Loading...
City Council Packet - 10/12/1993Ai;ix 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 sheet. Business agonda it+errts r can be heard in any order after 7-30 p.m t 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, Oct. 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, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 AGENDA ^ o STUDY SESSION (Town Hall Conference Room - 6:30 P.M.) Agenda Review Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1. BUSINESS MEETING (Town Hall - 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. PROCLAMATION: Disability Employment Awareness Month - October 1993 4. 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: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 14, 28 & 29, 1993 4.2 Receive & File: Council Calendar 4.3 Authorize Submission of a Division of State Lands Wetlands Planning Assistance Grant Application - Resolution No. 93-L- 4.4 Authorize Dedication of Reserve Strips as Public Right of Way to Allow Extension of Streets - Resolution No. 93-3! 5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING (TRIAD) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006. MARGE DAVENPORT AND BEVERLY SWINK, APPELLANTS LOCATION: 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 10136, tax lots 100 and 200, 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, and 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, and 900). An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and final order approving a request for Site Development Review and Planned Development approval of a 348 unit, 17 building, multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Planned Development Review approval criteria are found at Community Development Code Section 18.80.120. Site Development Review approval criteria are found at Code Section 18.120.180. In addition, these above listed sections require consistency with the following Community Development Code Chapters: 18.54, 18.56, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 2 (Triad Appeal Hearing - cont'd) a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Community Development Department d. Appellant Testimony e. Applicant Testimony f. Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal g. Council Questions/Comments h. Public Hearing Closed i. Council Consideration: Motion directing staff to Prepare Final Order 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0008 GRILLO/HUGHES LOCATION: Citywide. A request to amend section 18.64.040 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code to allow Construction Contractor's Professional Offices as a Conditional Use in the C-P (Professional Commercial) zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.22.040 and 18.64.040 (A). a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Community Development Department f. Public Testimony Proponents Opponents g. Council Questions/Comments h. Public Hearing Closed i. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 93-2~ 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW & UPDATES Scholls Ferry Billboard (Legal Counsel) 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT ccato12.a3 COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 3 Council Agenda Item 311 T I G A R D C-1 T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 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. Council reconvened into open session at 6:37 p.m. • CORRECTION TO MINUTES: Councilor Fessler noted that Page 12, Item 11, Paragraph 2, of the September 28, 1993 Council minutes contained a misspelled word. ("execution" should have been "executive"). WCTCC (Washington County Transportation coordinating committee): Councilor Schwartz advised the County will be seeking support to ask the State to reconsider projects cut from the Six-Year Plan. Also relating to transportation in Washington County, Councilor Schwartz noted that some MSTIP projects have been completed under budget estimates. The question has been raised as to whether the left-over funds can be used in the community where the under-budget project is located. There has been support (including from Beaverton) for setting aside any funds left over from individual projects. Then, once all MSTIP projects have been completed, the County would follow a process to prioritize and fund other transportation projects throughout the County. Council discussion followed on the MSTIP process for prioritizing projects. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 1 • CITs (Citizen Involvement Teams): Community Relations ^y Coordinator Newton reported on the first round of CIT meetings. So far, three of the four CIT's have met with over 80 people attending. Ms. Newton advised the facilitators have been doing an exceptional job. The "Tigard Talks" community survey was used to determine the initial CIT discussion topics. In several instances, the people attending asked for education on the issues of concern to them. Ames Orchard Subdivision: City Administrator advised some of the residents neighboring this subdivision were questioning whether there were differences in the plans over what was approved by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed with Council what had been presented to them at the July 27 meeting. A portion of the street alignment was now slightly different; however, the subdivision plans remain in substantial conformance to what the City Council approved. It was noted that minor modifications are allowable. • Hart Property Update: Community Development Director noted Mrs. Hart has entered into an agreement with the city. Under this agreement, she has been given deadline to begin removing brush piles. If progress is not made, then Mrs. Hart must appear before the municipal judge on October 26, 1993. • Waymire Property: Property owned by Mr. Kenneth Waymire has been the subject of some concern with regard to tree removal. (This property is near the high school, north of what is known as the Gray property). Tree removal has been approved for the road only, and in addition, erosion control must be in effect. A meeting with neighbors is planned to clarify with them the location and number of trees to be removed. Council briefly discussed the issue of trees and the recurring problems associated with development of infill. This is a potential CIT subject. Council discussed the necessity to identify the natural resources and prioritize their importance in balance with development pressures. Meeting recessed at 7:25 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 2 BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - no visitors. 3. Mayor Edwards declared October 1993 as Disability Employment Awareness Month. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 14, 28 & 29, 1993 4.2 Receive & File: Council Calendar 4.3 Authorize Submission of a Division of State Lands Wetlands Planning Assistance Grant Application - Resolution No. 93-50 4.4 Authorize Dedication of Reserve Strips as Public Right of Way to Allow Extension of Streets - Resolution No. 93-51 Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the correction of the minutes as noted during the Study Session. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING (TRIAD) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIELT PDR 93-0006. MARGE DAVENPORT AND BEVERLY SWINK, APPELLANTS LOCATION: 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100 and 200, 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, and 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, and 900). An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and final order approving a request for Site Development Review and Planned Development approval of a 348 unit, 17 building, multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Planned Development Review approval criteria are found at Community Development Code Section 18.80.120. Site Development Review approval criteria are found at code section 18.120.180. In addition, these above listed sections require consistency with the following Community Development Code Chapters: 18.54, 18.56, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) a. Public hearing was opened. ` CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 3 b. Mayor asked for declarations or challenges. He questioned whether any members of Council wished to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits. Councilor Hunt advised he visited the site with City Engineer Worley Ana :hen, on his own, went again to the site for a sscord time and walked through the area. Councilor Fessler advised she was on Council when the Triad subdivision was heard before. She noted she had submitted written testimony before she was elected to Council with regard to the transportation amendment. She noted this testimony was in the Council record. Councilor Fessler advised she was willing to look at the issue again. All Councilors indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application. Mayor Edwards asked if there were any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear the matter, or whether there was a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council. C. Staff report: Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. He advised that Council's packet contained the Final Order of the Planning Commission, as well as the minutes of the Planning commission meeting where they approved the Final Order. In addition, he referred to an Exhibit "C" which modified the wording of one of the conditions relating to the bicycle facilities. Community Development Director Murphy noted the appeal notice from the appellants, Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink, were also in the Council packet. Copies of the overhead projector pages used by Mr. Murphy during his presentation to Council, have been filed with the Council packet material. Mr. Murphy advised Council they would be deciding whether or not to uphold the Planning Commission decision, to deny the decision, or modify it in some fashion. Mr. Murphy reviewed the history of the Triad property. He also summarized the elements of the appeal (see overhead projector page which has been filed in the Council packet material labeled "Grounds for Appeal.") Mr. Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel, reviewed the planned development proposal which was appealed and then remanded by LUBA. Mr. Coleman reviewed the following with regard CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 4 to the previous application and LUBA remand: (1) procedural criteria in 18.80.120 needed to be identified and addressed; (2) clarify whether Council approval was for a concept plan or detailed plan. (Planning Commission has made it clear that this is a concept plan); (3) transportation element has been resolved by filing a new application. Legal Counsel Coleman advised this is a new application with a new Planning commission decision. The appellants have raised a series of issues. In order to approve the project, council will have to resolve whether the application has satisfied all of the standards. (i.e., standards for school capacity, tree preservation, the density on the site, impact on scenic resources, wetland and geological hazard issues.) The facts in this proceeding were very similar to the facts in the previous proceeding. Council had already interpreted the Code in a variety of situations; however those interpretations are not binding on Council. He pointed out, however, that all of the above-listed issues were raised and argued at LUBA and those Council decisions were affirmed. Mr. Coleman advised the Planning Commission has submitted a Final Order which covers all the issues, and the Council's task is to determine whether or not they agreed as to how the issues had been resolved. Mr. Coleman also advised the focus should be on the information that was before the Planning Commission (a hearing on the record); however, Council had the flexibility to take in new evidence as Council deemed appropriate. City Engineer Wooley reviewed a map showing the neighborhood and how the road system fits together (this map has been filed with the Council packet material). City Engineer noted that, in 1990, Naeve was a collector street for this area on the comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. There had been a number of submittals for site development on the Triad site. Each of those submittals experienced obstacles because of traffic problems in the area. Because of this, in 1990, NPO 6 reviewed the Transportation Map for this area to determine if changes could be made. Council approved that process. NPO 6 decided on a new transportation plan which, while not deemed as ideal by the NPO, appeared to be the best solutions when considering the current zoning for the area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 5 When evaluating the Triad application, staff tested for compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan, as well as past Planning Commission, Council, and LUBA decisions on the property. Mr. Wooley advised that the Triad plan reflects a new alignment of 109th Street north of Naeve, with changes to Naeve to match the new alignment. It is also proposed in the Planning Commission decision that an agreement be drawn up in which Triad would pay $300,000 to the City to go along with money the City has already appropriated to finish the new alignment of 109th, south of Naeve, down to Royalty Parkway. As part of that plan, the connection of Naeve'Street to 99W would also be modified slightly by closing the median at 99W so that only right turns could be made at that location. One would not be able to make left turns in and out of Naeve Street, once the connection to Royalty Parkway was finished. The City has been working with the State Highway Department and has completed a design for that road south of Naeve. Once funded, this section could immediately go to construction, which would include building the road and modifying the traffic signal at 99W. At this time, most of the right-of-way south of Naeve has been acquired. Discussion followed on the proposed transportation configuration and the impacts that would be felt by the surrounding areas. Community Development Director Murphy advised there was an error on the Final Order that was before the Council from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission approved a motion to eliminate Condition No. 14(c). The Planning Commission decided that 109th Street should stay at least 40 feet wide to accommodate future buses, bicycles and pedestrians. City Engineer Wooley clarified that the steep gravel hill of the existing 109th would not connect to the new 109th. The road would dead-end. In response to a question from a Councilor, City Engineer advised the road would either be barricaded or there would actually be a grade difference between the two sections of road. Community Development Director advised that Naeve Street is now a local street. He noted that Lady Marion Street, as shown on the map, would be an extension of Sattler Street, which is considered a collector street. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 6 d. Public Testimony: Legal Counsel Coleman read the following statement. "For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that have been described earlier, and other criteria in the plan or land use regulation, which you believe to apply to the decision." e. Co-Appellant Testimony: Beverly Swink, 15875 SW Greensway, Tigard, Oregon, advised she was also President of the Summerfield Civic Association. She noted that Summerfield did not approve of the proposed 348 apartments. Among the reasons enumerated for disapproval of this subdivision included: • No access to Pacific Highway. • Topography too steep to exit at Beef Bend Road onto Pacific Highway. • Naeve Road was not a desirable exit to Pacific Highway because if a future traffic light was installed, it would be too close to other traffic lights. • This 26-acre piece of land would have limited access to Pacific Highway. • Disagreement that 109th be reconfigured to accommodate the tenants of 348 apartments to reach Pacific Highway. • Concern that only two routes out of the 348-unit complex would be available. • Lady Marian Street is not scheduled for completion until development occurs at some time in the future. • Concern that the new 109th would be used by the residents in the 348-unit complex to go to Albertson's, Payless and other stores, if they are able to turn left onto Naeve and travel to the old 109th through Summerfield. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 7 Concern that increased traffic would be dangerous for the 55-year old and older residents of Summerfield. Ms. Swink noted that many of these residents walk through their community. She advised that Summerfield Drive goes through the middle of a golf course. Golfers are often walking and riding in their golf carts in this area. • Concerns were expressed about the increased number of children skateboarding, rollerblading, and biking through the Summerfield community. • Concern that with all the emphasis on using public transportation, that Triad had not planned on a way to easily access a bus stop on Pacific Highway. • Noted that Little Bull Mountain is designated as a scenic area in the Development Code. She did not think a 348-unit apartment complex was in keeping with this designation. • The area around Summerfield has been saturated with apartments. T • Ms. Swink advised that if the Triad development was approved by City Council, Summerfield requested the Council provide for a "no left turn" on the new 109th and Naeve intersection. Mayor Edwards was advised by Legal Counsel that if additional evidence was presented in addition to what was in the Planning Commission record, any party could request that the record remain open for seven days after this hearing to supplement the record. Co-Appellant Marge Davenport, 15100 SW 109th, Tigard, Oregon presented testimony. Ms. Davenport questioned what the new evidence was as referred to by Mr. Coleman. It was noted that the map submitted for council review during the staff presentation was not submitted at the Planning commission level. Ms. Davenport noted for the record that Mr. and Mrs. Allen Erickson, who live just below her on SW 109th Street were ill and could not be present at this hearing to testify. Mr. and Mrs. Erickson asked Ms. Davenport to convey their objection to approval of the Triad development. She said Mr. Erickson was also concerned about the barrier called for by the plan on the old 109th to the new 109th, which will be below their driveway access. The Ericksons were concerned about access to their tree farm property. 1( CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 8 Ms. Davenport submitted to Council several pages of information which she felt pointed out errors in the Planning Commission Final Order and staff report. In addition, Ms. Davenport submitted a letter concerning misinformation given to the Planning Commission by City Engineer Wooley. (A copy of this material is contained in the packet.) Ms. Davenport reported that in addition to Mr. Wooley's mis-statement to the Planning Commission at the hearing as explained in the letter to City Council, there were a number of other serious mistakes, errors or mis- statements. Ms. Davenport referred to a map concerning L-100 (this plan is on file with the Council packet material.) Ms. Davenport testified on her concerns for the trees in the subject area. Ms. Davenport noted her concern that information from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife was not taken into consideration. (This was noted on Page 13 of the Planning Commission Final Order). Ms. Davenport noted concern that the Planning Commission failed to give consideration to a petition signed by more than 600 persons, asking for denial of the Triad Development. She took issue with Page 17 of the Planning Commission Final Order wherein it stated the site is nearly surrounded by multi-family development or undeveloped property zoned for multi-family use. There is a small area of single family development across 109th from the site. The whole area east of the Triad development is zoned single family. She advised she was not sure if the parking lot requirements for Triad were met. She noted some concern that Page 12 of the report says there are no significant wildlife habitats designated on the site by the plan. She noted she was a science writer and is aware of the absolute necessity of preserving natural resources. She noted her concerns with protection about the Little Bull Mountain natural forest, and referred to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Goal 5. The Little Bull Mountain natural forest, is the largest stand of natural carnivorous trees within the Tigard urban planning area. She noted the Comprehensive Plan says that much, if not most, of the remaining natural areas in Tigard could completely disappear as the community approaches full CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 9 development. She advised it was possible to preserve significant portions of the natural life found in the area despite the trend. She noted planners emphasize the only value of the natural forest was the scenic value. She said she did not believe that was what the Comprehensive Plan says. The report, she advised, states the Triad proposal minimizes the cutting of trees. She disagreed with this statement. She noted there is a letter on file with the City from an arborist stating that these are large fir trees and are almost old growth. She cited sections of the Comprehensive Plan which she felt supported her position. She advised Triad's proposal should be rejected because the plan does not preserve the trees. Other concerns noted by Ms. Davenport included the fact that 109th Street is being rerouted. She advised Triad did not want to include a bike path, but noted there are many bicyclists that regularly use 109th now. She said a bike path is essential, and the intent of recent law passed by the legislature requires bike paths on all new or relocated roads. She noted City Engineer Wooley advised this requirement was in place only if gas tax money was used, but added this did not excuse the safety aspect of the intent of the legislature, which was to cut down on auto traffic and provide for the safety of cyclists. In addition, she advised that there had been no provisions made for bus service, now or in the future, with no pullout on 109th Street. Ms. Davenport said traffic safety issues are one of the most important reasons that the Triad application should be denied. Ms. Davenport reviewed some traffic figures and noted that a dangerous situation would be created in the Summerfield area with Triad's additional traffic. She noted concerns with the transportation configuration with regard to the extension from Royalty Parkway to Naeve Road, which is dependant upon development occurring. Ms. Davenport said the Code appears to require a 348-unit development to provide eight access points. She advised Triad would only have four access points which, in reality, she felt was only three, because one was just a street within the development. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 10 She noted the City Engineer maintains that off-street parking is not essential; she disagreed with this. She noted the Ericksons' have a registered tree farm and sell Christmas trees in November and December of each year; hundreds of cars need to park on the sides of 109th. Also, adequate space for getting in and out of driveways is necessary. Ms. Davenport cited figures and concerns about school district capacity. She referred to the new state law which requires cities to check with school districts about availability of facilities for students before a development can be approved. She noted safety concerns with drive-through traffic in the Summerfield area. There was some question as to the difference in the number of students quoted by Ms. Davenport and the numbers contained in staff material. After brief discussion, Mayor Edwards commented that Ms. Davenport's information was from the State which differed from estimates from the local school district. The recent experience in the school district has been that the estimated numbers of students have come up between 400 and 500 students short of what was projected. Ms. Davenport urged Council to base their decision on the information presented to Council at this meeting. She noted the slate had been erased and previous decisions did not have to be taken into account. Ms. Davenport noted NPO 6 and previous city councils have tried to assure the protection of the Little Bull Mountain natural forest because it is so important to Tigard and its future. She advised the Council was charged to look out for the best interest and safety of Tigard and its citizens. She also noted that 600 signers of a petition have asked Council to deny Triad's application. She said the Planning Department has had three years to obtain an independent traffic study rather than rely on information generated by Kittelson & Associates. She noted Mr. Kittelson was a reputable man, but asked Council to consider that he is also being paid by Triad. Ms. Davenport advised there are many safety issues involved with the traffic generated by this development. Finally, she advised there was no way Triad could comply with the City code requiring eight access points from this 348-unit complex. (Note: Colored photocopies of the treed area were submitted for Council view by Ms. Davenport. These are on file with Council packet material.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 11 At this point in the testimony, Councilor Hunt asked Legal Counsel to report on the status of the new law on school involvement in planning. Legal Counsel advised he had access to a copy of the new legislation and would report on this after a short break in the meeting. f. Public Testimony: Steve Pfeiffer, attorney representing the applicant, 900 SW 5th, Portland, Oregon, 97204 testified. Mr. Pfeiffer advised that Ross Woods, Project Manager for the Triad Development,,was available for questions. In addition, he noted Mr. Wayne Kittelson was present and would be addressing some of the points concerning traffic issues which were brought up during previous testimony. Mr. Pfeiffer advised the only substantive change in this application from the previous application reviewed by Council was one which resulted from the LUBA appeal. He advised the northern-most building had been moved to add some additional trees per the recommendation of Mr. Fishman. He advised it was important to remember the nature of the application. He said it was not a plan amendment; it was not a request for a zone change; it was not a request to modify or increase the density in the area; and it was not an alteration from the long-established policy set for the site and surrounding area through the transportation plan. He advised the application was an implementation application and did not represent a change in the acknowledged plan. He further explained the implementation plan was to build at the density that has been planned on the site, together with transportation improvements as explained by City Engineer. Consequently, advised Mr. Pfeiffer, much of the testimony or concerns Council has heard about this site really are not issues before council. He said it is a question of whether the application meets the criteria set forth by the City. Mr. Pfeiffer advised that Council had in front of them a new application which had literally been ruled upon by LUBA as to the many challenges raised in the prior, nearly identical, application. LUBA, advised Mr. Pfeiffer, affirmed virtually all those issues in terms of the Councils prior interpretation of its ordinance. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 12 Mr. Pfeiffer then went through the different points that were addressed by LUBA and as brought up by the appellants in testimony earlier in the public hearing process. In response to an earlier concern brought forth by Councilor Hunt pertaining to the new law regarding schools, Mr. Pfeiffer advised the new law did not take effect until November 3, 1993. In addition, he advised the new law would require communities and school districts to cooperate to develop infrastructure plans at the school level. The new legislation, he advised, was a compromise between the development community and school districts. Mr. Pfeiffer advised the "no left turn" request on the south bound lane of 109th onto Naeve posed no problem to them. In response to questions by Councilor Hunt, Mr. Pfeiffer advised the developers had explored the possibility of access to the bus shelter at Beef Bend & 99W. One of the problems is the steep grade change from the development. Mr. Pfeiffer said they had no other solution other than to rely on the sidewalks which will be part of the road improvements. In response to some questions concerning vegetation, it was noted that approval of tonight's plan was for concept only. The actual location and the types of vegetation would not be developed until the developers submit the detailed plan. Ross Woods, Triad Development, PO Box 880070, Seattle, Washington, 98138, testified that what was before Council was a concept plan. He noted they hoped to leave as much existing vegetation as possible. He said the Planning commission's requirement was that they demonstrate how they were going to save the trees and protect them. Wayne Kittelson, 610 SW Alder, Suite 700, Portland, Oregon, 97205, advised he was a registered professional traffic engineer and founding principal of Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Mr. Kittelson advised the application before Council, from a traffic point of view, had not changed from the application that was before the Council previously. He advised the traffic analysis had not changed substantially, either. Mr. Kittelson went through a series of overhead projector pages (copies of which are on file with the Council packet material). Points brought out by Mr. Kittelson during his presentation were as follows: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 13 Mr. Kittelson compared the schematic of the traffic as it existed today, as well as what was proposed. • He noted the traffic impact on King city streets, and noted the results if the intersection at Naeve was signalized. • He noted the plan does what it can to discourage movements into and out of Summerfield, while still allowing some traffic activity between neighborhoods. • Finally, in terms of the overall circulation plan, this proposal parallels Highway 99W and gives local residents routes to go between neighborhoods for local trips without going out onto the highway. Mr. Kittelson advised he believes traffic safety would be enhanced through the implementation of the proposed growth system, primarily because of the control of movements at Highway 99W and Naeve intersection. He advised Summerfield and King City neighborhoods were protected from additional through traffic, but not from all through traffic. He noted there were a lot of shopping opportunities that surround the development, and said the Albertson's shopping center was not the only grocery store or retail opportunity in the area. Mr. Kittleson advised local residents are provided an alternative to Highway 99 for short returning trips. He advised he thought the proposed road system was a significant enhancement to the community and to the city and also the function of Highway 99. In response to a question from Mayor Edwards, Mr. Kittelson advised the estimation of 2,088 car trips per day was an accurate figure. He advised the number of vehicles would not be on any one road, but they would come out at several different places and disperse both to the north and south. Council meeting recessed at 9:11 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. (1, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 14 Joe Vine, 15202 SW Alderbrook Place, Tigard, Oregon, 97224. Mr. Vine asked several questions concerning the possibility of increased impact to those persons living on Sattler Street. He questioned whether or not those people could be told how much more traffic Sattler was going to have to handle. In addition, Mr. Vine asked for clarification as to why the petition, with over 600 signatures, was not given greater attention. Mayor Edwards responded the Triad development would generate over 2,000 cars a day. Mayor Edwards indicated he did not know whether numbers had been estimated for potential future projects which could impact Sattler. With regard to the petition, Mayor Edwards deferred to staff to answer this question. Community Development Director Murphy noted this was a quasi-judicial issue which made the difference in the effectiveness of a petition. He advised a petition would be very effective when dealing with legislative matters, like the City Comprehensive Plan. However, when a developer comes in and complies with the Code which has already been set, the petition cannot change the law. A petition may or may not influence the Council; however, it would not change the criteria of the Code and that is what Council would have to go by. f Mr. William Lindsey, 15505 SW 109th, Tigard, Oregon, testified. Mr. Lindsey referred to a map on display and noted concerns about the future development of surrounding property. He advised that additional traffic impact to the area would eventually occur. He said he this future impact had not been taken into consideration in conjunction with the Triad proposal. Mr. Lindsey advised a grievous error had been made when the zoning was changed. He said the application for this project ought to be rejected by sustaining the appeal, and the procedure should be started right away to change the zoning back to what it was originally. He noted that if the property were developed at R-5 or R-7, the traffic impact would be significantly less. Walt Munhall, 14805 SW 103rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. Mr. Munhall advised he was in Canada last summer and spent two weeks in old growth timber. He advised that after this trip he had been "brainwashed thoroughly" as to the importance of greenspaces. He expressed concerns about livability if the Triad development was approved. He said Council should respond to the over 600 people who said "no" to the project. Mr. Munhall advised he thought the project should be residential homes, not apartments. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 15 Mr. Munhall concluded his remarks by asking that if Council did vote for the Triad Development, to please force them to provide big greenspaces to protect growing trees. In addition, he also access to buses should be a major requirement. g. Rebuttal Testimony: Legal Counsel Coleman noted the purpose of rebuttal was to comment on the points that had been raised in opposition to the appellant's position. Marge Davenport advised she would like to comment on the fact they had not heard any testimony about the lack of compliance with the access points to the development. She said this was the key issue because this was not a safe project due to the lack of access points. Ms. Davenport re-emphasized City Council was not bound by previous decisions or by previous testimony. She said Council could make any decision they wanted on this new application. She advised that in addition to the Goal 5 resource, Tigard has a tree code. She noted Mr. Kittelson talked about people being able to walk on the sidewalks to Naeve. She said she didn't realize Triad was going to put sidewalks all the way up to 99W and Naeve. She noted in looking at the plans that it was obvious trees were going to be destroyed. She said they should be preserved. Ms. Davenport advised she could not believe that 2,088 or more cars a day would be an enhancement to the traffic in the area of Tigard anywhere. She further advised she did not think the statement that 600 people who objected to the Triad proposal would not carry any weight should be allowed. Beverly Swink was given an opportunity to rebut. She advised she felt the testimony from the traffic expert stating that the extension would take care of a lot of the traffic problems was incorrect. Ms. Swink advised she thought the traffic would come down onto 109th. In response to a question from Councilor Fessler, Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the transfer of residential units to this area making it high density (R-25). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 16 In response to the earlier question by Councilor Hunt concerning Senate Bill 908 with regard to schools and coordination between school districts and cities, the following clarification was offered. Legal Counsel Coleman advised that by December 31, 1995, where a city or county has within it what is called a high growth school district, those cities and counties must include in their Comprehensive Plans a school facilities plan that is prepared by the district. This would be a long- term planning and coordination effort. This requirement is not effective until November 4. Therefore, between November 4, 1993 and December 31, 1995, where there is a high growth school district, the cities and counties and districts have to coordinate and include some provisions in the plans. Legal Counsel Coleman advised this piece of legislation clearly does not apply to this application, and long term, will not apply to quasi- judicial applications. This legislation will apply to plan and zoning regulations. h. Public hearing was closed. i. Council consideration: • Councilor Schwartz referred to the history of the Albertson's property rezoning. The Albertson 's property, at one time, could have had apartments built on it. With the rezoning which allowed for the Albertson's development, a shift in density had to occur to other parts of the city. Part of this density went to the Triad area. Councilor Schwartz noted the Triad development area is zoned multi- family. If Triad was not approved, other developers could purchase the property and build there. Councilor Schwartz advised the City Council must look at what the current zoning is. Councilor Schwartz added he thought if the tax lots were developed piecemeal, in the long run approximately the same number of units would be added to the area. In addition, there is a possibility that not as many trees could be saved if development occurred piecemeal. Councilor Schwartz noted the Triad development will mean that there will be some major road improvements. The extension of 109th to connect to the King City light would be of benefit. If this development did not go through and smaller developments were allowed to occur, the possibility of significant road improvements would not be as great. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 17 With regard to the tree issues, Councilor Schwartz noted this was a concept plan. A developer does not have the right at this point to cut down any trees. There are still many things that can be done to try to preserve as much of the vegetation as possible. Councilor Schwartz noted that because of the requirements of the Code, it was difficult to take the petition signers into consideration. If this was denied on the basis of the petition signers, at some point either LUBA or a court would tell the city that they could not deny a developer the right to build on property which was properly zoned. Councilor Schwartz advised he supported the Triad application. Councilor Hunt noted he recently looked at the Scholls Ferry Road area where development has occurred. He noted he was concerned about the negative visual impacts of apartment buildings citing comparisons of the subject area to the Scholls Ferry area. Councilor Hunt advised that the traffic problems concerned him. He advised children going to school would mean there would be traffic directed either by going through Summerfield or on 109th to Murdock. He also noted Murdock did not have sidewalks on it at this time. Councilor Hunt noted if Lady Marian Street was constructed, many of the problems could be resolved by providing a transportation route to the schools. He disagreed with that portion of Mr. Kittelson's report which said that the Summerfield neighborhoods would be protected from additional traffic. Councilor Hunt said he did not see why the density could not be changed to a less-dense classification. He noted other areas within the city, such as in the Triangle area, would better accommodate high density development. In response to a question from Councilor Fessler, City Attorney advised that in order to turn down the application, the Council must conclude that one or more of the applicable standards have not been satisfied based upon the evidence received in the record. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 18 Councilor Fessler noted her concerns with the high density even though the Triad development would not be as densely developed as could be allowed. She reviewed the problem areas cited by the appellants. Councilor Fessler advised she thought they were going to lose part of the Little Bull Mountain forest. She noted the City was re-assessing the Goal 5 provisions and preparing to inventory natural resources, including natural treed areas. She urged everyone to get involved in the CIT process as this re-assessment develops. She noted Tigard is in a situation where it has almost grown out to its capacity. She said there was a need to protect the inner city. Councilor Fessler said she would reluctantly approve the proposal because she did not see where any fact-finding policies could be developed to demonstrate the criteria had not been met. Mayor Edwards noted he was the dissenting vote on the original application because he was not in favor of the transportation configuration. He referred to testimony from the Summerfield neighborhood and acknowledged the concerns with the pedestrian and golf cart traffic. Mayor Edwards noted the Summerfield neighborhood did not have a right to stop everything from going through their community as it was not a private piece of property. Mayor Edwards said it was up to the Council to try to protect the residents so there would be the least amount of impact to them. Mayor Edwards said he would not vote against the proposal because he could not find any legal grounds to deny it. Discussion followed regarding the Planning Commission Final Order and the recommendation that 14(C) be deleted. Community Development Director Murphy clarified that the Planning Commission suggested that 14(c) be deleted. 14(c) would have given the City Engineer the authority to reduce the street width on certain portions of 109th. Discussion followed. Council also discussed the "no left turn" onto Naeve. After discussion, it was determined this situation could be monitored and a re-assessment of the "no left turn" could be made if it appeared there was a problem with the traffic. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 19 Councilor Fessler noted that on Condition 21, she would like to see an independent certified arborist look at the entire project. Community Development Director Murphy raised the issue of providing a route to a bus shelter. After discussion, it was decided this issue would not be addressed at this time. j. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to uphold the Planning Commission's Final Order and direct staff to prepare a City Council Final Order. Discussion followed. It was determined that Item 14(c) would be deleted from the Final Order, and that Condition 21 on Page 26 would be amended to require an independent, certified arborist. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler and Schwartz voted yes; Councilor Hunt voted no). 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0006 GRILLO/HUGHES LOCATION: Citywide. A request to amend section 18.64.040 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code to allow Construction Contractor's Professional Offices as a conditional Use in the C-P (Professional Commercial) zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.22.040 and 18.64.040 (A). a. Public Hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Murphy reviewed the staff report, which is on file with the Council packet material. d. Public Testimony: Mr. Phil Grillo, 391 SW Washington Street, Portland, Oregon, 97204, advised the staff had adequately outlined the purpose of the amendment in the staff report. e. Public Hearing was closed. There was discussion between Councilor Schwartz and Community Development Director Murphy with concerning which issues should be heard before the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission. No changes to the proposal resulted from this discussion. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 20 i~. 7 f. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Ordinance 93-28. ORDINANCE 93-28 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR"S PROFESSIONAL OFFICES TO THE LIST OF THE USE CLASSIFICATION, SECTION 18.42, AND AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-P ZONE, SECTION 18.64.040 (A). Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of council present. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND UPDATES - Discussion was cancelled. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:39 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:11 p.m. I'j, City of Tic ghet~rAine~atley, City Rec der Date: ~~14/43 h:\recorder\can\can1012.93 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 1993 - PAGE 21 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard att: Terry ° 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Or 97223 • • ❑ Tearsheet Notice ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Judith Knphl pr being first duly sworn, depose and saga 619a(m the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the l1 a newspaper of general cir~ylation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at lYF>a~ in the aforesaid county and stote; that_the City Council Business Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ON successive and consecutive in the following issues: Oct. 7. 1993 L Subscribed and sworn to ore me this 7th day of October A4 '4e:2<2 - Notary is for Oregon My Commission Expires: z.. tanoh. ^.p,a3 • 3 .S~RXans.. tegah,.r 7694 Notict# The following meeting highligiua acv published for your infomuttion. Full agendas may be obtained fromthe City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 12,1993 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL, 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Council Meeting Chown Hall Conference Room) o mom. Study Session (6:30 P.M.) • Agenda Review Business Meeting (7:30 P.M.) 't' Local Contract Review Board Meeting o Public Hearings;. ao ~a p - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (TRIAD) approving s a request for site Development Review and Planned Develop- c ment of a 348-unit, 17-building, mull-famil residential com- ,~s' Alex on a 26.2 acre arcel. y P (1'riad/SDR 93-0009) =Location: . 11165-1 S of1185 S.W. Naeve Street (North side of Naeve Street, west 109th W: Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments) - Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 93 0006) - Grillo/Hughes A nest to amend the Development code to allow Construc- tion Contractor's Professional offices as a conditional use in the C-P (Professional Commercial) zoning district Location: City- Wide. • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Execu- tive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, 177694 - Publish October 7,1993. 19 OFFICIAL SEAL R06;N . BURGESS 91) NOTARY PLILIC - OREGON COKPASSiON NO. 024552 MY COWAISSiON EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 AFFIDAVIT COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal Notice IT P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0350 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 RECEIVED Legal Notice Advertising OCT 0 5 1993 o City of Tigard 13 Tearsheet Notice • -Ili OF TIGARt: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. o Tigard, Oregon 97223 [3 Duplicate Affidavit • • o U' ' Opt,. ~J PUBLIC HEARING The following will be ce nsidered b~+ tho Tigard City Counrll on bar OCID 12 1993, at 7:30 P h3., at Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall Roorn,131 .S.W. Hall Boulevard; Tigard, Oregon. Further information may be { obtained fmm the Community Development Director or City Recorder at the same location or by calling 639-4171. You are invited to submit written testimony in advance of the public hearing, written and oral testimouy will be considered at the hearing The pubic hearing will be conducted in accordance with the applicable Chapter. 18.32 of the Tigard MunicW Code and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall. jAN PPBAL OF A PLANNING'COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING CPRIAD). $j~$ D~.YEI,~MENI' REVIEW SDR 93.0009 . PI;ANN ~]?E!/ELOPMENTRFVIEW )'DR93-0006 MAar;g DAVENPORT AND BEVERLY SWINK APP>t A AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION LOCATION: J1165-11185 S.WNaeve-Street. North side of Nieve, Street, west of S.W. 1090h' Avenue, south of Little Bull'.Mountain STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' Apartments (WCTM 2S1 IODB, tax lots 100 and 200, 2S1 LOAD, tax lot acid 2S1 0AC tax lots 600, 700, 800, and 900) ' 9300 I, Judith Koehler the Advertising t I h , An appeal of,the Planning Commission's decision and final order i~requesufor Site Development Review and Planned ro n a am a being first duly sworn, depose and say t Director, or his principal clerk, of the. Tigwrri Ti Meg 010 ORS 193 i g pp vi g Development approval of a 348 unit 17 btulding, mulct-familyy residential `APPLICABLfi REVIEW CRITERIA: 2 acre arcel mplex on a 26 . n a newspaper of general circulation as defined and 193.020; published at Ti card in the . p . co Planned Development Review approval criteria are found at Community nt Review m l D 20 Si aforesaid gri andstbtg• Vt6bb9 oou 5 eve op e . te Development Code Section 18.80.1 approval criteria are found at Code Section 18.120.180. In addition; these n is Heari rinted copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the a above listed sections require consistency with the following Community 18.102 100 18 92 18 18 ters: 18 54 1&84 m nt Code Cha 56 D l p entire issue of said newspaper for Otte successive and , . , . , . , . eve p . . op e .18.106:18.108,18.114,'18.120,18.150, andComp tehensivePlanPOlicies 1:1 6 1 8 4 4,7 5 1 7 1 7 1 1 2 7 2 6.1 1 6:6 7 4 2.1 ' consecutive in the following issues: , . . . . . . , . , . ; . , . . . , . . .2,4. , 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3. ZONE: R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre. Planned and 8 1.3 1993 t 30 Se . . Development overlay) and R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre. Planned , p Development overlay). ZONE ORDINANCE A~V_[J iDMEN1 ZOA 934006 GRILLO/HUGHES LOCATION: Citywide A request to amend section 18.64.040 (A) of the City of Tigard ' s Community Development Code to allow Construction contractor of Septe Roth tin hi mber OFFICIAL SEAL Professional Offices as,a Conditional Use in the C-P,(Professional Commercial) zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: y s Subscribed and sworn to fore me t ROBIN A. BURGESS Community Development.CodoSections 1&22.0!aand18.64040(A).. /Y G NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMM SSION NO. 024552 7 T 1991 + Note ,gUblic for Oregon MY C0 S1Mt5S;ON EXPIRE! MAY 18.19 9 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I= begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated L copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto aaached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ - day of ,1913 . 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 2tall Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 4 L Notary Public for Ore on My Commission Expires: \-I- 7-Z- 9 login\jo\affpost CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 93-09 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR'S PROFESSIONAL OFFICES TO THE LIST OF THE USE CLASSIFICATION, SECTION 18.42, AND AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-P ZONE, SECTION 18.64.040 A. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff recommendation at a public hearing on September 13, 1993 and voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 12, 1993 to consider the amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A". Language to be added in UNDERLINED. 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 U-t)&r11MC)U5 vote of all Council members present after eing read by number and title only, this day of 1993. atherine Wheatley, City R6fcorder APPROVED: This day o 1993. Geral R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: Cit A torney /vl/aK-2) Date r t p~ ORDINANCE No. 930 Page 1 i i Exhibit "A" 18.42.(C)(12) Definition 12. Construction Contractor's Professional Offices. Refers to the administrative offices associated with firms who regularly engage in professional construction contracting. These offices function primarily as other professional and administrative offices and are to be distinguished from construction sales and services uses. Construction Contractor's Professional Offices may contain incidental indoor storage to accomodate various building materials and equipment related to the firm's construction business. However, no outdoor storage of heavy vehicles, equipment or construction materials shall be permitted. l 18.064.040(A) Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) 5. Construction Contractor's Professional Offices. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: October 12, 1993 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED ogm o visitors.s t i 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 ITE(11I;NO. 5 n DATE:- October'12, 1993 APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING (TRIAD) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006. MARGE DAVENPORT AND BEVERLY SWINK, APPELLANTS PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS C AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Promnent - (Smakina In Favor) J i CSI PLEASE PRINT C)nnnnnnt - front jinn An~irnctl Nams - EVE Ly ~c~t/rfc~~ Name Address 15-:0 75- Ad ress ame J°t- 1 , V .i Vi t,. ame Address ta'~o s.w. ..rdo < Address Name L Name Address Address Name /'l Name Address) j ~ u l' Address Name Name Address dress Name Name dress Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name A ass Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: October 1.2, 1993, . PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0006 GRILLO/HUGHES PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS li AGENDA ITEM NO. a1®SE PRINT i 1 1 1 3 AVH~ eO.t~CWQ4M0. WC~1 ~RM~a Ni~R WR I rl s z .Aga OF BEARMCS AND DOU►CAR, DETERMOM /m 0-0 r okw FLAT REM CTXM ~ 1LL ~ M *Q 110 AYwR IOC 1~~•1 a ~c..°a ew•acaA, ~ooR~ w.. a srpt't r t t ro w• s~Rq RIIII[ .a °r,w.ot Ice.a c.a.1 w ..o fww +et ,w A m1a.w1 9~ w R1.1iAO1 svc /01 Mw wY • a rio t•~~w AN r•` r rv T u1e1 wos n N ~R1R101 W1 Ew ~ w R r wwsllr "t S-es, Su b ml AMESI ORCHARD N01 ~OCAiLO N ~ ~ senan ,a .oaAlcrn . ,ols~aav s WUWQc , es ,au cm plplOlAN - - i Oh CF VA3T167O704 C"r% OBEOOR S. p. 1 0 A A R62 E 11_0 A 0 LLC1M~IR • ti1111~ S . ~ Y wKf. 11+1 0y 1100 Isx OC ~m ~ss lwr K R ~ 1 ~i. s~R~rw~'rwilsals w • a 11101C7nORR. ie •rs csa ts-n zwu r . W 11 .n r I~7 3 nAH °o 100 410 \ ~ 200 100 410 - 200 A 300 ' -4 500 Ljl \ 400 /9O~ ~ 300 I 600 ~ P. 100 ~~0 .o El El i 'c m~ N X90 ©p 25' 84~- =7 - 1 - . -10 11 tt a.- ) 9,996 -11,122 SF 10.234 SF _ I 860 84* log ti2~ 91 i 9 1 1 ° 12,800 SF t ; 22 ' 0.458 SF 11,80 125' tk 105' w - j 1 8 1 _ 12.464 SF - _ , t - 2 23 0 11 8c t - 10.458 SF 120' A ' 91' 7 ~ Dc~ 4,191 SF _Dc _ . . i r www~ _ w 99• Couno i l ayend4 =a-e.rn -14-3 lo/1A1g3 PROCLAMATION DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS MONTH October 1993 WHEREAS, since its founding, the United States of America has prided itself on advancing the civil rights of individuals and guaranteeing liberty and justice for all. Central to the philosophy of our democratic form of government are the precepts of equality and individual dignity, the value of self-reliance and the basic right of all citizens to live full, independent and productive lives; and WHEREAS, in keeping with that proud tradition, the United States Congress in 1990 enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act. This landmark civil-rights legislation prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, public 110, accommodations, transportation and telecommunications; and WHEREAS, by joint resolution, the Congress has designated October of each year as "National Disability Employment Awareness Month;" and has called upon state and local governments to join in the national observance; and ; WHEREAS, the City of Tigard strongly supports this resolution and the spirit as well as the letter of the law to assure that all citizens with disabilities are fully included in our social, cultural and economic mainstream; and whereas people with disabilities ! iilNr represent a large untapped pool of talent in the City of Tigard, by the power invested ! in me as mayor I do hereby proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness .~jtuiln' month and urge its observance by all of our citizens. I further declare it to be the official policy of my Administration to help promote full and equal employment opportunities for our fellow citizens with disabilities. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor of the City of Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim that as the world's leading champion of civil rights, the United States of America should lead in efforts to promote equal opportunities for people with disabilities; and be it further resolved that all citizens of the City of Tigard are encouraged to declare fidelity to the principles on which this Republic was founded by observance and participation in events and activities scheduled during Disability Employment Awareness month. Dated this ~ day of .1993. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be affixed. Gerald R. E wards, Mayor City of Tigard Attest: City Recorder Council Agenda Item a. M MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: October 4, 1993 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, October - December, 1993 Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. October '93 * 12 Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 15-17 Fri- Council Training Session Sun * 19 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Tentative * 26 Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting November 193 6-8 Sat- League of Oregon Cities Conference Mon Eugene * 9 Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting it Thur Veterans Day - City Hall Offices Closed * 16 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Tentative * 23 Tue council meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 25-26 Thur- Thanksgiving Holidays - City Hall Offices Closed Fri December '93 1-6 Wed- Mon * 14 Tues * 21 Tues 24 Fri * 28 Tues 31 Fri National League of Cities Conference Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Christmas Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting New Year's Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed h:\login\cathy\cccal COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM y - 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 10/12/93 DATE SUBMITTED: 9/29/93 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Wetlands Grant PREVIOUS ACTION: None Proposal PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts O DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY ADMIN REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy Should the Council authorize submission of a Division of State Lands Wetlands Planning Assistance Grant application? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize submittal of the project application. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Division of State Lands (DSL) has established a wetlands planning assistance grant program. This program is designed to assist local governments develop inventories and plans for wetlands within their jurisdictions. The City has completed an inventory of wetland location and quantity within the active planning area. This inventory includes an assessment of the wildlife habitat value of wetlands, but does not assess other wetland functions and attributes, such as storm water runoff control, sediment removal, and groundwater recharge. To meet the requirements of Statewide Goal 5 for wetland resources, a DSL approved functions and attributes assessment must be combined with a wetlands location and quantity inventory. The City is seeking grant funds to complete this attributes assessment. Once this missing information is available, the City will be able to complete its Goal 5 wetland review. Copies of the full application are available in the City Recorder's office. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Not to submit the application and pay entirely for the study out of City funds. FISCAL NOTES The amount requested is $10,000. The grant requires a 25% local match, which could be in the form of in- kind contributions, such as staff work needed to complete the Goal 5 process. Approval of this resolution does not financially obligate the City. DR/DSL October 4. 1993 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM y,y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 12, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Dedication of PREVIOUS ACTION: REPD BY• Ra reserve stri s as ublic ri ht of w !REal~rSE!~ ndy Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK BY ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL Dedication of existing reserve strips as public right of way to allow extension of streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution authorizing the dedication. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Community Development Code requires the dedication of reserve strips at the temporary dead ends of streets at the boundaries of new subdivisions. When the streets are extended, it is necessary to dedicate the reserve strip as public right of way. Currently, three plats are being processed that involve the extension of streets and require the dedication Chet planningreserve Commissioni or adearingg subdivisions. Previous approvals by Officer have authorized the street extensions. The attached ordinance will authorize the City Administrator to dedicate the reserve strips as public right of way so that the street extensions can be completed. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FISCAL NOTES rw/dedic COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM S CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Oat. 12, 199 DATE SUBMITTED: 8e,tmber 29, 1223 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acpeal of plan- PREVIOUS ACTION: Plan-tening Co mi aeaitin nina Commission aBgrovai of SDR 93-09 hearing on 8/16/93 `v,_ PREPARED BY: Dick Boffixe =f DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:_ Ed Murphy =====aaa_aaaaa= =a=a= i.ocaaaa -ISSUE BEFO F THE cnrtKU Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a 348 unit multi-family development plan for the southern slope of Little Bull Mountain? Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink have appealed the approval. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa=aaaaaaaa=a== _____________aa-aaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaa=aaaaaaaaaa STAFF RECD NDATION It is recommended that the city council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the site development review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 93-14 PC as amended by adding a finding related to a bike trail (Exhibit C). a=aaa=aaaaaaa~aaaaaaaaa=aaaa.aoaaaa==aa=aoaaaaaaa- _=aaaaaaa==aa======aaaaaaa INFORALAmrON SUMMARY on August 16, 1993 the Planning commission approved the development plan by Triad Tigard Ltd. Partnership for a 348 unit multi-family development project s ubject to conditions. While other approvals have been granted in the past, 16 the 199 is a new ication. The histo development appli ati nsiis listed in helattached Pl nni g comma sion Final Order. 1 t Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink have jointly appealed the Planning commission's decision. Their appeal lists grounds including failure to: protect trees, recognize traffic impacts, provide for bus transportation, provide bike paths, comply with the City-*s Comprehensive Plan regarding diversity and neighborhoods, consider neighborhood concerns and input, provide for storm runoff, provide the required number of access points, consider NPO request to deny, assure completion of the south end of 109th, comply with the policies of the development code as listed on page 11 of the final order and consider overcrowding of schools. Attached are copies of the Davenport/Swink appeal (Exhibit A), minutes of the August 16, 1993 Planning Commission meeting (Exhibit B), Planning Commission Final Order No. 93-14PC and the applicant's development plans. Staff finds that the issues raised by Davenport/Swink have been sufficiently addressed in the Planning commission's review process for this application or are not applicable to this development. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for special resource protection for the proposed Triad site. Staff does suggest modification of the Planning Commission findings relative to bicycle trails as shown on attached Exhibit C. This further defines the City position related to Oregon Revised Statute requirements. PROPOSED ALTERRAMMES C 1. Uphold the Planning Commission"s approval of the site development review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 93-14PC. 2. Uphold the Planning commission's approval of the site development review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval and findings contained in Final Order No. 93-14PC as modified or added by the City Council. 3. Deny the request on appeal, thereby overturning the Commission's decision. eaaooemonaoaaeQaQ~a~a~aaao~~smoaa~xoooaoa~~oa~o~aaooa~asa~maaa~~or=~m~cm®mmm ~ FISCAL IMPACT None. t t, LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM nc~! City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to pa rtii:.i.piate, in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code L-her-efore sets out- specific requirements for- filing appeals on certain land use decision::. The fit for• o r• app or 1. Commi 2. prove 3. rehen ogniz for 1 Senic resid coure Fai1L viola to cc city (I'VE has 1 600 c and c input regaY asseE ulati of ac 4-- 5. 6. X-X_~ FOF Apr Der Rec xar 13125 SW Hall Bkd. P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 I 1 milt" I I WO following for-in has been develorad to assist you in ing an appeal of a land use decision in proper M. -ro determine what filing fees will be required to answer any questions you have regarding the kcal process, please contact the Planning Division the City Recorder at 639--4171. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED:SDR 93-009/PDR 93-006 Approval by Pannin ssion of 348 rental apartment development by Triad t Partners HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: Tigard residents affected by decision rty owners, taxpayers, concerned citizens! SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: Violation of '"igard's Goal 5 Co sive Plan,0ailure to adequately protect large trees.} F-ailure to e traffic impact on area (no adequate traffic study only stud y developer): Failure to recognize traffic impact on Summer le d r cornnunitV.Failure to provide for bus transportation for 1,055 ents of development at time when public transportation must be e ged. Failure to provide bus pullouts on minor collector (109th) re to provide bike paths as required by lax... Approval is also tion of new law regard4* overcrou4ing of Tigard Schools. Failur nside-r or comply with Tigard City Code or comprehensive plan re of neighborhoods--area alrady impacted with rental and multiple requested figures, but they have not been provided by staff. D gnored neighborhood input and concerns -as-_expressed by petition r more signatures on file with city asking for denial o develop itir. valid reason. At time when City is saying the need citiz ! Decision ignores needs of adjacent residents an vid ates ding adequate protection for single family neighbors. Failure t and provide for storm runoff to Tualitan in compliance with nu ons (no specifics to insure). Development does not have required cess points and is therefor unsuitable for development of_ such 1 iSCHEDULrD.DOTE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: C no. of units. Sept. 9 3:30 p.m. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: _PUg._27 -1993 SIGNATURE(S):G&Z,Pt, F C/ S~lJrist,~rJ ~~Yr19 X~(XXXxXXXXX X~c;4 Xx XxX~c X x xXx xXX xxXX XXXxxX cxxX_c-X X_X-x-X_x_ x-X-XOFFICE USE ONLY: R eived By:L. Date: g119ICY 3 Time: fi 0 a, roved As To Form By Date: E/ -13 Time: /l:.'4 ied As To Form By: Date: Time: eipt No. c43-aU3gtoel Amount: 4315- -X X X-X X X-X-X X X X X X X-X-X-( X-X-* X-K X-X-X X X X X*-X-X* X X*)(X X X X X X-X X* X X-X X X-X X-X-X-X-Xi(-X X X-X #X-X-X-X X X*)(X-)(-*K-X* Z rip up- rec- paid plus a- in e diver famil ecisi aith ment en code 0 reg- no. ar e giver) Failure to ^ive consideration to I'."(' request to denv annlication. Failure to assure that south end of 109th extension will be completed before development is started--otherwide Naeve intersection will be safety hazard. of unrecognized proportion. Failure to comply with policies of Tigard Development Code listed on Page 11 of Final order. EXHIBIT "B" t TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Castile called the meeting to order at 7:55 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Castile, Holland, Saxton, Schwab (arrived at 7:55 PM), Schweitz. Absent: President Fyre, Commissioners Boone, Moore, Saporta. Staff: City Attorney Bill Monahan, City Engineer Randy Wooley, Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Commission Secretary Lorraine Campbell. 3. APPROVE MINUTES • Commissioner Schwab moved and Commissioner Holland seconded to approve minutes of August 2, 1993. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. o Commissioner Saxton stated that as his term on the Planning Commission expired on June 30, 1993, and he was not reappointed to the Planning Commission until August 8, 1993, he should not have been marked absent in the July or August 2, 1993 Minutes. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS There were no-Planning Commission communications. 5. PUBLIC HEARING o City Attorney, Bill Monahan, stated his office also represents the City of King City and he would be able to respond to any issues relating to King City. Page 1 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1993 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006 TRIAD LOCATION: 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 1ODB, tax lots 100 and 200, 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, and 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, and 900). A Planned Development Review/Site Development Review of a plan for development of a 348 unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre property. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Planned Development Review approval criteria are found at Community Development Code Section 18.80.120. Site Development Review approval criteria are found at Code Section 18.120.180. In addition, these above listed sections require consistency with the following Community Development Code Chapters: 18.54, 18.56, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) o Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, reviewed the staff report for the development of a 318 unit, 17 residential building complex on 26.2 acres. He said the proposal was basically the same site plan as was approved by the Planning Commission in late 1991 and approved on appeal by the city council in early 1992. The applicants have resubmitted the application in response to an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals' remand of the Council's earlier decision. Mr. Bewersdorff referred to a letter received August 16, 1993 in opposition from Dorothy Sterrett dated August 14, 1993. Mr. Bewersdorff said staff recommends approval of this application. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Steven Pfeiffer, Matrix, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, discussed the history of the application. o Ross Woods, Triad Development, P.O. Box 88070, Seattle, Washington 98138, talked about the realignment of SW 109th Avenue and the changes that will be made to the development. o Wayne Kittelson, Kittelson & Associates, 610 SW Alder, Suite 700, Portland, Oregon 97205, gave a brief overview of traffic issues. He handed out a Presentation overview and reviewed existing conditions, proposed road improvement features, traffic effects of planned road improvements and discussed the their findings and conclusions Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1993 l o Commissioner Saxton asked what percentage of the traffic on the extension of Royalty Parkway/SW 109th will be generated by the apartment complex. Wayne Kittelson responded that it will be approximately 25-30%. o Commissioner Castile read a letter from Sue Carver, Chairman of NPO #6 and asked if anyone wanted to make an NPO presentation. NPO COMMENTS o Marge Davenport NPO #6 said the NPO remains strongly opposed to the Triad development and stated the reasons that the NPO wants the Planning commission to deny the application. o The issue of school overcrowding was raised and City Attorney, Bill Monahan, referred the City's Comprehensive Plan policy 7.8.1, which states that the Planning Commission is not compelled to make a finding that adequate school capacity exists. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Howard Graham, 9410 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97224, was asked by the Summerfield Board of Directors to present / testimony concerning the Triad development. He said t Summerfield's main concern was the increase in traffic which will flow through Summerfield from the Triad development. He requested that there be a no left turn sign on SW 109th Avenue at SW Naeve Road for southbound traffic on 109th. He asked if the Planning Commission would monitor future traffic problems in Summerfield. o Beverly Swink, 15875 SW Greens Way, Tigard, Oregon 97224, President of the Summerfield Civic Association. Ms. Swink handed out a map of the Summerfield area and discussed Summerfield's concerns; namely, increased traffic from Triad through Summerfield; more children who will skateboard, rollerblade and ride bikes, and inadequate access to public transportation. o Cordon Ries, 10400 SW Greenleaf Terrace, Tigard, Oregon 97224, submitted two letters that he wrote, one dated in July and one dated August 6, directed to the Tigard Planning Commission and Tigard City Council. Mr. Ries is strongly opposed to the Triad development and concerned about the number of trees that will be cut down on Little Bull Mountain. Mr. Ries' second letter addressed his belief that a mistake was made when the zoning on this particular piece of property was changed to allow for a multi-family residential complex. Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1993 o George Willoughby, 15371 SW 114th Court, #109, Tigard, Oregon 97224, said his main concern was that there is no speed limit on the portion of road on SW Naeve Road west of Royalty Parkway. o Commissioner Schwab asked City Engineer, Randy Wooley, about Mr. Willoughby's concern regarding the portion of the road west of SW 109th. General discussion ensued. o Al Erickson, 15200 SW 109th Street, Tigard, Oregon 97224, was concerned about the increase in traffic in the area. o Marge Davenport, 15100 SW 109th Street, Tigard, Oregon 97224, stated her opposition to the development. She referred to and disagreed with several items in the staff report. Ms. Davenport handed out a report from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and a newspaper clipping. o Commissioner Schwab asked City Engineer, Randy Wooley, about bus turnouts and bike paths. o Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria, King City, Oregon 97224, said he was in opposition to the Triad development and has spoken to many citizens in King city who are opposed to the new 109th road. He voiced concern about road design and the increase in pollution brought about by the increase in { traffic. RECESS 10:15 PM RECONVENE 10:20 PM APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL o Steven Pfeiffer said that Triad has tried to meet everyone's needs and make this density as compatible as possible. He said almost all the issues raised tonight have been corrected, except for the new issue of the no left turn. o Commissioner Castile asked about bike paths and City Engineer, Randy Wooley, said if they can be accommodated within the minor collector standard then they can be provided. o City Engineer, Randy Wooley, referred to ORS 366 5.4., a state law which requires that reasonable accommodation is made for pedestrians and bicycles. In response to the mass transit question, Mr. Wooley said that because the City doesn't have a formal process for prioritizing transit needs, a request should be made to Tri Met as it has a detailed process for meeting mass transit requirements. Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1993 o Commissioner Schwab asked if parking on a minor collector street was on both sides, one side or neither side. Randy Wooley said it is on a case-by-case basis depending on traffic volume. o Commissioner Castile asked Randy Wooley if he had reviewed the traffic study and if he was comfortable with it. Mr. Wooley said the traffic study was reviewed in great detail the last time the application was submitted and also during the Comprehensive Plan street alignment change. o Mr. Polans requested that his question regarding emissions be answered. o Mr. Kittelson responded that he would like to have Mr. Polans contact people who would be able to answer his questions on emissions more fully. General discussion ensued. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Holland said that the Planning commission did not have any influence over items being addressed by the proponents at tonight's meeting such as transportation, schools, skateboarders, etc., as decisions have been made on those issues. He said there will not be very many trees cut down with this development and he sees no reason to deny the application. 0 Commissioner Schweitz said the traffic analysis is good. He said he believes the developer acted in good faith and has worked with the City staff to come up with an alternative to reduce the flow of traffic through Summerfield. o Commissioner Saxton said the issues of zoning and density were not under consideration tonight. He thinks people would ignore a no left turn at SW 109th Avenue and would like to see access to the bus stop at 99W. He would like SW 109th built to its full width and have 2-hour parking along the side of the street. He thinks Triad should pay approximately 80% of the cost of extending 109th to Pacific Highway. o Commissioner Schwab said that the Planning commission cannot change the Comprehensive Plan and he believes it is a good application, although he is concerned about the flow of traffic into Summerfield from Triad. He said he would like to add the condition of a no left turn for traffic going south on 109th at Naeve and thinks SW 109th should be built to its full width. He said he fully supports the staff report. Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1993 o Commissioner Castile said the time to get something changed was when the property was re-zoned. He is in agreement with the staff report. o Commissioner Saxton moved to approve Site Development Review SDR 93-0009 Planned Development Review PDR 93-0006, SLR 93 0005 subject to the conditions requested by staff with the exception of 14C. Triad to pay 80% of the cost of extending SW 109th, the cost of the roadwork to be paid when the first building permit is issued or when the road contracts are let, whichever is first, and no occupancy permit be issued until the road work has been completed. There was not a second to this motion. o Commissioner Schwab asked City Engineer, Randy Wooley, about the terms of the agreement between the City and Triad regarding the development of SW 109th. Randy Wooley said the proposed agreement had a flat dollar amount of $300,000s- Commissioner Schwab said as part of his motion he wants a no left turn on SW 109th and SW Naeve Street and also wants 14C eliminated from the conditions. o Commissioner Castile raised the issue of the no left turn sign and Randy Wooley said he did not think the sign would be obeyed unless there was strenuous police enforcement which would not be feasible. General discussion ensued. • Commissioner Schwab moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded to approve Site Development Review SDR 93-0009 Planned Development Review PDR 93-0006 Sensitive Land Review SLR 93-0005 subject to the conditions requested by staff and deleting item 14C. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 6. OTHER BUSINESS o Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, reminded the Commissioners of the City Council meeting on August 17, 1993 at 6:30 PM. o Mr. Bewersdorff discussed the Gramor Project SDR 92-0022 and asked that the Planning Commission determine that the requirement to build a pedestrian path and the location of the path as a condition of development is based on the Fanno Creek Master Plan. ` Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1993 ® Commissioner Schwab moved and Commissioner Holland seconded to approve the Gramor Project SDR-0022. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 7. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM. Lorraine Campbell Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: buoy issioner James Castile lc/PC8-16.min l Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1993 EXHIBIT "C" Replace Finding (7.) (Additional Issues Raised by Opponents) page 23 with the following: The city finds that a bike trail is not required to be established under ORS 366.514 (1) because other factors indicate an absence of a need for such paths and trails pursuant to ORS 366.514 (2). The Tigard Comprehensive Plan establishes appropriate locations for bicycle trails. The plan does not designate Southwest 109th or new Southwest 109th as an appropriate location for a trail. This finding is consistent with OAR 660-12-020 (2) (d) requiring cities to prepare a transportation system plan including a bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes. The City Council finds that because other routes are designated as bike trails, 109th Avenue is not required to have a bike trail. CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 93- 14 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, AND SENSITIVE LAND REVIEW, REQUESTED BY TRIAD TIGARD, LTD. PARTNERSHIP. The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at a public hearing on August 16, 1993. The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Site Development Review SDR 93-0009 Planned Development Review PDR 93-0006 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 93-0005 REQUEST: Planned Development Review/Site Development Review of a plan for development of a 348 unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre property. APPLICANT/ Triad Tigard, Ltd. Partnership OWNER: 320 Andover Park East Seattle, WA 98138 Aink ENGINEER: Kampe Associates, Inc. 19 3681 SW Carmen Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97035 ARCHITECT: Driscoll Architects 2121 First Avenue, Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98121 LOCATION: 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of the Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 lODB, Tax Lots 100 and 200 [also Tax Lot 300 for public road realignment purposes only]; WCTM 2S1 LOAD, Tax Lot 9300; WCTM 2S1 10AC, Tax Lots 600, 700, 800, 900). PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (23 acres) Medium-High Density Residential (4.2 acres) ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (PD) (12 units/acre-Planned Development overlay) (23 acres) R-25 (PD) (25 units/acre-Planned Development) (4.2 acres) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.144 and 18.150, and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. IN DECISION: Approve this conceptual development plan as requested subject to conditions. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 1 2. Background Information The subject parcels have been involved in a number of City of Tigard land use and development applications since annexation in 1981. Prior to annexation, the parcels were designated by Washington County with a zoning designation of RU-4 (Residential, 4 units/acre). City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 1-81 approved redesignation of the parcels from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a zone change to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre). The Planned Development (PD) overlay zone was added to the requested R-12 designation so that all development proposals for the properties would be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In December, 1986, the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment for changing the Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This approval redesignated these properties from High Density Residential to General Commercial. A result of this decision was the removal of the opportunity for approximately 400 potential multi-family housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant, buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7) requires that Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent multi-family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land within the City's designated planning area. The Albertson's CPA was approved on the condition of redesignation of sufficient residential land to higher densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. Several sites throughout the city, including Tax Lot 200, were considered for increased residential densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the Albertson's decision. The western half of Tax Lot 200 and the parcel to the west were proposed for Plan/Zone redesignation from Medium Density Residential/R-12 (PD) to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 (PD) (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 87- 07(G)/Zone Change ZC 87-02 (GA No change in designation was proposed for the eastern half of Tax Lot 200 or the other parcels that are the subject of the current application. Redesignation of the western half of Tax Lot 200 and the adjacent parcel was approved by the City Council on April 13, 1987. In April, 1989, the prior owners of Tax Lot 200 requested a Plan Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, and a Zone Change from R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development) to R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) for the eastern 4.27 acres of that parcel (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 89-02/Zone Change ZC 89-02). After review by the staff and Planning Commission, the City Council denied the proposed Planned Amendment/Zone Change on April 24, 1989. Tax Lot 100, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue, was the subject of a Subdivision/Planned Development review by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1989 (Subdivision S 89-07/Planned Development PD 89-01). That application requested Planned Development conceptual plan approval and subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide the approximately 10.3 acre parcel into 60 lots intended for single-family residential development. The proposed subdivision would have included a north-south street running through the approximate center of the parcel with connections to SW 109th Avenue as well as to the property to the west. SW 109th Avenue was proposed to terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb at the northern end of the subdivision. SW 109th was to be improved to local street standards and have a number of single-family lots FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 2 fronting on it. The proposed subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission but the approval has since expired. Also on June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for Planned Development/Site Development Review approval of a request to construct a 72 unit apartment complex on Tax Lots 900 and 9300 north of the previously described proposed subdivision (Planned Development PD 89-02, Site Development Review SDR 89-06, Variance V 89-20). These tax lots are also part of the current application. The Commission approved the proposed development plan which included a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the northern segment of SW 109th Avenue, approximately 250 north of the cul- de-sac bulb approved for the single-family subdivision. The proposed dual cul-de-sacing of SW 109th Avenue was intended to provide a separation between the predominately multi- family residential character on the top half of Little Bull Mountain from the primarily single-family residential character of the neighborhood along the south slope of Little Bull Mountain and the properties to the south. The Planning Commission's final orders for both the subdivision and apartment proposals, however, noted that if either of the proposed developments did not occur as proposed, it would be necessary to re-evaluate the road patterns in this area. In September, 1989, the Planning Commission was presented with a request to reconsider the application for the proposed 72 unit apartment complex because a significant number of neighboring property owners that were entitled to notice of the public hearing on the matter did not receive notice and did not have the opportunity to testify before the Commission. The City Attorney's office reviewed this request and advised staff that the request be placed on the Commission's November 7, 1990 meeting agenda. The applicant, however, requested that the hearing for reconsideration be indefinitely postponed until the applicant determined whether to pursue the application further. No further action on that application has been taken. The current applicant, Triad Tigard Limited Partnership, first made Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application for development of a 364 unit apartment complex for the entire site in early 1990 (SDR 90-0004/PDR 90-0002). The proposal was fairly similar to the current proposal except that there was no public roadway proposed to cut through the site as is currently proposed. The development site was to be bounded by SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue. The Commission approved this prior application subject to conditions on May 11, 1990. The Commission's final order included conditions requiring that the two segments of SW 109th Avenue abutting the site be permanently separated and also closing SW 109th south of Naeve Street (Commission Final Order 90-11). The Planning Commission's decision was reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1990. The City Council remanded the application back to the Commission for further review regarding the proposed development's potential traffic impacts on nearby streets. Included in the Council's discussions was a possible extension of SW Beef Bend Road from the west through the site to connect with SW 109th. On September 4, 1990, the Commission on remand approved an amended application including a variance to the maximum local street grade standard for SW 109th Avenue (Commission Final Order 90-22). The approval also required development of an emergency vehicle access connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue in Summerfield, but no public street connection. This decision was appealed to the Council by NPO 6. On appeal, the Council reversed the Planning Commission's approval denying the application (Resolution No. 90-71). The Council's findings in supporthereby t of this FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 3 decision indicate that the Council did not find that the public street connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue in Summerfield was acceptable because it would not provide for an efficient neighborhood circulation system and needed connections between residential neighborhoods with Pacific Highway. The Council also was opposed to the development plan's proposal to direct a significant amount of traffic onto an over- steep local street (SW 109th). In addition, the Council was not convinced that a public road or private driveway connection to SW Pacific Highway at the Beef Bend Road intersection was not possible to serve the proposed development. In partial response to the previously described application, NPO 6 requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Transportation Plan Map to remove the collector street designation from SW Naeve Street and designate a study area in this area seeking a collector street connection between the Pacific Highway/Royalty Parkway signalized intersection and the SW 109th Avenue/Murdock Street intersection, with a possible future connection of this collector street to SW Sattler Street. The City Council approved this map change on August 13, 1991 (Ordinance 91-22). The Council's decision was final on September 13, 1991. The Council's decision was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by a neighbor of the proposed development site, Marge Davenport. On October 14, 1991, the Planning Commission approved with conditions the current Planned Development Review/Site Development Review application submitted by the applicant (Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-11 PC). This application incorporates the realignment of 109th Avenue approved by the City Council in the current site plan for a 348 unit apartment complex. NPO #6 and Marge E. Davenport separately appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Council. NPO #6's sole concern was that the completion of site development not occur before construction of 109th Avenue through to Pacific Highway was completed. Ms. Davenport's appeal raised a number of issues, including environmental effects, soil stability, and traffic effects. The Council held a public hearing on the appeal on December 10, 1991. The hearing was continued to February 25, 1992; March 10, 1992; and April 14, 1992. At the March 14th hearing, the applicant submitted a modified preliminary site plan that contained additional open space on the northern boundary of the property in order to further minimize any adverse effects the development might have on vegetation and wildlife. At this public hearing the Council approved this application. Marge E. Davenport subsequently appealed the Council's approval of this application to the State of Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). This appeal specified a number of concerns. One of those concerns was that the City erred by applying the amended, but as yet unacknowledged, Tigard Transportation Plan Map amendment regarding the extension of SW 109th Avenue. On October 22, 1992, LUBA remanded the application back to the City on a procedural issue only, which was that the application for development should not have been processed prior to the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment being acknowledged. This amendment is now acknowledged and upheld by LUBA, and the effects of such are taken into account by this current review and recommendation. No other land use or development applications have been reviewed by the City for Tax Lots 600, 700, and 800. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 4 3. Vicinity Information The development pattern in the area of the subject site consists of existing duplexes and the 130-unit Timberline apartment development to the north; the Canterbury Woods condominium development to the northeast; single family residences and a nursery on large parcels to the east; an undeveloped parcel covered with tall fir trees to the west (tax lot 300) [NOTE: the Planning Commission has recently approved development of a church on this site]; Pacific Highway and King City further west; and the Summerfield planned community to the south. The Fountains at Summerfield condominium complex is immediately south of the site. As previously noted, the City's Transportation Plan Map now calls for a minor collector extension of S.W. 109th to be constructed through the subject property. The subject property has approximately 890 feet of frontage on SW Naeve Street which is now functionally classified as a local street. SW Naeve Street is generally substandard in width and state of improvements, with the exception of the frontage of the Fountains at Summerfield development to the south. Half-street improvements, including approximately 30 feet of pavement, curbs, a sidewalk, and streetlights have been installed along the Fountain's frontage. The subject parcels have approximately 1,500 feet of total frontage along the alignment of SW 109th Avenue. SW 109th Avenue, north of the intersection with SW Naeve Street, is a steep gravel road extending approximately 1200 feet to a dead end. Approximately 200 feet further north beyond this dead end, the northern segment of SW 109th Avenue continues. This northern section of SW 109th Avenue extends northward to Canterbury Lane. The subject properties have approximately 100 feet of frontage along this northern section of SW 109th Avenue. Tax lots 600, 700 and 800 have approximately 360 feet of frontage on SW Pacific Highway. Pacific Highway is a 4-lane divided arterial. The southwestern corner of the subject site along SW Naeve is located approximately 500 feet east of the Naeve/Pacific Highway intersection. A left- turn lane is provided on Pacific Highway for southbound traffic onto SW Naeve Street. The intersection of SW Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is not signalized. 4. Site Information The subject 26.2 acre property previously contained houses on Tax Lots 200, 700, 800, and 9300. All have been removed except for the house on tax lot 9300 (despite the application's topographic survey and tree survey still showing these houses to be in existence). The remainder of the property is vacant, covered with a combination of tall fir trees, lower height deciduous trees, and brush. The property slopes predominantly to the south and southwest at varying grades. Approximately 0.8 acres on tax lots 600, 700, and 800 in the northwestern corner of the site has a slope of greater than 25 percent, as illustrated on the site plan-sheet A100. (6/14/93) 5. Proposal Description The applicants propose to develop a 348 unit apartment complex on this site. The development would include 104 one-bedroom, 148 two-bedroom, and 96 three bedroom units. The development site would be split by a curved collector street connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue intended to conform with the recently adopted Transportation Map amendment for this area. The alignment of SW Naeve FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 5 Street to the west is proposed to be shifted somewhat northward in order to provide for a 90 degree intersection with this proposed new street. The applicants' revised site plan dated dune 14, 1993 modifies the site plan previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1991 by moving the northernmost row of apartments and parking spaces to the south. This revision allows additional coniferous trees and vegetation to be preserved through enlarging the buffer area on the northern boundary of the site. The site plan proposal includes a recreation building located near the center of the site. An outdoor pool and spa, a lounge and sauna within the recreation building, and playground areas and a walking path are proposed to provide recreational facilities for the proposed development. The size of the proposed recreation building has been reduced from what was previously proposed. The steep, wooded area included within tax lots 600, 700 and 800 would not include any new improvements. Parking would be provided by 609 total parking spaces consisting of 374 covered parking spaces (combination of carports, separate garages and under apartment building garages), 14 designated handicapped parking space's (all under cover), and 235 other uncovered spaces. This represents a reduction of 52 total parking spaces from what had previously been proposed, with most of the reduction being made along the central driveway in the northern segment of the proposed complex. The southern section of the proposed development which contains 60 units would be served by one 24-foot wide access driveway from the proposed 109th-Royalty Parkway connecting street. No driveways to this section of the development would be provided from either SW Naeve Street or SW 109th Avenue, although this area of the development would have a significant amount of frontage on each of these streets. The plans propose dedication of right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline for both streets as well as the construction of local street improvements. The northern portion of the proposed development is proposed to be served by a 24 foot wide main access driveway from the proposed connector ;treet extending northward through the site to a connection with SIV 109th Avenue in the northerstern section of the site. The northern section would also be served by two 24-foot wide access driveways onto SW 109th Avenue that would extend westward to connect with the main internal roadway. A network of five foot wide sidewalks would be provided along the primary roadway and between parking areas and residential buildings. A north-south soft surfaced pathway would also be provided through landscaped and tree covered area on the eastern portion of the site. The preliminary landscaping plan (sheet L-100) shows existing trees that are proposed to be retained. The area along SW Pacific Highway on tax lots 600, 700 and 800 is to be left with existing vegetation. The landscaping plan calls for removing underbrush and planting lawn and a variety of bushes and trees throughout the portion of the site to be developed in order to create a park-like appearance on the site. The landscaping plan shows cross sections of proposed perimeter buffer material arrangements and lists plant materials. Sheet L-101 provides planting details for the southeastern corner of the northern section of the proposed complex. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 6 6. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: STREETS: The site has frontage onto S.W. 109th Avenue, S.W. Naeve Street, and S.W. Pacific Highway. S.W. 109th Avenue is a gravel surfaced street with the northern portion unimproved. Currently S.W. 109th Avenue runs in a north/south fashion on the east edge of the development. Based on the preliminary plans, S.W. 109th will be reconfigured. For this report, the following clarification/definitions for S.W. 109th Avenue will be used: A. "Old S.W. 109th" will be that portion of S.W. 109th between the existing intersection of 109th/Naeve north for a distance of approximately 400 feet; B. "New S.W. 109th" will be the alignment specified on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, as follows: (1) From Highway 99W to the new 109th/Naeve intersection (which is approximately 890 feet west of the existing intersection); (2) From the new 109th/Naeve intersection through the proposed development to a point that is approximately 700 feet north of the existing intersection of 109tb/Naeve; (3) From the point that is 700 feet north of the existing intersection of 109tb/Naeve to the existing paved street near the northeast corner of the development. NOTE: The above descriptions are based on the applicants preliminary site plan dated May 20, 1993. The existing S.W. 109th will terminate approximately 400 feet north of the existing S.W. Naeve/109th intersection in a hammerhead. It is proposed that the existing S.W.109th remain a gravel road. The proposed new development will have no driveway access to existing S.W. 109th. Existing S.W. 109th will serve only the driveways to two existing homes. Since the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, the Existing S.W. 109th is not envisioned as part of the long-range plan for the neighborhood. When the property to the east is redeveloped in the future, it is expected that the existing S.W. 109th will be eliminated or substantially reconfigured. Therefore, the proposal to leave existing S.W. 109th as a gravel street is acceptable. The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map provides that the New 109th Ave., which will be built to minor collector standards, will eventually intersect Pacific Highway across from Royalty Parkway then proceed in a northeastern direction and connect with the existing S.W. 109th Avenue. The applicant proposes to fully develop the road from the new intersection of 109th/Naeve, located in the southeast corner of the project, to where the road meets the existing paved street near the northeast corner of the development. The preliminary FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 7 profile indicates the grade to be 12 percent, the maximum allowed by City standards. Although not proposed by the developers, we feel that it may be appropriate to construct New 109th to a reduced street width north of the main entrance to the new development. On-street parking should not be needed in this area. Based on traffic projections, there should not be a need for turn lanes. Therefore, the full minor collector street width may not be necessary. Reducing the street width would help to fit the street into existing steep grades and to match the existing 109th Avenue to the north. A reduced street width would reduce City maintenance and encourages lower traffic speeds. For these reasons, it is recommended that the Planning Commission authorize the City Engineer to approve reduced width. Details would be worked out with the developer's engineer during final design of the street improvements. S.W. Naeve Street is a partially paved, mostly gravel surfaced local street. The applicant proposes to provide full street improvements in the vicinity of the new intersection of 109th and Naeve; from the intersection eastward, the applicant is proposing to provide two-thirds street improvements. In addition, the applicant is proposing a minor change to the old 109th/Naeve intersection by bringing it more into a 90-degree intersection. This minor realignment is intended to help discourage traffic into Summerfield and better provides for extension of Naeve in the future when the property to the east redevelops. Therefore the applicant should be required to construct the following: A. full street improvements in the vicinity of the new Naeve/109th street intersection; B. two-third street improvements from the end of the full street improvements to the old Naeve/109th street intersection; C. realignment of Naeve to intersect Old 109th at a 90-degree angle. Pacific Highway is under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon. Existing improvements consist of the paved roadway with a gravel shoulder and a ditch. The state has requested that curb, sidewalk and drainage improvements be provided along the site's frontage. Prior to the authorization for construction of the public improvements, the developer and the City should enter into an agreement for the construction of S.W. 109th between Highway 99 and the Naeve/109th intersection. Final wording of the agreement should be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. SANITARY SEWER: Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended through the site from the system at the corner of Naeve Street and 109th Avenue. This system appears to have adequate capacity to serve the site. The applicant or the applicant's engineer should be required to verify that the existing sanitary sewer system is able to handle this development and any future development that would connect to this system. STORM SEWER: Most of the site slopes toward Naeve Street which then drains to 109th Avenue and Pacific Highway. The proposed storm drainage system is a collection of on-site conveyance structures which is dissipate energy and spread out the flow path, where the final runoff will be conveyed to FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-00091PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 8 an existing 30" storm drain at the intersection of S.W. Naeve and S.W. 109th Avenue. After review of the plans submitted by the applicant's engineer it became apparent there were potential problems. In the areas where the storm drainage system crosses a public road, the system was going from a private to public and back to private system without a break, and could cause potential maintenance problems. After discussions with the applicant's engineer, it was determined that the best solution was to keep each system separate with the final design being approved by the City's Engineering Department. Therefore the applicant should be required to do the following: A. Evaluate the existing pipe in 109th Avenue to determine if it has adequate capacity to handle ultimate development of the entire drainage basin; B. Design the on-site water quality facility to meet currant Unified Sewerage Agency design standards; further, verify that it will be the responsibility of the owners of the site to maintain such facilities; and C. Design the system so that there is a clear delineation between the private and public storm drainage systems. Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and states the applicant should address the location of all utilities which are to serve the site. Additionally, a drainage plan should be submitted to show how all roof, underfloor and paved area drainage will be conducted to an approved storm sewer system. Tualatin Valley Fire District states that the plans which were submitted (dated May 20, 1993), were not complete enough to provide a full review for hydrant location. If the plans have not changed from the previous submittal, and alterations have been made as requested by the last approval, then the submittal is acceptable. The following comments were made by the Fire District on the previous submittal: a. Hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire District and the Tigard Water District. Hydrants will need to be placed within 250 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this distance may be increased if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler. Hydrants should be placed at all intersections. b. The Fire District would prefer to see an emergency vehicle access between the parking area for the southern portion of the development and the southernmost section of SW 109th Avenue. Staff discussed this comment with Gene Birchill of the Fire District on September 22, 1991. Mr. Birchill commented that an emergency vehicle access is a "preference" and not necessarily a need. If an emergency access is developed, it could be a grass-crete pad through the development's landscaped area. C. Fire fighting access roads should be extended to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this distance may be increased if automatic fire sprinklers are utilized. d. The applicant and the City Building Division have been provided with further details regarding necessary fire protection for the proposed development. Tigard School District 23J has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed development is projected to generate 25 new students for Templeton Elementary School, 10 new students at Twality Middle School, and 7 new students at Tigard High School. The School { FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 9 District notes that school capacities at Templeton Elementary School and the High School are already exceeded, although Twality Middle School is presently below capacity, and that this will not be changed by this application. The District notes that the core facility of both the High School and Templeton Elementary School are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. City of King City has submitted comments which state that King City's interest is that storm drainage be confined to a routing on the east side of Highway 99 rather than crossing 99W with a discharge into King City's system on the west side of 99W. In regards to the traffic issue, King City states that they are aware of the plans to improve SW 109th Avenue to 99W, and also to improve the intersection of Royalty Parkway in King City; 99W and 109th. The City is on record of supporting the improvements to 109th and the intersection of 99W and Royalty Parkway. King City assumes that traffic issues will be addressed within the context of Washington County's Traffic Management Plan. Metro Area Communications Commission (MACC) specifies two major concerns. MACC recommends that the developers insure that the residents of the Arbor Heights Apartments have franchised cable service available to them. Secondly, the developers should notify Columbia Cable in advance as to when trenches will be opened for electricity and telephone service, so that Columbia can install cable most efficiently. The developer should contact Josh Silverman of MACC for further information (Phone #629-8534). Tigard Police Department has stated that they have major concerns with the proposed addressing of this development. The Police Department requests that the applicant receive approval from the City of Tigard Police Department prior to assigning or installing addressing on buildings or directional address boards internal to the development. Neighborhood Planning Organization 6 (NPO 6) has reviewed this application and states that they object to this development on the grounds that it: A. Destroys the Little Bull Mountain natural forest which is protected by Goal 5 in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; B. Unnecessarily increases the Tigard area traffic which is already overburdened; C. Places an additional burden on the school district; and D. Will inundate the adjacent retirement communities of Summerfield and King City with traffic, creating hazards for elderly pedestrians and golf carts. The NPO passed the following motion with 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 abstention at its meeting on June 16,1993: "NPO 6 feels that, in light of the tremendous urban development in our NPO and the areas adjacent to the Tualatin River, the zoning change made in the 1980's is no longer appropriate. We believe the original low density zoning is imperative and we recommend the zoning be restored to this site." FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 10 Ore on State HiahwaY Division has reviewed the proposal and has commented that type C curb and sidewalk as well as storm drainage improvements will be required along the site's Pacific Highway frontage. The existing driveways to tax lots 700 and 800 should be removed. An access reserve strip should be recorded along this frontage. Street opening and access permits must be obtained from ODOT. Tigard Water District has reviewed the proposal and has not provided any new comments. With the prior application, the Water District reported no objections to the proposed development but noted that the site requires service from two water pressure zones. Zone 1 is supplied by the pressurized system on the top of Little Bull Mountain. Zone 2 is a gravity system from the existing water line at the corner of SW Naeve Street and SW 109th. In addition, the Water District has noted that because of the size of the buildings, each building is to have its own 2- inch water meter. The irrigation system will need to be metered separately with Turbo meters. Water meter locations are to be provided with a minimum planter area of 3 feet by 5 feet. This also holds true for fire hydrants. Water meters and fire hydrants are not allowed to be located in asphalt or concrete, or behind carports, garages, or retaining walls. All water lines must be ductile iron class 52. Other affected reviewing agencies have been contacted for input regarding this applanation and have either had no concerns or have not returned any comments to the City. The City received a letter from William Lindsay dated July 30, 1993, objecting to the density allowed by the zoning, and the effect on the traffic congestion on Pacific Highway. (Copy of letter attached). The City received a letter in opposition of this development from Mr. Douglas J. Coleman on July 30, 1993. Mr. Coleman's letter states that the Tigard School District cannot accommodate the r influx of students projected to result from this development. Additionally, the road system cannot accommodate the increased traffic flow. He notes the loss of the natural habitat and requests that this plan be denied. (Copy of letter attached). The City received a letter dated August 7, 1993, from Lenore Schuster objecting to the development on the basis of the size (number of units) and transportation and parking issues. (Copy of letter attached). The City received a letter from Diane Barton, dated August 9, 1993, objecting on the basis of school capacity. (Copy of letter attached). B. DECISION: The application is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) chapters 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.144, and 18.150. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies are 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1 and 8.1.3. 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies. (a) Policy 2.1.1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because NPO No. 6 was notified of the hearing and commented on the proposal. A public notice was published including the date, time and place of the hearing. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 11 (b) Policy 3.1.1. This policy is implemented through Tigard Community Development Co. M CDC") chapter 18.84 and is met because the northwestern portion of this site containing slopes over 25 percent is proposed to remain in its natural state. The applicant's geotechnical engineering study prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. shows that the remainder of the site has few, if any, significant development constraints. The proposed apartment buildings and accessory structures and parking lots can be constructed without difficulty through the use of the established and proven engineering techniques described in Terra Associates' study. The Planning Commission concludes that the Terra Associates' study is substantial evidence to show that development will not occur in areas having slopes in excess of 25 percent except with established and proven engineering techniques and that the remainder of the site is not subject to the listed development limitations. (c) Policy 3.4.2. This policy requires the City to protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors and areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways where possible, to review development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed and to require cluster-type development in areas with important wildlife habitat values defined in the City's "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map." Policy 3.4.2 and its implementing measures apply directly only to the mature coniferous forest on the northern portion of the site identified as "Area A" in figure 3 of the March 1992 Fishmen Environmental Services report, which was physically before the Planning Commission. Area A is the portion of the site within the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, the only significant natural t resource that the Comprehensive Goal 5 analysis designates on the site. No significant wildlife habitat areas are designated on the site by the plan. In fact, the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest is inventoried because of its scenic value. Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Volume I, 96. Pursuant to the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5, the City inventoried Goal 5 resources and designated in its Comprehensive Plan those resources that it determined to be significant. Comprehensive Plan, Volume I, pages 94-109. For the designated Goal 5 resources, the plan identifies potential conflicts; performs an economic, social, environmental and energy consequences analysis of the conflicts; and adopts a program to resolve the conflicts. See id. The City's Comprehensive Plan, including its Goal 5 provisions, were acknowledged by the Land Conservation Development Commission on October 11, 1984. The summit of Little Bull Mountain is mentioned as a "special area" in an area of scenic value in the City's natural features and open space Comprehensive Plan report. See Comprehensive Plan, Volume I, page 42. The summit of Little Bull Mountain outside of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest was not inventoried as a significant Goal 5 resource. The Comprehensive Plan resolved conflicts between Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest's scenic values and other land uses in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 5. All of the areas included in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest are designated by the Comprehensive Plan for future residential development. Although the plan's background document noted that the area was zoned for low- density residential development, the City, as noted above, approved plan FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-00091PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 12 amendments increasing the residential density of the area. These amendments are an acknowledged part of the plan. The plan's Goal 5 analysis notes that C future development may create conflicts with the designated Goal 5 resources of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest and resolves the conflict as follows: "The significant wooded areas are identified and mapped. The policy of the city's conference of plan is that these areas will be preserved in a natural state as much as possible or integrated into the design of any development, i.e., parking lot island, building set-backs, street rights-of- way and landscaping areas whenever possible. If it is necessary to remove a portion or all of the trees, the replacement landscape feature shall be subject to approval by the applicable approval authority." Comprehensive Plan, Volume I, p. 95. The plan expressly requires that "development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the plan development process to minimize the number of trees removed." Plan Policy 3.4.2.b. The plan thus expressly anticipates that future residential development may remove some or all of the trees, providing the development complies with the implementing provisions of the TCDC. The City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan thus expressly anticipates residential development in the area despite conflicts with the designated goal 5 resource in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest. The proposed development complies with the TCDC provisions that implement Policy 3.4.2. The proposed development minimizes to the greatest extent possible the number of trees to be removed, particularly the mature coniferous trees that lie within the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest in the northern portions of the site. The northwestern portion of the site is left entirely undisturbed, and a large buffer of coniferous trees is left along the northern boundary of the site, as recommended by the Fishman Report. In addition, the site plan incorporates several grows of existing mature trees within the landscaping areas of the developed portion of the site and provides substantial replacement landscaping in areas that will be disturbed. Furthermore, the applicant is required to obtain a tree removal permit in accordance with the provisions of TCDC Chapter 18.150 before removing any trees. Permits may be granted only when the City finds that the removal of the tree is necessary to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the development that will be removed and demonstrates compliance with Policy 3.4.2 and its implementing provisions. A detailed tree survey and an arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained is to be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading or clearing permit or tree removal. Marge E. Davenport submitted an unsigned and undated one-paragraph statement on Oregon Department of Wildlife & Fish letterhead, purporting to take a contrary position to the Fishman study. The Planning Commission declines to give to this letter any credibility whatsoever because it is unsigned and undated and because it is unclear precisely which project it refers to. (d) Policy 4.2.1. This policy requires that all development shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. A condition of approval requires the applicant to prepare an erosion control plan as part of the FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-00091PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 13 improvement drawings, and to obtain a permit meeting the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. The Planning Commission finds that this policy can be satisfied through these conditions of approval. (e) Policy 6.1.1. This policy requires the City to provide an opportunity for diversity of housing densities and residential types at various price and rent levels. This policy is satisfied because this proposed multi-family project adds to the housing diversity in a community that is predominantly developed with single-family residences at lower densities. This site has been designated for multi-family development by the Comprehensive Plan for some time. Beverly Swink testified that the area surrounding Summerfield and this site is saturated with apartments. The Planning Commission finds that Policy 6.1.1 requires a diversity of housing opportunities throughout the city without consideration of a particular area. The presence of a number of apartment units at this location simply implements the City's density requirements. Moreover, the Planning Commission rejects the argument that more apartments than single- family homes in a given area is contrary to city policy. (f) Policy 6.6.1. This policy requires the City to provide appropriate buffers between different types of land uses (for example, between single-family and multi-family residential) and to provide on-site screening of various uses within a housing development. This policy is implemented through TCDC Chapter 18.100 "Landscaping and Screening," and TCDC § 18.80.1220(A)(3)(b). Compliance with these TCDC provisions are discussed later in these findings. (g) Policy 7.2.1. In order to satisfy this policy, the applicant will, as condition of approval, provide an appropriately engineered plan for disposing of stormwater run-off from the site in a manner that will not adversely affect any downstream property owners or jurisdictions. Based upon the view of technical evidence and in the record, the Planning Commission finds that it is feasible for the applicant to satisfy this condition. (h) Policy 7.4.4. This policy is met because the entire apartment complex will be connected to the public sanitary sewer system. W Policies 7.5.2 and 7.6.1. These policies are met because the Tigard Police Department and the Tualatin Valley Fire District have reviewed this application and have offered comments that have been incorporated into the staff report. 0) Policy 8.1.1. This policy requires the provision of a safe and efficient street system that meets current and anticipated future growth and development needs. This policy is satisfied for the following reasons: i. The main driveway entrance to the development is proposed to be on the realigned 109th Avenue, a minor collector street intended to accommodate the approximately 2,000 vehicles per day that this development is expected to generate. Secondary access is also provided onto SW 109th Avenue which, in turn, provides direct traffic from the development south onto the new street or north to SW Canterbury Lane, also a minor collector. The applicant's traffic report indicated that some traffic will travel south of SW Naeve Street on SW Ninth if the street is left open. The proposed segmenting of both SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue PAGE 14 FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD will significantly discourage southbound traffic on SW 109th Avenue through the Summerfield neighborhood. Opponents testified that they believed this project would result in increased traffic through Summerfield, with increased danger to pedestrians and golfers. The applicant's evidence, especially the traffic study, shows that the vast majority of the traffic will either go north to SW Canterbury Lane or southwest to Highway 99W. The Planning Commission finds there is little likelihood that a substantial increase of traffic through the Summerfield neighborhood will result from this proposal. Moreover, testimony by Beverly Swink indicated that some "pass-through" traffic already occurs in the Summerfield neighborhood. The Planning Commission finds this to be evidence that if there is a problem associated with pass-through traffic, it exists regardless of the Triad development and, moreover, the realignment of SW 109th and Naeve Avenue will significantly reduce the chances of increased pass-through traffic from the Triad development. The Planning Commission considered but rejected a condition of approval requiring a "No Left Turn" sign to be installed at the intersection of SW Naeve and 109th. The Planning Commission finds that a "No Left Turn" sign would likely be ignored and if it is required in the future, can be installed. ii. The applicant will be responsible for the construction of street improvements along the frontage of its development. iii. Based upon traffic studies in the record, the Planning Commission concludes that the traffic generated by this development will be within the capacity of the adjacent local street system. This conclusion holds true even if SW 109th Avenue is not constructed between Naeve Street and Highway 99W. However, the applicant has agreed to construct a portion of Naeve Street, and a condition of approval requires such construction. In addition, the church will be required to construct two-thirds of Naeve upon its completion. iv. The applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement with the City whereby the applicant will contribute $300,000 to the construction of this portion of SW 109th Avenue south of Naeve in exchange for a $300,000 traffic impact fee credit. (k) Policy 8.1.3. This policy is satisfied for the following reasons: i. The development abuts three public streets which will provide it with appropriate and adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority. ii. Sufficient street right-of-way shall be dedicated as a conditional of approval along the existing SW Naeve Street, as well as full right-of-way dedication for the new collector street through the project. iii. The developer will construct streets, curves and sidewalks to City standards within the development. iv. The developer will participate in necessary street improvements to the extent of its impacts. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 15 V. Transit stops, bus turn-out lanes and shelters are not required to be provided because the project is on a street (SW 109th) not served by public transit. The portion of the project adjacent to Highway 99W is not suitable for a bus shelter because of the steep slope between the project and the highway. vi. Parking spaces will be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled individuals, and those spaces will be located as close as possible to the entrance designated for disabled persons. vii. This site is not affected by the City's adopted Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. B. TCDC Provisions. (1) Chapter 18.54 (R-12 Zone). This chapter is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-12 zone. (2) TCDC Chapter 18.56 (R-25 Zone). This chapter is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-25 zone applied to the western portion of Tax Lot 200. (3) TCDC Chapter 18.80 (Plan Development). This is satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed as required by the provisions of the Planned Development Overlay Zone. The Planned Development Overlay Zone approval standards are found at TCDC § 18.80.120. These approval standards incorporate various TCDC chapters described here. In addition, TCDC § 18.80.120(a)(3) sets forth the additional following criteria: a. Relation to the natural and physical environment. (i) As demonstrated by the site plan submitted by the applicant, the proposed development preserves existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. The most important trees on the site are the large, mature coniferous trees on the northwestern and northern portions of the site. The proposed development leaves the northwestern corner entirely in its natural state and preserves the large trees along the northern border of the site. Development on the remainder of the site avoids large stands of mature trees wherever possible and incorporates them into the landscape plan. In addition, a tree removal permit pursuant to TCDC Chapter 18.150 will be required before trees with a diameter of six inches or greater can be removed, and an arborist's report describing protection measures for existing trees during construction will be required as condition of approval. With respect to topography and drainage, the proposed development follows the natural contour of the site and avoids the steep slopes in the northwestern corner of the site, thereby preserving the existing topography and drainage to the greatest degree possible. (ii) The northwestern corner of the site contains a small area in which slopes exceed 25 percent. This area will be left entirely in its FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 16 natural state. As shown by the geoteclhnical engineering study which is a part of the record, and which included extensive on-site soils testing and analysis, the remainder of the site contains stable soils and slopes that have few development constraints. The proposed apartment buildings and other structures can be built without difficulty through the use of established and proven engineering techniques. (iii) As discussed above, the proposed development satisfies or exceeds all set-back and building separation requirements of the TCDC. The placement and separation of buildings will provide ample light, air circulation and fire protection. There are no circumstances with respect to this site that would warrant additional separation requirements. Marge Davenport raised the issue of whether an additional buffer to the adjacent residential area is required. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed separation complies with the TCDC provisions and an additional buffer is not necessary. (iv) The proposed development places buildings along the contour of a generally south-facing slope, thereby maximizing the amount of sunlight available to each of the proposed buildings. In addition, because of the site's topography, the proposed development will not deprive adjacent properties of sunlight. Wind direction is not a factor in the placement of structures because high winds are relatively rare and of unpredictable direction. Proposed building heights, bulk, separation and set-backs are such that air will be able to circulate freely without creating a "wind tunnel" effect. b. Triad's plans identify existing trees on the site and preserve them when possible. The largest and most scenic trees are in the northern portion of the site. As noted above, the northwestern corner of the site will be left in its natural state, as will other large areas of trees. Also as noted above, a tree removal permit pursuant to TCDC Chapter 18.150 will be required. (i)-(2)(a)-(e) The proposed buffer, including screening and landscaping, is more than adequate to meet the specific requirements of TCDC Chapter 18.100 and the more general requirements of TCDC § 18.80.120.A.3.b. The site is nearly surrounded by multi-family development or undeveloped property zoned for multi-family use. There is a small area of single-family development across 109th Avenue from the site. Given the residential nature of the site and nearby properties, the purpose to be served by the buffer is primarily to enhance the attractiveness of the development and to enhance privacy by screening sights and sounds from neighboring properties and, to some extent, for moderate traffic on adjacent streets. The buffer accomplishes these purposes. To the west, there is at least a 250-foot buffer between the proposed apartments and Highway 99W. The northwestern corner will be left in its natural state with FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 17 large coniferous trees that provide a visual screen and dampen noise. The property immediately west of the southern portion of the site is undeveloped but is zoned for similar multi-family development. Along the boundary with this property, -a 10-foot buffer of existing trees and additional landscaping will be more than adequate, given that the apartment buildings proposed for this area of the site are generally oriented at an angle from the property line, thereby minimizing the number of units adjacent to the property line. To the north, a large area of mature coniferous trees will be preserved. Buildings and parking areas are generally placed 75 feet or more from the northern property line. Additional landscaping and evergreen screen trees will be planted between the existing trees and the apartment buildings and parking areas. To the east and south, adjacent properties are buffered from the site by 109th Avenue and Naeve Street, street trees, berm landscaped with shrubs and evergreen buffer trees, and building set-backs. In addition, apartment buildings along 109th Avenue are generally oriented away from the street. The proposed buffering will thus be more than adequate to buffer the residential uses on either side of 109th Avenue and Naeve Street from one another and to buffer the proposed residential uses from the traffic on these streets. (iii)(a)-(c) The site is heavily screened from the north and west by substantial buffers of mature coniferous trees. The site is screened from the east and south by street trees, landscape berms, including evergreen buffer trees and other landscaping. In addition, mechanical devices and dumpsters will be enclosed and parking areas will be fully landscaped with external and internal landscaping. Little, if any, of the parking area should be visible from adjacent properties. C. This provision is inapplicable because no nonresidential structures are proposed to abut any existing residential dwellings. d. Triad's plans provide required outdoor space in the form of separate, private patios or balconies that are placed on the south side of buildings and oriented toward sunlight. e. Triad's site plans show a proposed recreation center, pool, jogging paths, trails, balconies, patios and other public, private or common space which amply satisfied the observable recreational space requirements of this section. f. The proposed development satisfies the requirements of TCDC Chapter 18.108. Circulation patterns within the proposed development accommodate emergency vehicles. Internal roadways are two-way roadways, 24 feet in width. These roadways provide direct access to all dwellings and other buildings in the proposed development. Adequate turn-arounds for emergency vehicles are provided on each internal roadway that is not a through roadway. No pedestrian or bicycle ways are shown for the site on an adopted plan. The proposed development, however, will provide on-site pedestrian and jogging trails, sidewalks and bicycle parking facilities. g. Triad's plans provide more than 20 percent of the site in landscaping. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 18 h. Neither Naeve Street nor SW 109th Avenue is served by public transit. Although the site abuts Highway 99W, which is a public transit street, that portion of the site is steeply sloped and is to be left in its natural state. A pathway with a shelter at this location would create a crime safety hazard because the pathway would not be readily observable from the proposed development or neighboring developments. Therefore, no public transit provisions are appropriate under this section. i. No signs are proposed in the application. Future signs, if needed, will obtain a sign permit pursuant to TCDC Chapter 18.114. Any such signs will not obscure the sight distance of vehicle drivers. j. As discussed above, the proposed development meets the requirements set forth in TCDC Chapter 18.106. k. The site is not within a drainageway. Therefore, the criteria in TCDC Chapter 18.84 do not apply. However, the site plans show that on-site drainage is adequate to drain the site without creating erosion, ground instability or adversely affecting properties at lower elevations. 1. This section is inapplicable because the site is not within or adjacent to a 100-year flood plain. (4) TCDC Chapter 18.84 (Sensitive Lands). This chapter is satisfied because the development plan avoids development of areas of the site with slopes in excess of 25 percent, therefore not triggering the sensitive lands review process for steep slopes. In addition, the site does not contain designated drainage ways, 100-year flood plain areas or wetlands regulated by this TCDC chapter. The National Wetlands Inventory maps and the City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory and Assessment conducted by Scientific Resources, Inc. do not indicate the presence of wetlands on the site. However, a condition of approval requires that the applicant submit a delineation of wetland boundaries, if any, prior to issuance of building permits. (5) TCDC Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations). This chapter is satisfied because the site plan provides an appropriate calculation of the permitted number of housing units for the site and the proposed development would provide fewer than the allowed number of dwelling units. (6) TCDC Chapter 18.96 (Additional Yard Set-Back Requirements and Exceptions). This chapter is satisfied because the site plan for rides for appropriate distances is required by this chapter between the proposed multi-family buildings in order to assure privacy to residents and to provide adequate light to all units. (7) TCDC Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening). This chapter is satisfied because plans for tree retention and added landscaping satisfy TCDC requirements for minimum site area landscaping, street trees, perimeter buffering and vision clearance at intersections. (8) TCDC Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance Areas). This chapter is satisfied because proposed improvements at driveway and road intersections are located or sized with respect to maintaining clear vision for motorists and pedestrians. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 19 (9) TCDC Chapter 18.106 (Off-Street Parking). This chapter is satisfied because the r. applicant proposes to build 252 dwelling units of two bedrooms or less, and 96 units of three bedrooms or more. Under TCDC Chapter 18.106.030.A.4, 570 parking spaces, of which 348 must be covered, are required. In addition, 86 shared parking spaces and five parking spaces for the recreation building must be provided for a total of 661 parking spaces. Of these, 14 must be barrier-free spaces, and 25 percent (165) may be compact spaces. The site plans show a total of 661 parking spaces, of which 360 will be covered, 160 will be compact and 14 will be barrier free. Spaces will meet all dimensional, access, locational, lighting and other requirements of TCDC Chapter 18.106. In addition, the required number of bicycle parking spaces will be provided through bicycle racks and individual apartment garages. (10) TCDC Chapter 18.108 (Access Egress and Circulation). Site plans demonstrate that the proposed development will meet the requirements of this chapter. The plans satisfy the requirements for pedestrian and vehicle access to buildings, provide the required 24-foot wide internal roadway system with five-foot walkways and provide required internal circulation system and turnarounds for emergency vehicles. The proposed access points would not create hazardous traffic conditions or inadequate access for emergency vehicles. Four access points are proposed. TCDC § 18.108.070.1) is ambiguous, but the Planning Commission construes it to require two access points for the first 100 dwelling units and an additional access point for each 100 parking spaces over the number of parking spaces required to 1 serve the first 100 units. This construction requires eight access points rather than the four proposed by Triad. Triad's proposal satisfies the access variance approval standards set forth in TCDC § 18.108.150. Those standards are: a. It is not possible to share access. The proposed development does not abut other developed access nor will it in the future. Therefore, shared access is not possible. b. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street. Placing additional access points on 109th Avenue would create dangerous sight distance situations because of the curve and linear nature of the road. Access to Highway 99W is not possible and is limited by the Oregon Department of Transportation's Access Management Policy. The access separation requirements cannot be met. Limited sight distance along the sharp curve on 109th precludes access points there. d. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access. Four access points are the minimum necessary to provide safe and adequate access to the site. e. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access. The proposed access points will be well marked and placed at points which will not interfere with one another and that will have ample FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-00091PDR 93-00061SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 20 sight distance. In addition, the four proposed access points will be distributed throughout the site to provide adequate and efficient access for residents, visitors and emergency vehicles. f. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. The access points meet these requirements. (11) TCDC Chapter 18.114 (Sims). This chapter is inapplicable because Triad is not proposing signs as part of this application. (12) TCDC Chapter 18.120 (Site Development Review). In general, the approval standards contained in TCDC § 18.120.180(a)(1) and (2) are the same as those found in TCDC Chapter 18.80. However, the additional approval standards are discussed below: a. Exterior Elevations. The site plan provides the required offsets. b. Demarcation of Public, Semipublic and Private Spaces: Crime Prevention. The site plan shows that the structures and site improvements will be designed so that public areas are clearly defined by the various architectural and site treatments described in the ordinance. Crime Prevention and Safety. The site plan shows that the various improvements will satisfy these requirements to prevent crime and encourage safety on the site. (13) TCDC Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal). This chapter will be satisfied because the applicant is required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees. (14) TCDC Chapter 18.160 (Land Division: Subdivision). (15) TCDC Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards). This chapter will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the recommended improvements to the proposed new Naeve Street/109th Street connection, SW Naeve Street, SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway. Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed development. Although the proposed development will contribute a substantial amount of traffic to nearby streets, the additional traffic will not result in the designed capacity of these roads being exceeded or require additional traffic control measures. Creation of the 109th/Naeve connecting street will discourage traffic from traveling through the Summerfield area especially when the street is extended through to the SW Royalty Parkway/Pacific Highway intersection. The proposed storm drainage system will collect storm water from the portion of the site to be developed and direct this water to the storm sewer at the intersection of SW 109th and Naeve. Public improvement plans will include an analysis of the anticipated storm water flow from this area. Drainage pipes can be and shall be sized accordingly. Total storm water flow from the site to the west will be reduced because the on-site storm drainage system will recapture t some overland flow that would drain westward if the site remained undeveloped. 1 FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 21 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal, with minor modifications required as conditions of approval prior to building permit issuance, is consistent with the above applicable portions of the TCDC. 3. Additional Issues Raised by Opponents. (1) Impact on school district facilities. One opponent argued that the proposal will overload Tigard school district facilities. The Planning Commission finds that there are no applicable approval standards related to capacity of school facilities. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.8.1 provides, "The City shall work closely with the school districts to assure the maximum community use of the school facility for Tigard residents through locational criteria and the provisions of urban services." The Planning Commission interprets this policy to require coordination with the school district, but there is no requirement in the policy for an analysis of capacity and impact by a development. The school district commented that: "additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the school district including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to unutilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options." In addition, Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.8.1, Implementation Strategy I, provides as follows: "The City shall monitor school capacity by requiring requests for development proposals and permits to be reviewed by [the] applicable school district for effects on school capacity as a pre-condition to development." The Planning Commission finds that this implementing strategy has been complied with by the opportunity for notice and comment provided to the school district. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has upheld the City's interpretation that TCP Policy 7.8.1 Implementation Strategy I does not require a finding of adequate school facilities. Davenport v. City of Tigard, - Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 92-104, March 15, 1993). (2) An apartment complex is incompatible with the surrounding area. The Planning Commission finds that previously established zoning and density requirements determine this area as an appropriate location for multi-family projects. Moreover, the area is largely surrounded by multi-family projects as testified to by Beverly Swink. A limited single-family area is adjacent to the project on the southeast. However, the substantial landscaping buffer and SW 109th provide an acceptable buffer to this area. The Planning Commission finds that the apartment complex is not incompatible with the surrounding area because of the many existing apartments and, in any event, incompatibility is not an approval standard. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 22 (3) Children on bikes and skateboards will create a danger for elderly pedestrians. One opponent argued that the apartments' presence would create a danger for elderly pedestrians by virtue of children's use of bikes and skateboards. The Planning Commission finds that this is not related to an applicable approval criteria. In any event, however, there is no evidence in the record that children from apartment complexes pose a greater danger to pedestrians, elderly or otherwise, than children from other types of residential units. (4) Improvements to Naeve Street are needed. The Planning Commission notes that the above findings indicate that Naeve will be built as required by TCDC provisions. (5) A need for on-street parking on SW 109th. One opponent argued that the improvements on SW 109th lack on-street parking, and this will be required for the nearby Christmas tree farm. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal's off-street parking is sufficient for its purposes. Any issue of on-street parking is separate from this application proposal. On-street parking is to be addressed through street development standards. (6) Petition in opposition to the proposal. Marge Davenport indicated that a petition signed by many residents of nearby areas opposed this project. The Planning Commission notes that this petition is not in the record. (7) SW 109th must have a bike path. Marge Davenport raised the issue that ORS 366.514 required bike paths to be constructed as part of the improvements to SW 109th Avenue and Naeve Street. ORS 366.514 requires streets constructed with the use of gas taxes to include bike paths. The City Engineer testified that gas taxes are not being used to construct either Naeve Street or SW 109th; the costs are paid partly by the developer and partly by traffic impact fees. Moreover, the City does not normally mark bike paths on minor collectors. The Planning Commission finds that ORS 366.514 does not require a bike path. (8) Credibility of applicant's traffic consultant. Marge Davenport challenged the credibility of the traffic report submitted by Wayne Kittelson on the basis that the applicant paid for the study. The City Engineer reviewed the study and testified that he is comfortable with its results. Moreover, the Planning Commission finds that Mr. Mttelson has a long history of experience with such studies and is satisfied that Mr. Mttelson is a credible and reliable witness on the issue of traffic. C. DECISION: The Planning Commission hereby approves Site Development Review 93-0009 and Planned Development Review 93-0006 and the associated access variance subject to the following conditions: PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED: Unless otherwise noted, the contact person shall be Randy Wooley of the Engineering Department. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 23 During all construction of the on-site and off-site improvements, all construction traffic shall travel to and from the site via Pacific Highway and either Naeve Street or the proposed new connection between 109th and Royalty Parkway. Construction traffic shall NOT use existing 109th north of the site nor existing 109th south of Naeve Street. Construction vehicles, including employee vehicles, shall not be allowed to park on Naeve Street, 109th Avenue or within the public right-of-way. 2. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. 3. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalks, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, storm drainage, and streetlights shall be installed along the Pacific Highway frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Oregon State Highway Division standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Highway Division. A copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. The existing driveways to tax lots 700 and 800 shall be removed. An access reserve strip shall be recorded along this frontage. 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of Pacific Highway. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. f~ 5. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 6. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. 7. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking lot and/or roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 8. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989". 9. The applicant shall obtain a "joint permit" from the City of Tigard Engineering Department. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a delineation of wetland boundaries, if any, on the site shall be completed by the applicant, and , if necessary, applicable provisions of Section 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) of the Community Development Code shall be met. Staff Contact (Planning Division). FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-00091PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 24 11. There shall be no vehicle connection between Old 109th and New 109th. A turnaround, i.e. hammerhead meeting the City's and Fire District's approval shall be provided at the end of Old 109th. No other improvements shall be required north of the intersection of Old 109th and Naeve Street. 12. Naeve Street shall be realigned at Old 109th to intersect Old 109th at approximately a 90-degree angle, and shall conform to the alignment shown on the submitted preliminary plans (Drawing C100, dated 6/14/93). The existing south curb shall be reconstructed to match the new alignment. 13. New S.W. Naeve Street shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE: all stationing is taken from the submitted preliminary plans dated May 20, 1993): A. Full street improvements, meeting local street standards, shall be provided from STA. 2+37 to STA. 7+00. Full width street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities. B. Two-thirds street improvements, meeting local street standards, shall be provided from STA. 7+00 to STA. 14+59. Two-thirds street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, underground utilities, and interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the eastbound lane. 14. S.W. 109th Avenue shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE: all stationing is taken from the submitted preliminary plans dated May 20, 1993): A. Full street improvements, meeting minor collector street standards, shall be provided from STA. 10+00 to STA. 19+20. Full width street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities. B. Two-thirds street improvements, meeting minor collector street standards, shall be provided from STA. 19+20. Match the existing improved street at approximately STA. 27+80. Two-thirds street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers; storm drainage, streetlights, underground utilities, and interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the northbound lane. C. The City Engineer may approve reduced lane widths within that portion of New 109th between STA. 10+00 to STA. 28+00. 15. The applicant shall do the following with respect to the storm sewer system: A. Demonstrate that the existing pipe in 109th Avenue has adequate capacity to handle ultimate development of the entire drainage basin. B. Design the on-site water quality facility to meet current Unified Sewerage Agency design standards and verify that it will be the responsibility of the owners of the site to maintain such facilities. FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 25 C. Design the system(s) so that there is a clear delineation between the private and public systems. 16. The applicant shall dedicate the following right-of-way (NOTE: stationing is based on preliminary plans as submitted to the Planning Department dated May 20, 1993): A. S.W. Naeve Street: (1) From STA. 2+00 to STA. 7+00 - 50 feet of R.O.W., i.e. 25 feet either side of the new center line alignment; (2) From STA. 7+00 to STA. 14+58 - 25 feet of R.O.W., 25 feet from centerline along the north side of Naeve. B. Old S.W. 109th Avenue - provide R.O.W. for the hammerhead turnaround. C. New S.W. 109th Avenue: (1) From STA. 10+00 to STA. 19+20 - 60 feet of R.O.W.; 30 feet either side of the new centerline. (2) From STA. 19+20 to STA. 27+28 - 30 feet of R.O.W.; 30 feet from centerline along the west side of 109th. 17. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for a minimum caliper of 2 inches at planting for all street trees along public streets abutting the site. STAFF CONTACT: Planning Division (639-4171). 18. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to destruction or moving any of the existing buildings on the site. If the buildings are on septic tanks, the tanks shall be pumped out and either removed or filled with sand or gravel. If the buildings are connected to sanitary sewers, the lines shall be capped off in an approved manner. An inspection shall be obtained after the tank is filled or the sewer capped. A copy of the receipt for septic tank pumping shall be provided to the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT: Dave Scott, Building Division (639-4171). 19. The finished grade of cuts or fills shall have a maximum slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report from a registered engineer shall be submitted. The report shall indicate the location of any fill placed on building sites, suitability of the soil for building construction, and soil bearing capacity. STAFF CONTACT: Dave Scott, Building Division (639-4171). 20. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 21. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be removed or retained, an arborises recommendation for methods of protecting retained trees during construction of the 1 FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 26 proposed apartments as well as for the long-term health of these trees. This tree protection plan shall include at a minimum all trees designated preliminary landscaping plan and should endeavor to add additional mature trees as practicable. The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this condition. STAFF CONTACT: Planning Division, (639-4171). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THISITE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR A SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MAY BE POSTED GUARANTEEING COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT. 22. The applicant shall receive approval from the City of Tigard Police Department prior to assigning or installing addressing on buildings or directional address boards internal to the development. STAFF CONTACT: Kelley Jennings (639-4171). 23. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the revised landscaping and site plans. STAFF CONTACT: Planning Division (639-4171). 24• A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Division prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Community Development Code. STAFF CONTACT: Planning Division (639-4171). C 25. Prior to the authorization to proceed with construction of any public improvements, the developer and the City shall enter into an agreement substantially similar to the draft agreement proposed by Triad and attached to this approval as "Attachment B". Final wording of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. STAFF CONTACT: Randy Wooley, City Engineer. APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHTEEN MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This L'"day of A "V- 1993, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. J mes Castile, Vice Chair 11 vTigard Planning Commission br/69783.1A DATE FINAL ORDER - SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006/SLR 93-0005 TRIAD PAGE 27 1 Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 14SS2 SSW 1CSth Ave. Tigard, Oregon, 97224 Sept. 9, 1993 FP M • i SEP 13 1993 Dear Members of the Council: I received today a notice that on Sept. 28 you will be considering the following file, which has recently been approved by the Planning Commission. SOR 93-0009/POR 93-0005 Triad III While I will probably be attending the hearing, rather than speaking at the hearing, I would like to have the attached copy of a letter I wrote to the Planning Commission stating my objections and reasons For them, written into the minutes of the meeting. I would appreciate your giving attention to these considerations in making your decision. Verb/ truly yours, 0-7 Lenore A. Schuster 14962 SW 109th Ave. Tigard, Oregon, 97224 August 7, 1993 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Attention: Dick Bewersdorff Dear Members of Planning Commission: Re: File No. SOR 93-0009/POR 93-0006 Triad III, Meeting of 8/16/93 Please be kind enough to consider the following comments in connection with the hearing for the above-project. I will not be able to attend the hearing. As an owner of a condominium in the Canterbury Woods Complex adjacent to the proposed complex, I have been following this project since it was first proposed in 1990, including attending previous meetings of the Planning Commission and the City Council. I have also written previous letters for the record. I have previously been a member of the Homeowners' Assn. Board and I believe my concerns reflect those of other owners here. We will be very much impacted if thls complex is built. I will confine myself to two major objections (which actually incorporate companion problems.) 1. The size of this project (I believe Tigard's largest) is equivalent to a small town being built on the limited space of a sharply graded hill, necessitating the removal of trees and other vegetation, which I believe to be ecologically unsound. I understand that when permission was granted for the Albertson's shopping center area to go in some of this area was zoned for high density multifamily dwellings as a trade-off. I was not notified of this decision and only heard of it much later. I'm inclined to wonder if any actual looking at the topography of the land was involved, or if it was just a paper transaction. 2. Transportation, parking, etc. Since this project first came before the planning commission and council, Timberline Apts. (formerly Little Bull Mt. Apts.) have been completed and largely (though not completely) occupied. In addition to more cars coming and going, the curve where 109th turns into a deadend is completely filled with parked cars on each side every evening, creating a real visibility hazard for those reentering our complex. To prohibit street parking would prevent those of us who live in this area from having guests. r This project would worsen that situation. It seems almost a Mprphy's Law that every complex generates half again the number of cars it is designed to accommodate. Putting through-109th, as I believe is currently planned,:` will not Eliminate the problem For current residents and will continue as a problem For residents of the new complex. Presumably the traffic will Flow in two directions From the new complex on 109th. The segment of 109th leading to Canterbury Lane is curving and dangerous, and there are many children in the apartment complexes along this route. It is especially bad in winter--there is no way to avoid a slippery hill getting down into Tigard and environs but 109th is the most hazardous. At this point, there is no public transportation available From the top of the hill. Iwould suggest that if this project does go through, public transportation is a very important need to be addressed. I_do not think it would eliminate the basic bad idea of 348 units on the limited space of the slope of a steep hill, but at least it might mitigate the traffic problems. Thank you For your consideration of my concerns. Very_ truly yours, Lenore A. Schuster i ■ ~ ~ _ _ ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS IL'91QII1 1~k /i3rxa:crF= ~ Y~ 47A1 S~ Eue Wis. 7M 'E6':£8 k~se:# IMN ~ AL'E -'-4 kiae ~!4#4 ?£14~ 44 r -T1~~ I:er 2".e6r 44? -5313 :PFracts~ frr-¢e~ IMMb 6~i, w,. d1'~ MkADS A.c M SramSe, ilu# ~47c'9 R Y66 6k2-t3gii ~ Gx2-2623 z4Y' fMpFm + rK- t sa eerw+®n Dr 4>a st~~3 543i sae i 433-6247 { { F$f §~.~j 635 LCAa4B~ kcTkeR#: " 4#* 6:i41N1f bsN.x ~ P7^oF~e- 4.42-158Y Fqs~ .2R8} 68.1-4721 f e.~a#,~t#~I raMA yawns 7~aat ~ Sarst ea~Na, WA 4a4sz ~z4a~ ~t-a3Ta s'a~. zad azt-4334 IFCAI OESCPoPf10N: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST QUARTERS OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, 5410 PORTION BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN IRON ROD WHICH 6EAR5 NORTH 71'38'49'WEST 1050.88 FEET FROM A WASHINGTON COUNTY MONUMENT AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89'36'00" WEST 7001.28 FEET TO AN IRON ROD IN THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WqY LINE OF S.W. PACIFIC HIGHWAY; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTHWESTERLY 220.44 FEET ALONG A 1392.39 FOOT RADIUS NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT (THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 18'03'07 WEST 221.21 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 13'30'59" WEST 142.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 9, "WILLOW-BROOK FARM"; THENCE NORTH 89'29' 43" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 282.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE SOUTH OD'S1'39" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SND LOT 9, 792.52 FEET TO A POINT 1N THE CENTER OF S.W. NAEVE RDAD (COUNTY ROAD X900); THENCE SOUTH 83'28'49" EAST, IN THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD, 917.52 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH S:W. 709TH AVENUE (COUNTY ROAD # 1475); THENCE IN 'CENTER OF SAID AVENUE NORTH 00' 34'47 WEST 332.79 'FEET. NORTH '00'29'49" VEST 437,10 FEET AND NORTH '00' 59'73" 'WEST 439:49 FEET; i THENCE NORTH '00'22'56" EAST 345.35 -FEET TO THE 'POINT'OF BEGINNING, :CONTAINING 27.194 ACRES GROSS ! SUBJECT TO THE'RIGHTS OF THE PUBI:IC TO ANY PORTION LYING I'~,WITHIN S:W. NAEVE'ROAD;(000NTY ROAD ~900)'ORB:W. T09TH AVENUE '(COUNTY ROAD {)1415). I m! ~EXc 14~MIIArf3 - 3f 21aj53 Aim r's:Ah ~ :v/x/93 ~ tu&~ A sffi st 4S ~ '1~~ A2?3 srk~. B.N„ir~ ~ ~Jls"C~9~'#§ Ai0! 6 u~R4 E 5(~iR193 Ai k ~.Ati; 5/2421'41 Air33 ~?.£~di£~S Ida A ~,1~~8* AiC=,; S~E76a£~,ir5 E+.9iCtF~fll S9T~:/'~3 A3P2 ~ t?fui.F$ e slaale3 A3f33 "=:.E1rA[ B.et," R~ @ 3128183 Es€vAT~S 6131~AAF3 E 5/iS;93 Al3Fa E2£1MT142k5: ~E'.~AL1fiP!# 6L#k".M4G #/Y@/4l ~tk ~i9v peE5 i~2+31~3 ~S A'4@ SECTtY4 ~t Ct43 p,A,y IPffu#e,'+NAV ' r, (20193 ry{ ~ryr ~ ~ i p ~ ~ L i~ t.# ~y W ® ~ ptARTn#F, Qfl^4 ~A~ / p / SO 4Yf S.I Hoar:. I ~ ~#TDURS TREES Sf~t4~ , _ _ S'•~f ,Y7E~S T8.6S7 slccss, pJ4rd$3&.4O > kdt Tuba P~acrF,c iiylroy, Ciq~ m# a7 aRiik T t3eo~,emom 6ts1S a l!AlTS: r g,/~a ~Z€~,n e ` ~ ' l r M~ d 6t~a. lF 5 TI 9 , k f C tft 4 2 D Sf2 3 c t tAt, p2~ 3/2 €~1 T2 # a~t.2} 212 3~2 TSTq p A ~ 4D a a 14C a 32 0 4i o a 8e D a a a a 8a E z4 a a D bD tD4 ba~ +e 4a ob cARraRTS ~ Na at gags. Na. ar StaHS 4 Stan Carpet 24 144 8 Stan ap#age 4 54 DENSITY CALCUlAT10NS: Tatol Net Ar6p; 28,,87 atrts.7,140,856.4 a.t R-2S Iona 185,238.60 Lefs R.O.W. 8 Dedicolions -7,600,00 Less Private Roods -17,184.00 130,454,60 Square Feet per Un@: 1,480.00 Net Units per Acre: 88.15 130,454.60 R-12 Zone 975,474.40 Less R.O.W. ~ Dedications -32,950.00 Less Private Roods -88,728.00 Less Sensitive Lands -38,000.00 875,796,40 Square feet per Unit; 3;050.00 Net Units per Acre: ~ 267.47 Density Transfer '(Sensitive 'Land): 25~ df 38;000=9;500 '9,500/3;050=3.7 7 3,17 270:58 TOTAL 'UNITS ALLOWED: 358 TOTAL UNITS 'PROVIDED: 348 r J ~ a U ~x } #sr wa ..1 ' ~ ~ - w .sew ~n ~r--~r T ~ w a~'~~'~ rmj~ '~4© a$~~d ~$~m W~~3~ ~~N~R N F- ~ i ~ ~ W W ~ ~ O o Q.' ~ m ~ u ~ D ~ ~ ` d' Q o a rc r PR1NTi=0 ,SEP 211993 KAMPEASSUt;., iNi: MQ/GE I cMCG: 8936 i. COVER i 7 SHEEN 3 A~MM14! P#~011iG . 7€ $ # 6ea9esnr _ . . 252 ; 4 t3 37$ 2i Blsa 9i #6#~S Y ~ #'!T 57~@ 3 land! » rgrfeq S7'S 34i BErrle< ~ 1ST PARKNMP, fives t C~I'a4t StMIF i }D p YY"AI4! a~r{~e ( Jq 84"##er rw S E4 Ta#a# Prar~#F: pQ4 a PERCEMAGE a srE cDVERED wcexH ewlD~s ts,~ Na, rou#orMt A S 48,475 e 4 33.a~ C 2 !4,852 D J ST,480 E 3 S1,SQ0 SvOtotol 185,845 s.L Reereplipn BMq, t8,3t2 Goroges/coroo~ts 40,080 Total: 224,087 s.4. YAP: 1ACg1Y NORTH m in1S DUCUNENT IS 'LESS LEGIBLE THAN TNIS'NOTATION,(', 1 r IT 'IS ''0UE TO THE'QUALITY GFI' THE ORIGINAL OOCUMBNT. _n_ r, II ,~11 w3 _ , UTA'ROH 30 '1594 1 IOIIII~RlI i I - ; R-12 ~ 5 ~-35 Zt~iE FAi~I► ~EI4T - 1. - - 4 s n s; n n .1x ;t ~ / , - x 1 i F _ € ~ m ' , ~ f A'?'+,£.`~'~: 4 t'}s: z54 GEiollOc fA+fl23' g. e n OE.'d3Y~T A~ -32 _ ~ a Zf4 A Y E„ I ! ~ l 2f1 A 1 E ~ ~ ~ . 1 ~ ` B / ~ * / ! f t~ 1 f X f ~ ~ ~ / ~ a - r 'i av - ~ ~ / ~ ~ , ! ~ ~ f ~ ~ s~ r - / ~ ~ ; J2€JD f f ~ ~ r ` ~ _ r l;~r ~ ~ ~ } l ~3 f ` - _ ~ F J:r ~Y i ~ ~ , • ~ ~ .1BILT f - * ~ ~ ~ , ~ - * / . ! r t f f ~ { ~ f` lFiRiA f ~ f S$ 6tpcwAe'w • _ d z - ~ ~ 4 > I f / - ~ C H . , ~ ~ ~ ~r _ ~ IK-t cars ~ rt t A..,r ACC ~fi ~t i ~F ~ ~ 4rn! tr'>q' ~ ~i 6 r / Y ~ s ~ s ! ~r N ~ !Q V ~ ~ - ` ~M , F^ ~ ~ f/. R ZONE a , / _I # • I { • d ro`-c FRONT vMD KEY: E3UILQING NUMElERS ~ ► • sET6Kr t ( ,n.a ~ ! `r'te--- No Lwm w RLOc r.~ ~ ~ j ; ~ ~ ~ z a' . a ! HlDM1TDDAL BlY IOCNMt(R 1+u' =--f 1 t t ti ~ ~r ~ ~ , 1 / 9 B C 24 C 9 24r C A/ O B r "3s / / / N 0 51 9" W 7 8.73' _ ~ 310' /y ~ ~ : ~ / 1 30O' ~ M N N N N 10'-d' SIOEFARD N Stu' 1 ECIBACN ~I- R-25 ZONE UNDEVELOPED 300 1 1 2QO• ~ Notes: DWG. A100 a90• / w , 280' a 1. For CODE DATA/CALCULATIONS; see COVER SHEET iO 2. For SIDEWALKS, PATHWAYS, LANDSCAPING, and SITE LIGHTING; sENSInvE LAND ^ (?SS SLOPE) see LANDSCAPE DRAWNGS. 97 ,o+ } o, c°.°oa° o~sii~ ~g~~~ ~Aa~h* 1n F ~ d ~ } Z -"3 >g yy !4 ~ 30 to Z ~ IiJ a O j Q c p ~ p Q a p O rn ~ Q ~ o, o 1- i= I` \ - 0 m 3. For PAVING, PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS, GRADING, DRAINAGE, SEE DWG. AB10 Ll..l \ " O' Z and TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, see CIVIL DRAWINGS. ~ ~ (1q ~ A BAARIER FREE UNIT \ \ IFI~' M ~ \ ~ ®E DWGOAt2 ~NLY ~~h~q y ~ \ 260' +IAA.a FINISHED BOOR ELEVAnON z \\0, AT LowesT LEVEL Q PRINTED ~ ~ ~ -J SEP 2119y3 ~ ~ ~ KAMPEaa56C,INC. PLAN: SITE M°/KK/AMe CHKD: SCALE: 1"=60' 8,T936 10/f 2/53 AGENDq N0. r ~ l-A 1 O O 7 OF ii / 1 IP TNIS uoculexr Ie r.ESS +Tpr~r~r~lr~>1tTj(~rl~ljt tP~llt~_ _~u 1 ~ ! I - MARCH ~ s' LEGIBLE THAN TNIS NOTATION, 1 4 B ~ Q 11 30 ' 1994'., , ' ~v IT IS DUE TO THE DUALITY OP~' I ~ ( I. THE OflICINAL i)OCONENT. uu iudmi aulilu mdim mllllil mllmi iulhul uuluu mVm mlVm uuVm Illdim uu61u uu6ul IIOVIII Illdp Illlluu uIIVu and _ dm u~uulmllhu I e I , I , KEY: SYMBOLS ® BLDG. TO eE it ~ ~ M OV R E ED 0 URE: D E GR W S E 6/Aff1 ~ ! uaILBON IUOSK: ' ' SEE DWG. 1 f /AB10 GARAGE OR CARPORT; SEE DWG. AB1! BARRIER FREE PARKING STALL - _ ~ - - J ~ ap A~ ,,r 3 ,1 ~ a • - - e . 7 - ~ _ _ 3 u ~ _ _T_ _ ~ - _ _ a r _ ~ ~ i _ - - + r # _ ~ > - ~ ~ R _ . ~ I I . r f ^ . - _ _ t ~ - - , " - w t ~ _ , _ _ _ ~i •r ~ - _ 4 r, : ~ _ - . Y F _ _ n * l L • - ~i r • IF .r_. r y - ~ . L . . ~ t e. $ . - ~ .y a ~ f. • t - - 'j _ - .f ~ - i 1`. l f /~j^ _ ` 3f y '..n . 1 _ ~ ~ a~ %R + h r e f.. ~ s r ~ • _ • a' / Q.- t ' _ . Fxv - s- ' r' _ - " R1 _ 3 • • E} • y. A. c _ 3 - t ~ ~ z 'e _ _ / - ~ [ _ ~ Y : r. • , ~ u-~ m . " a • 3~7' , ~ r. f ~ ~ a i ~ ~ , C ti' ' y 3~ 1 y I ~ • • ` ~ 1 : rJ d 330' • - J--. • a .t _ s. r r~ I"• I-- t-• ~ - r,, ' • ! 'N 1ST 1 320' 'd. Q ~ - j , - ' • ItN1 M COMA~tI NAME ~TANN:AL NAISE ~ n ~ N p - Gl W^ I , .V 3D N N. N Mtll[I N N p / l E.7. D I 310' r: N ! ~I 7 elr.x n». ; ,7 7N••r eawx u•~ `i: A7 pbnuq Imd•,na7 maM.. r a«o Myx e170Pavo• ma ~ Q ar 7S M AN M a oha ' 1 71 J rw d i +1•• tray7M7 •BA a •urcvlMNO aeM• N«p7 a•I' i 0 MOrA Owmn,Wa ,J Inaa7M, ar»~ ~oMl7 M :B x+rt U u _ r ~ 30D' U«Nww Pxa La n«. i 7N^•r altS.r ue ' I ,I~WN 4AWN (n y , I 17540' oP7min/1 ti, I ~ I wmaPM»n« Piw«oocxEO7o • ~1NOn . ' I p7iRSI:oiRen~ai Ma►7~ . i _ :SID K:. _ ~ i R+y»»AM Fmnwomw A+WO~• , Sall 71 MS ~ pp}{ . NraMp4 AarnM,m - ;i,: ; i "7» SECTIGN ~ ~ a'<` ~t 29D' I g»opum LgveomWraymNmm~ '/7n» Q 7'i^ 280' Nmwr M,p. AarpMMrom« t ReBuen `:iam7hjale».... ~ a ; NnpIW IM«~ Ta'mwxicoa luY++:.. ;'AlW r00 % - • : • j0 ~ ~ N, 'r lMnM : EHw yq ~ ~ ~N s i Omani»IN•Tn« ~ 1~SN'allp7r Ba/ .170'.7( GrMiIMMa+A :.+YWman~n}0 ' 4.~ 3y 7P0elnSl B w» r• &Mw »mMrvkem ; E ~ I , FbwhgPOx Prruf'ar7erom•'- •Jrpn«+HaN -:-,M Mw ~ 27 Wm0 annm,o crmryu+Ph+x~n.n Ivy ,.HodojohNa ~ a~, ;1 I Nann,000xooE, - Gmuoaowe PNMMN :'~ViamMx a ' - 2811' S,oaOraP H+Ne4 eemllne * SYa GeuhhxluhNm'' ' W 1' , v, 2; Sagom Goappb M+N «q ntl - ~ St Jdm~Won ~,My"7Nm annum • ~ Y«nim Cnxry ~ Prw«yxbana• .-GIMnaYO - Ganmhu wldlia«a I' $ ~m,• ~ Ain •jl. . CipSOopraE S: GmuS7bbnUn ~ 0 t ~ II11 g _ ~ !1 70, ~ EaN+mua. Eudrym Ym• ~ L1 ~ .S,W 2 Evx r«n Bw« Tr».Ob' SSB I45a0 N«In0) r:i BhciodoMmn Hhotlodmdmn epp I r a i ~4 • Pq 26a omq»E~ P+uodanuo.m«a«7 de~w+c~a. » o ° • C1Fj + ww+mN»Gdx mup7rra„ mlie +a+'+•~ a m~ o e ~ ~ _ ~ I . C Gan H»am0,. Sogula P+^~n+- Mal ':Mgnoua »uMnS.n ~ ti,~N 26D' armspuaa s.mmmawamae§+m«m Mrnb. 17yrlaaa•om ~ , Z :r I Wqy I wana,aN.mb~ rawanalxadrviM ai Knaa I ~ man PRINTED Q t'%1 S E«rOran rnoo -ea' Bae ~170'.7s•.0kMS1 Prtim :,.L~x~ ~ J. Yarorc.ax cnawacyw Iwomnanw so..>temr,w u~ w SEP•211993 X73 . ~ Bno P. BIad PM Pn« Ima l Svc~MYnle .•.~'Sp e+av » of u S'.: 7 I LL o me amain ~a i I KAMrawauc.,mC. 50 :0 . o i^ Gwx+Gaar • Germaxeaa - j m I ~ Lmxancypi+: cnemaooryariaMriiaa ( r ~ ~ MDjKK; AMG n i LAWN..; ; SAWN , . Lq~yq CHKD: - I m r ~ . P.u~fwc- : !e1ti T1716 VEPETAnfN7r0 ~BdAyl j., , - 1P/12/93 gGENDN N0. 5 r.IT. _ - _ s + ~ ~ IP THIS DOCUNHNT IS LEBS ~ Yjl ~ ~T~'I ~e-.-,- - I p r~ : _ i'•r: IEGIBLO THAN THIS NOTATION 1 Q 6 Q ZL MAf{Gfl 30 9 4" -''"4~ p. T I5 UE TO THH QUALITY OF~. 771E OEIGINAL OOCUNENT. I IIII IIII~IIII IIII~IIiI IIIIIIIII IIII 111111 s ~IIII7 E IIIIIIII 111111 Ia z I I !11111 ' I r r I I c e s. 7 I«n 4'_ luu ul of uuluu I al ludllll lul6 p uli6lq uulllll m hula Illlluu uu~m mill . ,IIWL _ u~~glu up - ~ k,. _ ~ _ ' a ~XL ~ t~ u a ~ 0 J ozc Olf OOf _ osz- ~ w w t3 F D ~ t k- ~ 4 ~ aao - ~ v ~ v ~ , ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~c , ~ ~ ! / ~ ~ E s E ~ , ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ r r / e ~ 1e ~r ~ / ~ ~ r # e e / e / ~ / ~ e / r f ~ ~ / l e # f e r e~ ~ ~ e # / ~ ~ ie / ~l e i # ! / / ~ f e i! f ~ .~t' , / / ~ ~ 0 f T ! / ,/A / / f f f ! / f f e f i / if i ~ # ~ r f r ~ / / ,e ~ / ee ~ f e e ~ r / f ~ o f f l / e e , f'' e ~ / ~ ~f i e /e ~ e / / e / ~ it / l / / ~ , e 1 f e / / f / / ! ! f ~ e~ e e e~ / / e e e e e , , / / f ~ / / e ~ e f ~ I /~r~ e / / e / / / l le et eef / ~ ~ ~ ~ e e e f / r a/ e /e l / i f~ / 0 e e e e f ~ ~ f / ,e f e e ~ i e t i/ f /~f / / / / ~ ~ ~e e ~ 1 1 ~ f l e e e ~ e / t ~ e I / ~ O / / / I ee i p / / e / / / ~ / s e / f / / e ~ ~ ~ / e e / e < ! ,I f ~ / ~ / ~ f / / / ~ / f / l / e / / / / l / s / G „/i / / / l / ~ / / / / t/ / e //r / /e~ / / ~ ~ ~ ! t rfrl / / / / e / e ~ / ~ ! / / / i ~ r / / / e eei C efer l e f ~ ~ ~ --~i f l t~ e/~ e t a e i r ~ ,,,1 t,~` / f l ~ / ~ e ~ ~ / ee/ / / / w u~ a U r 1 ~ i . / e e / e . / ~ e / / e t--.._ r eiel ee / ~ ~e i e / e e e / / ~ i / / . / e e e / ~ , Q - / ee e ~e / i iee a / / e e / ~ l / ~ 1 / / ~ e / / ~ e / ~ / f/ - , - / / / ~ ~ 1 / , ~ / ~ / / / r ~ J / ~l / / ~ ~ ~ / / / / ~ / / ~ Q' ~ / / / ~ ~ m. ~ / / ~i / / / / ~ ~ a ~ - / / / ~ / ~ / / m N - / / / / ~ J woo / ~/i / ///i O ~ / ~ v ~ ~ J / / / / ~ NOS '4 ~ ~/mar/l/ O ~ f ~'r = %~i%ii~~i /i//~i/// / J OwN to ~ - ~ z , 'X _ ~ - / / U = / / / ~ Z U ~J ~ ~ ~ / ~ woo F ~ / \ / ~ ~ i ~ l ~ / ~ ~ ~ l ~ ii ~ ~ ~ PRINTED ~ (V V - - / SEP 2119{ i 1 10/12/93 gGENOq N0. 5 4 OF 71 • KAMPEASSOC.,INC, - ` s~+hsr nm, , IF THIS DOCUMENT IS LEES I f I+I iIIf~Y'f~i -I. ~ - ;6GIBLE THAN THIS NOTATION II 1 6 ~ MARCH 30,..,~ ~ _ t i IT ISDUE TO THE QUALITY OF~' 8 11 i 994 1 II TH6 ORIGINAL DOCUMENT - - - uil imlmi uuliiil uululi imllul milieu iiiduu igduu uldipi ilulpu uuluu uuluu imlpu uululi uuliul mdi uuhm iiliVm mdl . uluu u a u~m milNi ~ +y Q ~v ~fl ~ , pp ~ , _ ~ ~,o J ~ ~ - - - - t # - -yF-~ - - - __~,s~ • i _ _ _ t~ . ~ t ' ' ~ " ' ~ emu. a ~ _ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ fl ~ ~ # O ~ i' i ~ i i i ~ i c~ r • qO #E~ i ~ 3 'Y • i i i i • £ i 3 i~ ri % ~ ~ t # 4 i a ( t ' G~~~n i E~ QY i ~ F i.~ t i 2 R3 i t ~S ci i a ~ 4 i i o , K ~ ~ i~ •i ~ i~ ~ jt is i a~ •i t ;x ~ ~ i ' " ~ .~'t rid , , ~ ~ - ~ i p,. ~ 3 i P ii i i~ 'ii~~ 5 ~ ~ ~ i ! a',# i i~ ~ iii ~i~ ~i~ i M rt ~ 1 i i # ~ Q ~ ,i i ! . ~ ~ . ~ ! ,M E i ; i i t~, ~ t ~ W 1* i iE t .i` ~ i ~ ~i t t t t ' t s~ _ _ r~ i i ~ r IN ' ~ ~ i * i ~ K ,i i ~ ' ~ ~ p 'y ui° ' i i i ii ~ ~ ~ ° ~ i ,i F r__ t .4 ` ti ! i ~ s , ~ eta i• t, t A ~ / ~A' ~ ~ ~ ! m A ' z~ ~ ~ i t / t t ~ ~ f / t I t ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ `a 1- i i{,t i t t +bt~ . , i i O O N t t' . i My t ~t L5'► r' S t ~ ' i i' S. .P/~~ 5 t ~ !f ~ '88 ( ~ ~ ~ ~ 5`b~~ 00'9~l 5 t~ i i ~ ~ t~ t t 5' ! ! ~ ~ / ~ o t! . a t ' t i e ~ ~ _ _ . ~ ;,n~_ r m°q t.~. ~ j t' N - ' ' Z9'L6L MM6£,tS.00 N 3 5 ifzN ~ ~ ~ ~t~ t F. N tiiJ M / y i..• O~ Xd tV ~ _ _ 5 ~ ~ E o. 5 b HS --~~YI- r it 3 ~ ~ 6 5' Z pUSE ~i. 6G ~ ?igp m t •t ~ H 20 ski O~ ~ ~ Z 'i • t F=. ' _ .k 3 HN H g9 X O ' \ ~ ~ v jy~ ' +i 6 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ \ , ~ ;r ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , IO/12/93 FGENDP ND. 5 s nF n o~ O J~ M J J ~ 0 as U ~ ' o \ \ ~g Z1C ~ ~ ~ \ ~ 1 i~/ i ir;~. kF a~~~ - z, ss~s'~scsst a Z T ~~ic F, E> ^G ~~'~eF` .c. Y? •.'.F~i' _ 1¢ 2~:?. ifi q s}'. @J 1+i.E .716 6 t 4 Apr ' S:. ]Y 3t'w 7x .~G',.': ; Ak ~ f :+f "y,:9'.f7. 3A v-.a SA ~ 4:1.C ...l. ~ i ;F3%' € c )6:$ zC..tE>G ',4'w ~ i5.- _ •,"iA: •4 ! vi`"` ~ SEW-.3M -~4i . _ _ _ . 1., -a--1e- ~ ~ mss: n`i.~ rr _ A ~ - - } ~ ~ ..t .~,a L:ES :E6 /P "1 tae x. r 1fF- ~ A' r 4s r, ~ s •f7/ ~ a I x` g ti Era. . . - _.t L 5. C. At'~ .73 S.'~' . ~ _ ! ~ ' i s+¢ I ,l~l • I 11 f M r Zr.=gin lr+ Fr w✓ 4 .D1 1 a 7 ~1;'. l'~ ~ ~ t I r~s ~ ~ yob 'A.{ LOY / z VAk A Fst,.tC4a LOt 4 r`4. yy`` Ei'~ ~.7 ,n ~~i /,.n. -~C-t. Aar roan!/.~~ .~,j, Icoar^ ✓ 70 pRCb I \Z6 tfi. ~ OSFO I O' Of 7~7J \ . 20 .`0/a4n GRAVEL N FUU Nrq/c I~~:~~ . . /S ~ qT 79>, ~9\s S('MM FRF/e~ ,s Q C ~~oo CURVE DATA CURVE DELTA RADIUS ARC CHORD TANGENT CHORD BRG. 1 19' S3' 00' 14}2,}g 497.08 494.59 251.07 N 23' 27' 29' E 2 09' 04' 15' 139239 220.44 220.21 110.45 N 18' 03' 07' E 3 60' 21'-32' ' ' ' 100.00 105.35 100.54 58.15 N 30' 33' 42' E 4. 18 28 S7 125.00 63.17 62.50 3226 N 14' S1' 35' E 5 28' S7' 18' 100,00 50.54 50.00 25.82 N 14' S1' 35' E 6 26' ST 18' 75.00 37.90 37,50 19.37 N 14' S1' 35' E 7 28' S7' 18' 100.00 50.54 50.00 25.82 N 14' S1' 35' E '1A4 4gE / tFl. M9F a t',7.tGGsL r„LL~~.~ ~f±.a~~€ Lar 7 .5 f s S` ~I' ,a. ~ ~.I~ i i'AA'.I FLAF ~ LDT 5 ~~~V~ 0 I• s I. II$0 ~)i ~ I I ~ le I ~ a6 \~96? ~ \ \y~,~` \ ~ ~''8j ~9,j7, ~~99~~ i° ~IYr s~ hC h ~'R6 ~ _~~LECIBCE THAN THIS NOTATION, i'.~ IT IS~OUE TO THE pUALITY OP THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. r u, LOT 4 AL7a./A.L7iAt lre THE spPlfc7r - tAA1:6 423A11~ 9a169il~aL E7~pA3Br Ma srs..®oA 3TEf Y i'0RS 4! A ~>K18f ! FlL1C AKT # 'AE AtE t S.E:. a ff; AA ~ ?k; Affil tAt2r a a64m ab~,rlcmll 4 42RE~t r•sEAElt r , 29iT MfBI A9i •I•~Ili ~ fQLR4 AIDE .16 AGE ? A Alaf,99r A6 AY7462 ~ STie~ -i Ipt F~ /R6~ RE/5T6: iyP iL = f'1011ETA +P4E Rr 331E _ F~ ~.E } . LAA r ► SPii15R ' ~ + AT ~ ~if - wt ~lI I~ ~6E Peaa~ CNWiA LM~911 • tH91E[ • A191MLf eA9BA9Ld A S) i Agl i~ i7FE E1~'~AAIk~1,3(ISi +~IRE M2~ 5 STEM MAP PAtTF6 ilAr11 CAMlrrr 3L9101 / ~ { 1415 !TATS '?IIP,Eilr~reBl4 sw".'CA19~q/R6 +T0~5 1` 'LArlfi YEs A10. 2•'. '4t41R4E E40ND" AtlD 'Ep#fLYMf AT ~ El31GaNR31 - A1Al.Y¢ 9~ LT ~ 12~T T3uY AAfZ !;370 l27A} 17'4T2 13757 E~189E 1 a tYE nolAALpriI IS Ei65~ pM TSE 1EE610 OY 9Falc4' YT •6EMrapr9lERT A60 071iReRFC~pM OAl~ OCl~R 24 IMS 2 - Tr0 OkEpptt LOt:ATd9!B iMK 4EAli f19R0 IOa EiE EA3t alARSEt COaAEIE ~ t30;710!r 14 TM[ TTOIe OaIRlY ~YriR'~ arlfF NA6 Oa31e(IEIY RE= ~uortA AVQ ~ >St EOIrIEOT arAama EpplGt ~ tt#iLT. aa09 PAQ 7a3 rOn A O6LMU3 MaTan a TNq /fMt a 6fEEf LLArtwIY q A3 60:LO60E A. 1{T' 4 - n9QIM9L OIaa~M ~T Mtf ~i11f~ IFS a,) 1W ~ WARIER COMIQ AIEr9t0 Or AC,-3TWGOE. OLC~ Mdll N'aIMlRO R4Lr10 1FEG ct Tn! - a5T TA1~ rata Mpq ETIQEMEE a OR~4 L'ARtEIE AAO IILE3TA0. nt WM1ER txrMRlr s 1/2 fEEt 91EpTN AMS IT T/2 FRT EAST a A.L. 36LOOE' 3 0064UL O ITRIt . it OAMtR 4C.S OO1Antlq M GDACFCTI4SS a a[ UYLpq' p QdNO! AIO L9:lrONUKlcRO M CCrMRN. 7 - W1rra nrt rSAT'Tra a • rNUOr-woae rA1a1- ANO mE aE,,LnoM a nIL a41<ttf to M IIOtTR AtE nOalalEn OMAIrt[II cDIaltlr trAS IIILO. Te9s s1,rTEo TMtrl CowIGR twE 3WD4G4Y, IT AL30 99r`rt0 TK IIOrtH OQD tN1E3 rOR THE PARCELS Ra1TNLILY a 'roar-eROa r4ne•. sWM a TNLI► MTEraED LDDA- Tpl. 1193 ClUA1ES A OAP M1R ifK MOPERIY ro IK Na1M TT4S IS PRESOITLY ~ R[SOL1W aY' WIT UArW' OLm N IAVAR a tN[ PROPGtt to THE SOUM { - 1lrRE h CaIIUCMO E'11DtRR A3 10 iNE LOGTION a TK NORIIKRIY PaT- TAR a THE EAST tlxE a lOT T, • WILLOr-MOOL rARIA•. THE FIAT FIOWS n70 t~,W FEET) JOO EETY4tN iHC NORTNNf3T CpIa~R a l0I 3 ANO THE W~ CORtOR a LOT a ROMEVLR THE PLAr AL50 SRaK 11K EAST uNES a LDTS 7 A2q 17, 6.70 t74A91S (409.20 rF[i) EAST a nK NEST tWE ARD PARALLEL ro Ir. PAST SURVEYS SEEP ro All NAPE 11E1O A STRAIGHT t9NE fOR nE EAST UNE of l0T T. ME MAP AND PLAT aCa1Ntt ROAD / 1415 (SW. 109N AVFNUF) STATES THAT iNE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD / 1413 15 20.00 FEET EAST OF THE WEST UNE OF LOT 6,'rLLOW-BROa( FARM'. THE AREA 04 CONFLICT IS r1HiN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COUNTY ROAD / 1415 AND ONLY AFFECTS THE UNDERLYING 94TEREST IN CASE OF A VACAnON. 3 -WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT CWRT CASE / 83-0789C (EU2ABETN A. ANDERSON VS HOFflIAN AND HOFFMAN, HILLTOP ESTATES) WAS A OUI1E OnE ACTION FOR TA% LOTS / 600 do 900, MAP / 251-10AC AND TA% LOT / 9300, MAP / 251-LOAD. IT WAS SETTLED IN FAVOR OF ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON. THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THE EAST UNE OF TAX LOT / 9300, MAP / 251-10AD A5 THE CENTERLINE OF S.W, 109th AIENUE (COUNTI' ROAD / 1415). NOTE TABLE O "LLD W O s a /IZ°1`iu w I.R. I.u 'J siv av'a iA 3//' I.P. 9.89 O Fp. J/4' LP. 14 0.0/JS'{LYIF. 519'S{'04'W D.285LY C~ ALSO FD. J/4' I.P. 11.87 15 HL J/4' I.P. 5 26'12'JB'W FD. J/4' LP. 0.28 9 S00'SI'J9'E I S 10.49 E'LY HELD E/W FU• N/JL \J IB J0.04 5 LY DF a iF54E 6 - 4+@Ai A P10~ 4r #E A6AI3kEA6f AI@ 3iA37 AM6~ Q STRd~ n0. ALNR191P 2 SOr~fL >i111IPE 4 Atet M9Yr♦ 548 f4~3g3 6T71iO 1lO3E A5l4RLiiiax AS Eg2Y& EESIIwwG # AIK L9iW $AA6 AAFSB 7i-~~?' 1~A 305gm [EaET HiAY 4 ARC flITL>/~Y MQIkBFIM AT >kE EA6A 9AIREBa ~ SA@ ?R AAr iiiplARC ~rqE Ri'3TfEMr air lm9.2e FEET Tf! AIL zr AL3T 2382! rI~ LUeiEE gRAIR4lAiG 4esew SLAB nA+r-~f-slbx wE sulall zr 7r sAr AfSA 1412SR fEEi ~ ► fdM[ LiF alE A1rAf ILIEE a Leaf 9L »t0if FAilf; ?f A97ii fi1r 29'41Y E:lbTf. 41a0rO SIQ f~ff lam, ~.3f f~7 ~ AIE M6RII6Eeg 4,TF SA$ TA>f $ aeEiIRE 9&i34 qa#"3!" EAST AiAYI AE EA671 L91E 6F S6/} LRA 74L2.32 f~T Sa A PlMIf BN AE QAt$ Gf AiAfaE MaA$ QTY AlOtal i Lt~r6TE SIdAM [T'!JY EAST, ~ IIIE QAI~ 6f 51!8 . 9n7~t fE[T ~ AIE iYIEkST~IABfI brti+ SAt uF61w A9EIME (O9,Ti'RF Ai~ID i t ~TA6rft 91 9# EBIHEA of 519p AM9A# YfAtAb 66' S! 1t!• rESf T71L79 fEEE na''2x 4sy' 4.TESR fEFf AAL419PAf3. oa sr TS MESi 474~i F$T; TFoEDf,E 9~iR6 07!'tr Sf £ASII 3{'f..'.,p fE[7 >8 A4E RAAiT a oaffb naTl4 ARfES 9REZ:'f 7!a 3hIE ilO61P5 OF 9E f4A31C ~ ART POYTd61li l4arG ArRall► ;i;AL IArEIE L10Aa ( i s~ 6a SAL lghob A4EM~E (XBAbar 41airD i z4zs1 f6N 4patW4641 4MZr19rAfitp6 MO BA96 l9f aEAAaLRb~ TEE StliBETr MY 4 fE7BE50rI G1E0 OCT 21. L'an TO p44e'S411 OOIlSLS{9CAa1 OOLIPAffY HALT ~ 11AE a6,R2MANLT: 1163 IS EO OLADlY AMT AIl3 rAP AAO ~ 6UY1{VI L91 9EAhI n IS OAYO 1ETEd MADE M iy1N • rAlMAM ';!Al~,App OEi1L IKOTlRElIEA~tt /OI A.4,.T.A/ ACSMF LAAILI A4( $!MEY~' .'pMAT /STI~t~O All4 AO1a140 aY A6t-A 410 K 51 MQT A! ACQAtAEiF 1#Q,M~1011T5 a .6 M33 ' A• $aIRT U014R M, KIEll3dle IxaSne4AaM Ra Ilri Ti7I lOT rra6MA11011 iAekL T00 a3-i31f~ 231-1WC T~ j200, yAp i 231-t0A0 C11AI1L]3 a N i OEEpU MAMK ~ ll W 6313 SL STARR PORTLAND, M. 9rtle OA RAMq k A f80 taq T70S g6D➢4TF~ ROAD iA% l0T + a00. MAP 251-IDAC ~ LANG ~W' OR. 97074 ~DCaLI(Nf e1-2e7e ~ARON µ PETERSON TAx LDT / 97pp, MAP j 2n-1DAD OOCUMENf j 7MJ3947 t CAROLS E Eu2ABE7N A. ANOERSOR 10120 SW. IrENT PL 1~1 s.re 1D9u sT. ncARD, as 97227 ncARD, oR. 9722s TA% LOT / 700, MAP i 751-IOAC TAX LOT / IOa MAP / 251-1008 DOCUMENT i 61-46717 DOCUMENT i 61-1061 JORN L 11 SHARON M. PETERSON ELBERT A, r 6.E. CUSNMAN 10120 SW. KENT PL C/0 M.O.S INYESTNENT INC. nCARD, OR. 9722) 2000 U.S BANCORP TOWER TA% lOT / 800, MAP / 251-10AC PORILANOS10R~97204 BOON 912 PAGE 372 W1LC0%EAICMSON MESIERN CORP. TA% LOT / 200, MAP / 251-tODB RT. 4, BOX 274 BOON JIB, PAGE 287 $HERWOOD, OR. 97140 WiWM1 B. 8: CUIRE M, SANDERS TA% LOT / 900, MAP / 251-10AC AURORA, OR. 97002 E DOCUMENT / 77-75947 ELIZABETH A, ANDERSON TAX LOT / 700, MAP i 251-tODB 15001 SW. 109th 5T. DOCUMENT / 88-8547 nCARO, OR. 97223 NORTH PAGFlC CONFERENCE~OF THE EVANGELICAL COVENANT CHURCH 925 116th AVE N.E, SUITE 221 BELLEWE, WA. 98804 ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON IS NOW CDING BY HER MARRIED NAME WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE DURBIN. ' FD. s/e' I.R. D.2D ^ 2 0 E PER 10 ~ I/2' I•P• 0 27 S'LY 20 M AY 93 P.D: RESUBMIT.TAL ~3 ' /9 / CS / . t7 F0. 3/4' I.P. M uox eoz xELD _ P,b; RESU~hp9'7AL:~ 27 ~AUG' X81 ll F0. 1/Y LP. C/ O.JB CLY NIJ iC ba E It HElD FOR R/W PAaFlC xwr . 18 FD. J/4' LP. ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 2EGIST02E0 p PRINTED DEVELEPMENT & SEP . Lam suxvLm 211993 CENSTRUCTIDN Z~I N B9'$9'{J'~E .EI 12 5l3AJY O 19 N J/4' LP O e SERVICES HHNIYC n~pU~. llrCi. . ~ XELD N/S OF a . . /J , 27N SE. SUNFLOVER COURT - ~ HILLSBOR4 OREGDN 97123 1503) 648-1959 u,alm a~ x mum, Ib - ~ . IJOH q 8904013 , . F I 1 w ~ ~ fe MARCH' 30 ' 1994 s s ii ' ~ I ry, u~ul u6mmdimiailiiuiigl~i im~muullmiuill_._ . _.,iilul u ~upu~uu , _ _ _ _ I T, r_ t, v. _ _ . 10/12/93 AGENGR 'NO. 5 7 GF 11 V "IF TNIB OOCUMENT IE LEBB ' ,~`~LEGIBLE THAN THIE NOTATION SIT ISDU6 TO THE QUALITY GF ~ TN6'ORIGINAL -DOCUMENT. e` _ 1'~' awB ~WnanhYwe ~PR'INT~E'D 1KANIPEifp.'1~5Y 5EP 121;I9~ . ~'f`~I~MVIlb763~l0 30 ~I594.,, i y F w i i ~ . _ ~ Ql _ _ _ ~ ~ '~•..~A x 9y- F _ ~ _ _ _.-r - r „ E - • ~ z x ~ f • 9 1 t ~ ♦ r f f. _ ► E z ~ w ' _ / ~ , ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ! € +T p ! f t 6 e r ~s / f~ _ ~ f I f - 7' ~ ~ _ ~ f w ~ ~ ~ / t ~ ~ °x ~ ` d / ~ ~ t i s * ! 1 - -e w t tEf>fl~ t,• ' t .f i • ~ / 3 f , 1 C d _ ~ • ~ - ~ r. ~ t i i s ~ • ~iO~-EiF 14~r I; ~ ~ `s ~ ~ w 'fit 'm~`f ; =f f w - A ~ ~ a: S ~ M~9Y1M f ( f 1/ s ~ i w ti ~ ~ - ~ r . ~ p r.- I j t ~ r ~ • ~ro~/sµnxr wrot ~ C i f_~ .rl' + ~ ~ a Q o s / ~ yrwtr ft•~ we d t ~ / ~ f ~ In Q ~ / ~ s+aa uwc a C9 c t p~ 0 T i ~ / f / a ~ s ~ S lt1 CT ~ ~ / / f` ~ ♦ ~ f = v ~ / ~ ! i • W o / ~ ~ ~ F. ~ ~ ~ / ~ / J ~ 3• O v ~ ~ ~ ~ o' - , ti ~ i i !k ~ _ - R • r ~ / r :r; ~3 i n V UfW[ - _ I ~ Q Q ~ W I ``f O~U ~ a i JW dw~ o +j- I apUY + ~ i ..IO ANrn mm 1 / e ~ ~ i i Z~~M mn l _ ~o ~ ~ V~~ I+i n n r) / J ~ J a ~QUw ww ~ ii rn~¢rc / l~ 7" aM.w~ nonziea -a,eiana No. s B ~DF ]J • aF vsFS as urss 7 I~ u ~a~7~Ola X11 ~Q ~ - ' , PSGSBYE 'FFIAN 97II5 FiOTAPFOA, ~ 1~ ~ ~ J F7' II3 mDE 9b 99C 'QDACSTY OF~' . THS ORQGFdiA1 LDCW9:N1'. ..lpiimi1iai1m19iioio~iii~giiliuilii~ioiuiiliiu idlm i~uci~~IF ' di ~ °iu~iii' D1i B151tg116 U PRIiVTED KAMPE ASSOCIAIES4 sEP 211993 ".7LOns wse~uNC FrASw cawww IRMI'tnax~;,,INC. IMF OAIF6Q Oi6p1 OmS ~9~•rMI00.9 M ~ 1 1 30 y 994 - ~ ~ I)~~)I fi_ . i. TIC. ~ ~ r ~ s .e~erl~ Ma sa se cc .s s _ fs sa n x g _ 't. o . < n ~ ~ _ _ F / _ ~ • s _ r (I . / k x ~ R $ - t ~ € ~ - f.Y _ _ f _ ~ , ~ ~ ` e * - ' gag ,~+1~ - - ~ - f _ . r t ~ - t • y - - . • - a _ A - ~ - - . - _ ~ . i t ~ ~ -gx~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ff ~ ~ ~ • S' f e 4. a ~z c. . • ~ } 1. 1F r ; d ~ 6 - _ _ t: ~ f, x - ' ~ 7 r ~ • ~ ~ ~ 13.8' _ , - ° . c _ ~f ~ 4' 7 e e 2 ' e r a e f .q ft'. . , - ° ~ .-t r p~ ~ 4 _ ~ , ~ ~ r. • ! • ~ e a ~r / . r, I,r W ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ H ' 4 .~`fr ~'1 f ~ ~ ~ . • • ~ Q .z ~ ? • ~ o • 1. e y i, ..,Y • 0 Q L y10' • . 4 ~ 1 , 1 ' THE ~ir ' , Y ~ Q s ~ ~n". r Y ~f ~ ~ E ~ , ~ ~ •r C ' • t• ~ 330' ,~L ~ - - ~ s , ' f L , . ~ t= ~ L. 32t). 1 ti.. ' ,J 1 , _ S ~ ! erreQ COUIrBpa NAME ~TANICAI NAME ~ O O O O I ~ ~ ° GI aW~Y 310' ' t~ ! V / / 300' M n N N N NOTE: N N N % LL - f ~ ILusuL Binh Tf111 S LI'•Y aLPSi W e ' 1. AS 1°MBq Mda iMl rltlnl L 7 dlep xhr °I apxaM NrL mukh I j } 173'•10' eplenLl 2. AA nMecepl ann shall M LAIY hxpeed MA 1 IYlandt EeloW i RadOW Oulrae mMl ~ Wgahan 1/Inm, amWn N a3 nTa. a U 300' ~ elekwul Peralnp E°i Tre1a 1 v1••r e.pwr aLe i ~ LAWN ISS'.IB' epacx . ~,a.•.~ LAWN ~ I lprNm Pna Trea Plannm nrSaa Cl OrouMe»va, rue n a T {pWan do $10 W 1(. Q pay.omAen Fn.NuepmwpryrrppC 1• pW I t1 ep eno BUfFER:SCREEN PLANYINO i ~ ' , ® o 290 flWMrpe Aarrwdum 1 Pnen Ir• ' a e I z I 280, s"'a'°'"" t.gadamLmaq,epeue 3 aanen t0 r .pa 31 SECTION ~ Q , AmBkan~MMan Aa ~petno~Ha Rodrose 41y nxyhPUua . • j G ' ~ • HealA Errs spp ° ,1 S ~ Ny., Rh°dkandron Rhpdphndmnspp VI OmemeniliQraaa 1311. 1IIper BLB !33'•33, OevMi Vlwngm Ypum daJno as • P rva•6a epaeln3l L\ ~Bornaad~ Burva Jmgrvaens E < I Fbwalmp w % morr !span h Ike ennen L ~a. 27 Wash rglm Thom Cnaegusphaemp/mm W Hedereh In f xan, oa3nmaa famaaloau •PerkMak ~lnamwor I ' ,1, ~ ! , J N ' 280' ~ I snandmp xensnarela, swl Geanedaan.ron w ' Sarpam paGppn Mats aagaml 51 Johni Wan Hypakumcakynum I Ypshmo Cherry ; Prvnua yadoensh GmuM Gandhus verch'enus 1 CraoN Dagcca0 Grnuelmkntlere d 'A $T ^ S 270' E rrymoua E rrymus ann LL ~ • S. Every m Str m Trw 6'-3' BLB (SSy3' aPenlnp) flhododeMmn RhndadoMmn app ~ • pA 2(0'e Oouglaa Fu P uatl 1 upa membs3 ~ Hyd npaa Hydmrgee macro v v ' a H ' Clf'}~ WaxemfledCedar Thailapafial or.¢onfrnw 1UMnieaqumlu s Gaufledema senlaaemp„„nm Ma3nar wAnoam.n a e }G} 260' Genlsw ' sequoneeedran3q.mwm ~ My~nl. xymaaxorn ' Ik/gy wexlmx:malxa rsa3anmrmphya L.rvxmua - vawraumLa.a E'• ~ PRINTED z r . Roi s , I. Plnh spp, . Ever3nan Taeeo.Gder 6'-0' 86B !'03'.23' aP/eMpl ` Pi vm Lquelruml a • SEP 21 993 J Y Chamearypeda no3lXalemis S1reMemy Tne - Amulua un / O n ~'Ef U Audi an Blad Pna Pinn rgra Spiraa Sgnear nlq sl / • L.L `Y~ ~ Shore Pna Pinus ameM - War MYnla ~ Myrka epie3 o I $ a 4 KAMYE h3JVl,., IIVC.. 1"-50'~b" ' .J ~ _ -I• Oeadsra l.'edar Gdrusdwtlnn ~ larspncypress Chlmaerypamnwsonl o MD %KK ~ AMC m° ~Awx x pse ed LAWN I 'LAYVa CHKD: . ' , f.•w"' ~ ui , Y . h ~ < ' , 8938 . • r.,, . eLTSnxo vsoernnox To 6Enux BUF.FtR.SCRE~N.PLANTING-. , 0100 10/12/93 RGENOA tJO. 5 ~ ~ $ECTION.A, lr~ l a` ~ • Ie Txa mrlwexT > Less"- _ _ g: ~ ~ LSGIBLB THAN TNIB NOTATIONr t~ MARCH 30 I 4 1 4 U r . ` IT IS'' 008 TO THB GOALITY OP _ t„ TH8 08IGINAL OOCOxBNT~ _ ~'rry uuiiidioimdmi{mlmimlui idimi$liiuuiduuuu iim6 iml ` Im iu I' 1 I I ~ a ~ r. I i o Vu iii uu miViu ipi ~ , i6~ uu6ig~~ ~m imVui iu~ . ~m _ , a m ar .,r: y_ , . ~ r ~ l ~ . . - _ r- a - _ ~ ~ 3 ee° a oar ; ~ x ~z , ~ 0 - ~ a 9 'Xa ~ ' • ~ • ~ ~ 1 ~ - _ - - - _ _ - - - _ - ~ , - ~ a. _ . ~ t ~ ` , o ~ ~1i111~~ - ~ t6~'tfM ~ •II ~ I ~ Its ~ ~ • ~ t s i "1!' ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ! ~ c; i t . ~ ~ t# • ~ T + 1 ii .x c ~ ~ i 1 t~ E~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ . ~ # ~ Mf~ R . R - t~ E ~ R ~ , , _ ► t ~ I c3 I t ~,R. ~ t ~ ~ ~ , ~ i ! i ~ ~ - _ ~ - z / t f, w Ig ~ t c~ 1 .s t'i it a~ - - i• 1 4 i rf a 1 '1, j I t i ~ t ~ ~ ' t ~ • ~ I ~ r ~ ► t t~~ ~Ft~ +w 8 { ( ~ t t r- t f t g ~ I- i, ~ ,~I,~ 1 i it R w ~ t O t tc s x ~ I ` . t •7 1~.~ t~ << H M~ t ~ '~t'• ~ ~ ~is« 6a I.~ • ~ a t.t @. t . r. t ~ t ~ ! ! ! ! ! ~ .k d 4~ ~ 1.. t•t r • ~ i ~ I ii ~ ' t5'L6L ' M.6C,t6.00 N I ~ ~ t ~ ,lr ~ m ~ p sy N / 'X~ ~ .x Q I a . ~s t t Hse I ~ o ~ / ~~xs HO ~ o I!~_ 4 ; tiJS@ oo Z 5 ~5 i ?i g • o m ~ ~1 _ t 5* .a. Y _ _ ) Y.~. z s` j = ~ i w f f i W W c~ z 4. , o,v,a~ ae~~ w. ~4 ~ , ~,.r ` . i ~i . zi w~~~,% Pw.~xi''~ Iriod Public W,tu~n9 I~~i21~ l~ C~ mur ~ ~ %~nlx~l ~ ~ ~ rX i. I W ._..~~~.~W~J~~~~d'~u~d~ ~ 6~~ .qtr r; ;y btYWe BUL 141 ' 0 BEND ERD 300 ti 9 ~ ~ N9FG a RDy ~ r. I' B1 ' 4 0 ~m ~,A ES Q3% , U M M E R F I E L D $Ilnrl lots • .r, rgnnr• bill. u901100 %1 1111 •1 llprl .1111. r 1..1r.• 11. IrpLe11H ~,rll. rrllr.re. Ir,rr- 111) .ellrl I.rlrl,rl lerr 1. Ir Irlrrlrl k nre .ul reetunu iiiXlfdk$M@960~ IN is .r trr.l. 1I le. Gill at 1 ll,lrf. (1/111117) X11/11/11~ 1 446 PLAw. Y SI A MM HE3GH7S APAR7ME N7S YLY Df~001d. 9MM is uw mm ru M "n Otpa+ g ~ ICd am IR I= r Trlod/1TgQd OsrdeDRtm~ft gxAgm m.si osa omma '.a GROUNDS ® APPEAL 1- 94th 25- 104th t I 2- 109th 13- Greenleaf CL 3- 114th Ct~---, 14- HighLind Dr. 4- Alde Sc(* Dr. 15- Highhmd Ct. 5- 1Ald'prr ak Ct. 1 6 - Lakeside Dr. 6 Aldbrbrook pl. t 7 - Meadowbrook Dr. derbrook Circl 18- Oaktnie Lane 8- Brentwood pl. 19- Oakhill Lane 9- Brentwood CL 20- Oalansadow Dr. 7 f> % ~L G 10- Century Oak Dr. 21- Old Orchard PI. SUMMEEFIELD 1 1 - Century Oak Circle 22- Summerfield Dr. 12- Greens Way 23- Summerfield Lane Y 13- Greenleaf Terrace 24- Summerfield Ct. NEIGHBORHOOD MAP , or, ~y~, ~ ~ ~ ` t ~ i nuy av. bon .o: ne wd oui wa ~ I t Q 1 ~ I m me f 1 ~7 romyma a y, - J i•r.:u•i• - ~ w ,A Y.7+ ~ (7 ~ 9~ ~4 ~ ~ 1 L i s H. `D ~ ~ o Aa 1 t - ~ - ~G' 0 Y/ Rl ®[+a~~ dr° i ~ ~ S Yp ~ 6 - ~ °~S' I 1 r O c . Loan G ~ Tigard City Council 10/10 /93 Tigard, Oregon Dear Council Members: Misinformation given to the Planning Commission by Tigard Staff Member Randy Wooley at their 8/16/93 hearing negates their approval of the Triad Project on Little Bull Mountain and requires a rehearing or reversal of their decision. In answer to a question by the opposition to Triad, Woolp'y stated that Triad would pay 50 % of the cost of extending 109th to 99W. This a contradiction of fact as shown by the record. This testimony is confirmed by the council agenda item sum mary for this session. (Page 6. Planning Commission minutes) i'n~cere ly , Marge Davenport 15100 Sw 109th Tigard, OR 97224 ,54 brvi -,14e c( -/-o 60,4~ U L l 01/2 1183 Errors in Planning Final Order and Staff Report on proposed Triad Development of 348-rental units on Little Bull Mountain. In addition to Randy Wooley's misstatement to Planning Commission at hearing, as expZ4!ined in letter to City Council, there are a number of other mis statements or errors: It is stated that Triad's preliminary landscaping plan, Sheet L-100 shows existing trees on site that are proposed to be saved. Neither I, nor the planning staff that reviewed L-100 with me,.could find one existing tree on L-100 proposed to be saved. The largest fir designated on L-100seems to be~to-be-planted--trees 8 to 10 feet tall Also, some of the statements made are ludicrous, such as: "There will not be many trees cut down with thjeis development." Where in Tax lots 900 and 930 alone, the smallest, there are hundreds of trees that will be destroyed to make way for buildings. To correct the record--NPO passed a resolution asking the denial of Triad development on 5 grounds by 4 ayes and 1 nay...I was listed as abstaining, but because this was a new Triad application, I did not have reason to abstainB-xal YLA- On Page 13, the final order says "Marge Davenport submitted an unsigned and undated paragraph from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ~ taking a contrary position to the Fishman report (submitted by Triad). The Planning Commission declined to give this letter any credibility." The paragraph submitted by me on Fish and Wildlife stationary is part of an original letter on file to the city! If the City is to accept the Fishman report submitted prior to the date of the Fish and Wildlife letter and other previously submitted Triad reports, why did the Planning Commission choose to ignore the letter on file from the Ore on Department of Fish & Wildlife. I submitted the paragraph only to emphasize the inaccuracy of t e Fishman report. r. r Likewise, the Planning Commission denied the existance and failed to give consideration to the petition to the City, signed by more thn 600 persons, asking for and giving reasons for denial of the Triad development. I submit that if all the previously submitted material by Triad, including the Fishman report and the Kittleson {port are accepted and acknowledged, why are the public's and citizens being denied same? There are numberous other statements made in these reports that are certainly not valid, and are questionable. Many based on traffic safety, when no independent traffic study has been done. These will be detailed in other testimony. I can't believe that planning wrote the following: (Page 17). "The site is nearly surrounded by multifamily development, or undeveloped property zoned for multi-family use. There is a small area of single- family development across 109th from the site," The facts are that the whole east side bordering the site is zoned single family! I gave up trying to figure out if parking requirements are met. In a couple of places it says 661 parking spaces are required under TCDC 18,106 and that the proposal shows 661 spaces~,?rovided. "fn another place it says there are only 609 provided by the:pian•. Page 12 says "No significant wildlife habitat areas are designated on site by the plan." This is false as you can see from the wording in the Comprehensive plan. And false as documented by the Oregeon Depart- ment Fish & Wildlife letter on record, s All of these errors raise some Questions that need to be addressed by the Council. Members of the public that I have talked to feel short changed by the planning staff and question whether their responses are in the interest of the public or in the interest,of the developer. 'l A . ' Tigard City Council 10/19 /93 Tigard, Oregon Dear Council Members: Misinformation given to the Planning Commission by Tigard Staff Member Randy Wooley at their 8/16/93 hearing negates their approval of the Triad Project on Little Bull Mountain and requires a rehearing or reversal of their decision. In answer to a question by the opposition to Triad, Wooley stated that Triad would pay 50 % of the cost of extending 109th to 99W. This a contradiction of fact as shown by the record. This testimony is confirmed by the council agenda item sum- mary for this session. (Page 6. Planning Commission minutes) incerely, Marge Davenport 15100 Sw 109th Tigard, OR 97224 jojI2jg3 A~CCnda FOR PHOTOS Mo. SEE PHOTO BOOK J 'J ~ccious number of' office workers were observed having fan I in Waterfront Park Friday after- noon. Y h They must have signed out early, for dental appointments, and taken their choppers down to The Bite in- stead. There, succulent aromas wafting from 22 eateries conspired to lure more than one gray. pin-striped suit I ` ~ 0 also joined the lineup, adding tooth- some treats such as meatioaf, buffa- lo wings, Jamaican , pork sand. wiches, stir-fried peanut chicken and zabaglione to the aromatic array. - The Bite is the 10th annval benefit for Special Olympics. "This is definitely interesting," said Harvey Fullwiley, taking a breather after a bout with mud pie. Ecuadoran band, Runa Pacha, blew into panpipes and kept time on a goat-hide drum, Joseph Esler, 2, tested out his theory that things look, and sound, better when a guy bends over and takes it all in in an upside-down, between-your-legs kind of way. The pink drips on his shirt were from a pre-event lollypop, his mom, Karen, explained. Hookey-playing couples, who i lane over lac of bike Ian the city obey the law. , ORS 366.514 mandates that all road construction, reconstruction or relocation since 1971 include foot. (paths and bikeways, regardless of (funding source. It covers road work iby the Oregon Department of Trans. iportation, counties and cities. t At a Thursday news conference, 40.rmer legislator Don Stathos, By TED MAHAR author of the bill, said, "This is like ot nea Oregonian San suing the pope for not going to Mass. Why should citizens obey the law City of Portland compliance with when government doesn't? the 1971 state "Bicycle Bill" has "This law is very clear. Its intent I{been abysmal, according to the Bi- was that every citizen could choose he Transportation Alliance. to ride a bicycle to wherever they The group is filing suit in Multno- need to go, from their house to their mah County Circuit Court to make destination," Stathos caid. e aV' he sai I . - 0 E t)regon- C 1 ) 0112. /13 - I have visited the Arbor heights apartment project and have reviewed the wildlife habitat resources survey (Fishman Environmental Serv.) and the project design blueprints. The wildlife report does note r. v rortray thymig i nC7 wildlife a ei.r,~,~ ?t }hP ~i The si a is an overgrown farm/orchard/coniferous woodlot with excellent wildlife habitat because of the variety of plant species that provide food and cover. While at the site, I viewed several species of birds, 2 covotes, sgUirX ls, many §qe tracks, racoon tracks, tree frogs, and a racer (snake). OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ' e 4 2501 SW First Avenue PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 (503) 229-5400 r ~lrz~~~ - ~,rca~wE- A~B3OR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PRESENTATION OVERVIEW LEI REVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEATURES TRAFFIC EFFECTS OF PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS bir FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IF 0 It AR OR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS EXISTING ROAD SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES HO NAEVE ROAD/HIGHWAY 99 INTERSECTION Safety of left-turning movements Effects on traffic signal progression Traffic volume impacts on King City streets NAEVE ROAD/SW 109th AVENUE INTERSECTION Geometric characteristics Traffic volume impacts on Summerfield Ro SW 109th AVENUE Geometric characteristics Traffic safety and speed ~J L A O HEIGHTS APARTMENT S PROPOSED ROAD SYSTEM CANTERBURY v~ uRp= SATTLE9 = = y~~0 ai o y _ N SATTLER 0Q. - Q 0~~ N HIGHLAND F~F ROYALTY PARKWAY SUMMERFIELD F Is ARBOR HEIGHTS ff"WARTMENTS FEATURES OF PROPOSED ROAD SYSTEM RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT RESTRICTION AT NAEVE/HIGHWAY 99 IMPROVED ALIGNMENT AT NAEVE/"NEW" 109TH AND ALSO AT NAEVE/"OLD" 109TH CUL-DE-SACS DISCOURAGE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS THROUGH SUMMERFIELD REALIGNMENT OF 109TH PROVIDES REDUCED GRADES AND ACCESS TO SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS OVERALL STREET SYSTEM PROVIDES LOCAL RESIDENTS WITH AN ALTERNATIVE TO HIGHWAY 99 T", 191 ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS ALL MAJOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS WILL OPERATE AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE TRAFFIC SAFETY IS ENHANCED THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED ROAD SYSTEM Rao SUMMERFIELD AND KING CITY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PROTECTED FROM ADDITIONAL THROUGH TRAFFIC LOCAL RESIDENTS ARE PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE TO HIGHWAY 99 FOR SHORT, INTERNAL TRIPS e;, t _ e;LL4~ - ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Mo The existing road system cannot protect adjacent neighborhoods and creates potential for safety, operational, and geometric problems Rr The proposed road system protects adjacent neighborhoods and enhances the safety, operational, and geometric characteristics Traffic impacts of Arbor Heights will be minimized with the planned and committed improvements K COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 12, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: October 1. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zoning Ord. amend PREVIOUS ACTION'Planning Commission ZOA 93-0006 recommendation September 13, 1993 PREPARED BY: Victor Adonri DEPT HEAD OK J:]~LV CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy Should the City revise the Development Code to add construction contractor's professional offices to the list of the use classifications, and as a conditional use in the,C-P, Professional Commercial zone? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Development Code Chapters 18.42, and 18.064.040 (A) be amended to add construction contractor's professional offices to the list of the use classifications, and as a conditional use in the C-P zone. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Hampton Partners and Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. proposed this amendment in order to use an existing building in the C-P zoning district for a construction professional office. This use will fill a gap in the code between professional and administrative services and construction sales and services. The amendment will allow incidental indoor storage but no outdoor storage for construction contractor's professional offices. Establishment of construction contractor's professional offices in the C-P zone would require a public hearing and review by the hearing officer. Impacts therefore, can be review and mitigated. No comments or concern have been expressed by the NPO's or any agency notified of the proposal. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the change as recommended by the Planning Commission by adopting the attached ordinance. 2. Deny the amendment and retain the existing code provisions. FISCAL NOTES None applicable. 1 C . Zoning Code Text Amendment City of Tigard, Oregon Submitted by: Phillip E. Grillo on Behalf of Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment August 9, 1993 A. Background Applicant: Phillip E. Grillo, on behalf of Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. 319 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 920 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 224-3609 Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. 101'10 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, Suite 01 A(1 Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 620-8134 Zone: C-P (Professional\Administrative Office Commercial District) l Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 1 August 9, 1993 { I. EVMO )UCTION B. Purpose of Application This application for a zone ordinance amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code (the "Code") contains two requests. The first request is for the addition of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" to the definition list of Use Classifications in Chapter 18.42 of the Code. The second request is to add "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" to the list of conditional uses with the C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) zoning district. The Code currently categorizes all construction offices in the same way, regardless of their function and design. The current Code allows "Construction Sales and Service" as a permitted use only within industrial zoning districts. The "Construction Sales and Service" definition contemplates sales and rentals of tools and equipment, as well as outdoor storage of equipment and materials. On the other hand, the proposed definition of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" contemplates typical office functions and designs, allowing indoor storage but prohibiting outdoor storage, as would normally be expected in a typical office environment. Therefore, adoption of this zone ordinance amendment will fill a much needed gap in the Code, allowing under-utilized land in the C-P zone to be put to use for construction contractor's professional offices--a use that is compatible with the underlying purpose of the zone. f Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 2 August 9, 1993 l The applicable statewide planning goals and guidelines have l been addressed in this narrative, as have the applicable comprehensive plan policies and provisions of the implementing ordinances, in particular, the purpose of the C-P zone itself. The proposed findings in the applicant's narrative demonstrates the positive impact this zone ordinance amendment will have within the C-P zone, and on land use in Tigard generally. l Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 3 August 9, 1993 I II. ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST A. Proposed Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance This application seeks a zone ordinance amendment that creates a use type categorized as "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices". This use type will then be added to the list of conditional uses within the C-P commercial zoning district. Chapter 18.64 of the Code sets forth the Permitted Uses within the C-P (Professional\Administrative Office) commercial zoning district. The proposed text amendment to the Code will not require any additional changes to Chapter 18.64.010, which sets forth the purpose of the C-P zoning district. This is because the addition of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" to the list of conditional uses within the C-P zone will match the type of uses contemplated by the criteria set forth in Section 18.64.010 of the Code. 1. Need for Amendments Section 18_22.010(B) of the Code describes the need for amendments to the Code and Map "to reflect changing community conditions, needs and desires, to correct mistakes or to address changes in the law." The applicant is proposing an amendment that reflects the community's need for more efficient and beneficial utilization of land within the C-P zone. Hughes zoning Code Text Amendment Page 4 August 9, 1993 2. Legislative Amendments A "legislative" amendment to the Code, defined as a decision that will apply to a large number of individuals or properties, must follow the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 18.30. Section 18.22.020; Section 18.26.030. Under Section 18.30.20(A) (5), a request for a legislative amendment may be initiated by any person, or person's agent, in writing. The submittal period for such legislative changes extends between not more than 75 days and not less than 45 days before the first commission meeting in October. Section 18.30.030. This application complies with these procedural requirements. 3. Amendment to Section 18.42.020(C)(11) Chapter 18.42 classifies and lists the use types "thereby providing a basis for the regulation of uses in accordance with criteria which are directly relevant to the public interest". Section 18.42.010(A). On page 87 of the Code, in Section 18.42.020, the definition for "Construction Sales and service" will remain unchanged except that after the last word "offices", the text should continue: "except as defined and distinguished below;,,. This language will refer the reader down to the added definition, which may be codified as subparagraph (a) under "Construction Sales and Service", which will be titled "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices." Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 5 August 9, 1993 4. Proposed Definition of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" This definition will now become Section 18.42.020(C) (11) (a) in the Code, thus allowing each subsequent definition in this sub- chapter to remain the same number. The proposed definition for "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" reads: Refers to the administrative offices associated with firms who regularly engage in professional construction contracting. These offices function primarily as other professional and administrative offices (See Code Definition of Professional and Administrative Services) and are to be distinguished from Construction Sales and services uses, defined elsewhere in the code. Construction Contractor's Professional offices may contain incidental indoor storage to accommodate various building materials and equipment related to the firm's construction business. However, no outdoor storage of heavy vehicles, equipment or construction materials shall be permitted. This definition clearly defines a use that integrates the incidental indoor storage of construction equipment with the contractor's professional offices. This definition will till the gap in the Code that now exists between "Professional and Administrative Services" and "Construction Sales and Services." 5. Amendment to Chapter 18.64 Chapter 18.64 is the portion of the Code that describes the purposes and permitted uses within the C-P zoning district. The only amendment that will be required in this Chapter is in section 18.64.040, dealing with conditional uses within the C-P zone, so that it will include Arabic numeral 5 (five) and read: 145. Construction Contractor's Professional offices." This Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 6 August 9, 1993 ff amendment will allow the proposed use type to be a conditional use 1. within the C-P zoning district. B. Relevant Approval Criteria and Proposed Findings Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the Commissioner's recommendation and the Council's decision on a proposed zone ordinance amendment must be based on the following factors: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines; 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable; 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map; 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances; and consideration may be given to: 6. Proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. section 18.30.120(A), (B). Each of the foregoing factors, when analyzed against the purpose and goal of the proposed zone ordinance amendments, supports this application to allow "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" as a conditional use within the C-P zone. 1. Statewide Planning Goals a. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Findings: Citizens are involved in every phase of the planning process when a zone ordinance amendment proposal comes before the Planning Commission and City Council. In the present case, a citizen is proposing the amendment, the commission will make a recommendation, and the Council will issue a final decision. At every level in this process, and with every subsequent conditional Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 7 August 9, 1993 use hearing; citizens will have opportunities to effectively communicate their views and influence the decision. b. Goal 2: Land Use Planning Findinas- The proposed amendments to Tigard's Community Development Code are accompanied in this narrative by factual information and the identification of social, economic, energy, and environmental issues. Implementation of these zone ordinance amendments, following a set of public hearings, will help maintain the city's ongoing comprehensive planning process. C. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands Findinas- The proposed amendments will have no effect on the preservation or maintenance of agricultural lands since the amendments simply create an additional conditional use within Tigard's C-P zone. d. Goal 4: Forest Lands Findinas• The proposed amendments will have no impact upon forest- lands or the fish and wildlife resources of the state. e. Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources Findings: The proposed amendments will have no impact upon open spaces, scenic and historic areas, or on natural resources since the amendments only affect land use within the C-P zone. Application for individual conditional use permits that would permit "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" in the C-P Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 8 August 9, 1993 will be reviewed for Goal 5 impacts on a case-by-case _basis, through the city's conditional use permit process. f. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Findings: The proposed amendment will have no impact upon the water and land resources of the state of Oregon. The air resources may even improve due to the efficiency of an integration of professional offices and indoor equipment storage, and also because the C-P zone is largely located within the Tigard Triangle which offers'convenient transportation access. g. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Findings: The proposed amendment will have no impact on, nor will they increase, areas subject to natural disasters and hazards since Tigard's C-P zone is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. h. Goal 9: Economic Development Findings: The proposed amendment will have a positive impact upon the economic development of Tigard and the State of Oregon. By adopting the proposed amendments to the zone ordinance, Tigard promotes the efficient use of land within the C-P zone, an area of concern due to its under-utilization. see Tigard Comprehensive Plan, p. I-144. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 9 August 9, 1993 A i. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Findings: The proposed amendment will have no impact upon public facilities and services because the areas affected are already served. j. Goal 12: Transportation Findings: Because the C-P zone is largely located within the Tigard Triangle, an area that offers excellent transportation options, the proposed amendments will support the goals of providing convenient and economic transportation. k. Goal 13: Energy Conservation Findings: As previously mentioned, the proposed amendment will have a positive impact upon the economic, health, and environmental issues surrounding automobile transportation. Energy will be conserved through allowing "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" as a conditional use within the C-P zone. 2. Applicable Federal or State Statutes and Guidelines Findings: No other federal or state statutes are relevant, except those already discussed in this narrative. 3. Applicable Plans and Guidelines Adopted by Metropolitan Service District Findings: For the purposes of approval or denial of the proposed zone ordinance amendment, there are no applicable plans or guidelines that have been adopted by Metropolitan Service District that must be considered. 41 Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 10 August 9, 1993 4. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Map a. Policy 1.1.1(c) Findings: This policy underscores the need to keep the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development code current with the needs of the community. In keeping with this policy, the applicant proposes this zone ordinance amendment to allow for greater utilization of land in the C-P zone compatible with the purpose of the zone itself. b. Policy 2.1.1. Findings: This policy addresses Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. As discussed earlier under Goal 1, citizens will be involved in all phases of the planning process, including the application for the amendment, related public hearings, and any subsequent conditional use permit processes. C. Policies 3.2.1 - 3.2.4 Findings: These policies address the need to control development within the 100 year floodplain and on land with severe physical limitations. The proposed amendment will have no impact on the availability of open spaces, nor will it increase the amount of land subject to natural hazards. Since the amendment merely requests that a new definition and category of use be added to the list of conditional uses within the C-P zone, outside of the 100 year f loodplain, no new hazard will be created. Furthermore, the C-P zone, primarily within the Tigard Triangle, is neither steep in 1 Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 11 August 9, 1993 character nor is it marked by significant habitation of wildlife. Therefore, this amendment will not impact erosion or open space\greenway policies. d. Policy 4.1.1(a) Findings: This provision requires the city to maintain and improve the integrity of Tigard's air quality. The proposed amendment allows, as a conditional use, a construction contractor's professional offices (including indoor storage of equipment) to be located in the C-P zone. The C-P zone is located between three major highways, making transportation convenient, economic, and therefore less pollution-producing. While this single zone ordinance amendment may only produce minor gains, it represents an integrated approach to the land use/air quality inter-relationship. - e. Policy 4.3.1 Findings: This policy sets forth the city's approach to noise pollution problems. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the levels of noise pollution within the C-P zone. The definition of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" clearly contemplates only the indoor storage of equipment, in keeping with the surrounding office environment. Furthermore, during the conditional use permit process, the site plan and site- specific limitations of any proposed construction contractor's professional offices can be examined for potential noise issues. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 12 August 9, 1993 w f. Policies 5.1 - 5.6 Findings: These provisions of the Comprehensive Plan address the city's need for ongoing economic development. In the Findings of this,section, the city acknowledges that:. A significant amount of commercial buildable land is available for development. Most of this land is concentrated in the Tigard Triangle area. * A core problem facing the City is lack of buildable land "designated for industrial use. Tigard Comprehensive Plan, p. II-29.. Thd city further acknowledges that the C-P land in the Tigard Triangle that is developed with single family residential units is potentially available for redevelopment. Id., p. I-144. Given these factors, the proposed amendment will have several positive impacts. First of all, under-utilized land in the C-P zone will be used for "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices a compatible use considering the proposed definition and purpose of the zone. Secondly, "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" are distinguished from "Construction Sales and Services", the latter requiring an industrial zone for site approval. This distinction decreases the demand on land that is zoned for industrial uses and funnels the newly defined commercial\professional use category toward under-utilized C-P zoned land. Finally, the city clearly envisions the C-P zone as one of slow transition away from single family residential units and toward redevelopment. The proposed amendment to the zone ordinance is in keeping with this approach. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 13 August 9, 1993 g. Policies 7.1.1 - 7.12.2 Findings: The proposed zone ordinance amendment will have no impact upon the public facilities and services of the city. The amendment essentially redirects development towards a better location. In this case, that location is the C-P zoning district that the city identifies as being under-utilized. The C-P zone is also fully served by all utilities, and the proposed amendment will create no additional drainage, water, or sewer problems. h. Policies 8.1.1 - 8.1.7 Findings: These policies address the transportation problems facing the city. The city recognizes the need to complete the collector street system within the Tigard Triangle, where the C-P. zone is largely located. Nonetheless, the proposed amendment merely creates another category of conditional use. Any further development that my occur within the definition of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" must go through the city's conditional use permit process. Traffic issues will be approached on a case-by-case basis and, as previously discussed, the integration of construction contractor's offices and indoor equipment storage within the Tigard Triangle may even reduce the economic and environmental problems associated with automotive transportation. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 14 August 9, 1993 t 't i. Policy 9.1.2 Findings: This provision inter-relates land use planning, transportation, and reduced energy consumption. As presented above, the location of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" within the C-P zone will allow for convenient and economic transportation for professionals -who must often use major highways to get to job-sites. Energy consumption can be reduced through adoption of this proposed amendment. ' j. Policy 11.4.2 Findings: This provision conditions further commercial development within the Tigard Triangle on certain roadway improvements. This condition, however, has exceptions that apply on a case-by-case basis. This Comprehensive Plan Policy will therefore be addressed when an applicant seeks subsequent conditional use approval, at which time, the various exceptions may be applied. k. Policy 12.2 Findings: This policy sets out locational criteria for commercial development. Since the proposed amendment merely creates another commercial use category, it complies with these criteria. The conditional use permit process will insure compliance with these site-specific factors. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 15 August 9, 1993 S. Applicable Provisions of the Implementing Ordinances a. Section 18.64.010 Findings: This section sets out various purposes of the city's C-P zone. One of the more specific purposes is to provide for business and professional services in close proximity to major transportation facilities. By allowing construction contractors to locate their professional offices within the C-P zone, these businesses will have better and more direct. access to major transportation facilities, thereby reducing vehicular trips on less appropriate transportation routes. In addition, since Construction Contractor's Professional Offices function in the same way as other professional offices, they are compatible with other C-P uses and will be supportive of uses permitted in the zone. b. Section 18.42.020(C)(11) Findings: This section defines "Professional and Administrative Services". This definition refers to offices which are used primarily for "professional, executive management or administrative offices, legal offices, architectural, or engineering firms." Construction Contractor's Professional Offices typically house administrative services and function as would any other professional office. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 16 August 9, 1993 6. Proof of a Change in Community or Inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan Findings: The applicant has demonstrated above that there is currently a gap in the code which tends to categorize all building contractor's offices as "Construction Sales & Service" uses, even though some building contractor's offices function as professional and administrative offices. The proposed code amendment remedies this inconsistency in the code. M. CONCLUSION The applicant has worked with the city's planning staff to develop a definition of "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" that will distinguish typical building contractor's f offices from those contractors who are large enough to require separate spa-ce to house their professional and administrative staff functions. No outdoor storage will be allowed and the proposed use will compliment the existing range of uses currently permitted in the C-P zone. By allowing "Construction Contractor's Professional Offices" as a conditional. use in the C-P zone, the city will be able to review each request on a case-by-case basis through the city's conditional use process. This will help insure that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area. Overall, the proposed amendments help fill an important gap in the city's development code, thereby correctly categorizing certain construction contractor's offices in a manner that is similar to other professional and administrative offices. Hughes Zoning Code Text Amendment Page 17 August 9, 1993 5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: Victor Adonri, Development Assistant Planner DATE: September 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 93-0006 SUMMARY The Hampton Partners and Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. has proposed an amendment to Chapters 18.42 (Use Classification), and 18.64 (Professional Commercial Zone) of the Community Development Code. The proposed amendment adds Construction Contractor's Professional Offices to the list of the use classifications, and as a conditional use in the C-P zoning district (Professional/Administrative Office Commercial District). Attached are copies of Chapters 18.42, and 18.64 of the Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would add construction contractor's professional offices in Sections 18.42.020(C)(12), and 18.64.040.A.5. The applicant's statement asserts that because construction contractor's professional offices contemplates typical office functions and designs, allowing indoor storage and prohibiting outdoor storage of construction vehicles and materials, will fill a much needed gap in the code between professional and administrative services and construction sales and services. In addition, the applicant indicates the following: the changes will allow under-utilized land in the C-P zone to be put to use that is compatible with the underlying purpose of the zone; conflicts or impacts resulting from construction contractor's professional office uses should be minimal. The conditional use process requires that effects of a construction contractor's professional offices use be reviewed on a case by case basis, and possible mitigation measures can be provided if necessary. Staff concurs with the applicant's statement that the use is compatible with the underlying purpose of the zone. There is relatively minimal potential for conflicts between the use and other uses permitted in the C-P zoning district due to the prohibition of outdoor storage and the ability of the conditional use review process to consider mitigation measures. Permitting construction contractor's professional office uses in the C-P zoning district would be consistent with many of the purposes listed for the C-P zoning district (Code Section 18.64.010). This includes: "3. To provide opportunities for employment and for business and professional services in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and major transportation facilities; 4. To expand the City's economic potential; 5. To provide a range of compatible and supportive uses." Construction contractor's professional office uses provide for the needs of area residents and businesses. Impacts such as traffic levels that exceed normal residential area impacts can be viewed as an intermediate usage between residential usage and more intensive commercial uses. In addition, typical construction contractor's professional office buildings and development sites are of a size that is similar and largely compatible with the scale of development of other uses permitted in the C-P zoning district. The added definition for construction and contractor's professional offices clearly specifies "incidental indoor storage" so that storage would not be of a scale that would not be incompatible with other C-P uses. Therefore, staff concludes that allowing construction contractor's professional office uses as a conditional use in the C-P zoning district would be supportive of the purpose of the C-P zoning district. COMMENTS 1 Staff has notified all NPOs, all abutting cities and Washington County, and the City's Engineering Department of the proposed amendment. All returned requests for comments received so far have indicated no comment or concern with the proposal. Any subsequent comments will be provided to the City Council when this proposed amendment is forwarded for final review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of ZOA 93-0006 to the City Council to add construction contractor's professional offices as a definition to the use classification, and as a conditional use in the C-P zoning district under Code Sections 18.42.020(C)(12), and 18.64.040.A.5.