to the city. It is very unlikely the city will be willing to spend the funds necessary to maintain and operate a building for such limited use and return on investment. Major commercial properties, including Washington Square, Embassy Suites Hotel, the Washington Circle project, which includes Target and Lamont's, and Lincoln Center, fund a major portion of this LID. As you know, all of these properties, as well as many of the residents of the LID, are now in the city of Tigard. Ways to combine services and reduce costs should be the major focus of the community and governing agencies rather than an increase in one of the layers of taxation which, once in place, becomes very difficult to ever reduce. If the building were being used by the community and, therefore, there was justification for the expense of a park coordinator and large utility bills, I would have no objection. However, I see this as a simple business decision which eliminates the high cost of maintaining and operating the building for the limited purpose it presently serves. The time to reduce the use and cost of maintaining the building is now. I feel the Board can work with the present assessment of $27,000 per year, which is more than an adequate amount to maintain the park, including limited use of the building for community activities. I ask that you consider these points and my objection as a matter of record for. the public hearing scheduled for May 24, 1988. Respectfully, ack F. eardon, CSM/CMD General Manager and Member, Metzger Park Advisory Board JFR:crw cc: Dan Boyden, Trammel Crow Gary Gray, Nesbitt Partners Ron Roberts Walter Peters 20 'd Z00'oN 9b:01 26, t77- 6nH 7,i9Sn74cnS:-t~i gNHnnq NnIgNTNCNm ~ P c c.D Cj- l a y l ~'3 August 23, 1993 Tigard City Council: We are Carroll and Pat Lantz, home owners at 7270 S.W. Hermoso Way, the corner of 72nd and Hermoso Way. We wish to express our opposition to the zone change from Business/Professional to R25 which has received the planning commission recommendation for approval. The change will not enhance the livability or value of our neigh- borhood within the Triangle. Our planning commission refers to Kruse Way as the ideal mix of apartment, private homes and business/professional. Kruse Way started as open land with a few homes, which were removed as Kruse Way was constructed. There are no homes or apartment complexes directly on Kruse Way. If there were, they would have the same problems we already experience getting on and off 72nd Avenue in our immediate area and the grid lock we now experience from the light at Hampton Street, South through Varnes Street. We do not believe the planning commission is following any of the guidelines laid out by the various planning committees, including past NPO's which did give thought to traffic flow in and out of the Triangle, accessibility and even preservation the neighbor- hoods. We do not believe the proposed change is in the best interest of the Triangle. We ask that you deny the proposed zone change. C 11 W. L z Pats R. Lantz L'~~ 7270 S.W. Hermoso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 4)0n CC COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM :9'. Sr' CITY CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 9/JJ,1Z: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE SUBMITTED: July 29, 1993 AGENDA OF: Auaus~ -1 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of PREVIOUS ACTION: -property for right of way for the 109th Avenue tension ro'ect PREPARED BY: Gar Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approve the purchase of a portion of the Ristig - Kielhorn property for right of way for the 109th Avenue Extension project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the purchase of a portion of the Ristig - Kielhorn property for $161,600 and authorize the City Administrator to sign any documents necessary for completion of the purchase. INFORMATION SUMMARY We have successfully negotiated the purchase of a portion of the Ristig - Kielhorn property for $161,600. The total amount is within 10% of the appraised amount of $159,150 as authorized by the Council on 6-9-92. The purchase is required to construct the 109th Avenue Extension project. When completed, the 109th Extension project will provide a new roadway connection between Little Bull Mountain and Pacific Highway in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FISCAL NOTES The 109th Avenue Extension right of way costs are funded from the Traffic Impact Fees. In the current capitol improvement program this was approved as a 'committed project' from the previous fiscal year. ga\ss-109rk.rows N.W. 1 /4 S.E. 1 /4 -SECTION 1032S R1 W W.M. CITY OF TIGARD WASHING ION COUNTY' OREGON T.L. 400 Nq N89'25'27'E 269.75' T p v 28-34'47' i R e 230.00' i T - 58.58' 3 Oy'E _ C NgSg~7ry4 ~`5~. ~ CH BRC -3N49'37'40'E 9 Q< p CHD.-113.54' * o to 3 N8927 *17'E T_ z 96-DyVt f v{• 295.02 p . 1741'58' 5,388. s% ft S'S R 230.00' 1.15E s ft 0.23 acres 1= T_ 35.81' acres N00'28'38'W L - 71.05' 11.22 C8 - N2a*29'17'E p 6051'14' W- 70.77' R:170.00' L• s R T - 99.85" n N89 27'17'E L - 180.56' tO C4 af94 288.24' 32.45 CH ORO - S33'29'26'W ~y o CH - p 14'34'29' D. 17219' z R - 230.00' 'G T - 29.41' L - 58.51' C8 - N10'21'03'E 9,206. s m ft 'A' c0 - 38.35' 0.21 acres T.L. 400 EXHIBIT N89'27'17'E p 06'43'53' 302 54' 0 4811' R 195.00' --1 p 11'25'02' r 3 T 11.47' 6 L 2291' 1- R 135.00' in :r c n CH 8RO - S06'25.44'W p 18'56'08' ° L 28.90 n D. 2290' 320.00 2 CH R 00 2 R CB - N08'48'20'E 'a to R + 2905.00 00 L ~ 1005.75 5.75 CD - 26.88' L 21.50 C8 : S81 04'40'E Z 89'27'17'W r it nAL J; Al C8 N19'45'31'E CD 105.27 CD - 21.50 0 325.50' N89'27'17'E 194.81 RA 7438'28' \ O O ~ 135.00' O T e 103.54' \ l _ 176.65! ` S. 71.G C CB - NS158'04 ~7 J6' E CD 6 184.32' v ey `Q Q.'.:'.'.' 60.07•..':::::::.':::. ' p - 79'39'38' of R ; 95.00 27,912 sq. ft. T 62.64' .1.0.64 a s L. 271.11' Z> CS - N49'37'29'E .............89..7 7' CD - 249.80' 3c O Sg Rk,3 6 3g 60.07 t~ p ~ 1856'06' S R 380.00 u L 125.58 v C8 a Se1'04'40'E CD - 125.01 T.L. 700 y z