Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 03/08/1994
7 "ltq: 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 agenda it+ams ggg ba heard in anv order alter 7'30 p-m 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, Pact. 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. S'inc'e 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 numbe as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - WAGE 1 MARCH 8, 1994 COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AG-ENDA STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.) Annexation Policy Discussion 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Cali 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 8, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Tri-Met Agreement for 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.4 Approve Agreement with Fred Meyer for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection to Relocate Entrance with New Intersection Location and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Construction Contract for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project to N-B Hatch Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (This agenda item was withdrawn at the February 22, 1994, City Council meeting. Subsequently, the applicant, Mr. Craig Petrie, requested the Council review district formation.) • Staff Report - Randy Wooley • Council Discussion ILL` • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 9' - dab COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994, - PAGE 2 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) -ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 93- OGN BALL LOCATION: North of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue, and 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 9AD, tax lots 1100 and 1000). A request to annex two parcels consisting of approximately 11.90 and 2.04 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential 7 units/acre). The applicants are requesting annexation for the purpose of connecting the parcels to the city sewer line. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3,10.3.1, and 1,0.3.2,; Community Development Code Chapters and Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, and 18.138.020 (A)(B). ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) The R-7 zoning designation allows single-family detached/attached residential units, duplexes, public support facilities, mobile home parks, and subdivisions, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Proponents (In favor of the annexation.) Opponents (Opposed to the annexation.) Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council questions/comments g. Close Public Hearing 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) _ `ONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0007 FLOODPLAIN FLOOR ELEVATION LOCATION: Affects residential properties located within or adjacent to the floodplain. A request to, amend Community Development Code Section 18.84.026 (1) to require the lowest floor elevation of one and two family structures, other than manufactured homes, to be one foot above the elevation of a 100-year floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.30.120 (Standards for Legislative Decision-Making). a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Devolopment Department d. Public Testimony - Proponents (in favor of the proposed Code amendment.) Opponents (Opposed to the proposed Code amendment.) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council questions/comments g. Close Public Hearing COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PANE 3 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR TIME SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY ('TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.14) a. Staff Report: Finance Department 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COST SHARING FORMULA FOR GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - ARLINGTON RIDGE/VISTA POINT Ea. Staff Report: Community Development Director / (Note: Staff report for this item will be available Thursday, March 3, 1994. Council will receive this report in this week's mailing.) S 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: SELECTION OF INTERIM MAYOR lam" a. Staff Report: City Administrator 10. 19N0 CAd T?-ya n jJ& - to c-4 ~ . 11,. 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. 12. ADJOURNMEIKIT 0 =aOM.94 COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 Council Agenda Item 4 1 0 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 • meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; (Mayor Edwards left the meeting at 9:05 p.m.); Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover, Hawley, Paul Hunt, and. John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Annexation Policy Discussion: City Administrator Reilly advised staff was presenting information on annexation to help determine what Council desired to achieve through the development of an annexation policy. Associate Planner Acker distributed the "official policy" from the Comprehensive Plan (this information has been placed on file with the Council packet material). Urban services, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, were reviewed briefly. Associate Planner Acker reviewed the areas of annexation which include the following: • Walnut Island • Fern Street/Bull Mountain North • Pockets on the Tualatin River • Bull Mountain South • Bull Mountain West • Metzger For each of these areas, Associate Planner Acker facilitated the Council discussion with regard to assigning importance between annexation and the following elements: • Growth management • Eliminate subsidies • Financial gain • Critical mass • Irregular boundaries • Defensive measure • Eliminate problems CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 Council discussed the term "financial gain" as it would apply to an AMMIL annexation. There was discussion on the cost to annex, what dollars would come to Tigard, and whether there would be any "financial gain." A gentleman in the audience indicated he was a developer who had bought some property in the Walnut Island area. He inquired if he should wait to see if the property would be annexed and work with the City of Tigard, or if annexation of this area was a distance away. After discussion, the developer was advised that Council was reviewing their policy and it would be expected that. within thirty to sixty days some policy direction would be in place. The developer was advised that if he wished to proceed, it would probably be best to go ahead and work with the County. Mayor Edwards advised that with regard to the policy discussion, the City should annex out to the urban growth boundary. He noted past history, the method of annexation, and the current situation where there are erratic boundaries, islands and pockets of areas within the urban growth boundary which are not currently in the City. Growth management, he advised, should be a consideration for annexing each of the areas not presently in the City but within the urban growth boundary. He advised the total package should be looked at for the long-term benefit of the City. Councilor Schwartz advised he agreed with Mayor. Edwards with regard to the growth-management concept as it would apply to annexation. Councilor Hawley also noted the importance of managing growth and that annexation could be used as a tool for this. Mayor Edwards advised that in addition, the added population from annexation would provide more "governance clout." He noted Tigard would probably be at about 45,000 people if all UGH areas were annexed. Associate Planner Acker noted other growth management tools were available and referred to modification of the UPAA agreement. (A copy of the UPAA agreement was submitted to Council in the Council packet; it is on file with the meeting materials). Mayor Edwards advised he felt it was a different scenario today with regard to annexation than it had been prior to setting the urban growth boundary. The urban growth boundary assumes the area will be urbanized. Those areas, under development and within the urban growth boundary but not within the City, are taking advantage of City services and, thus, are placing an unfair burden on the City taxpayers. He advised development within the urban growth boundary should be controlled. Also, the City should receive the taxes generated in than area. He noted open communication was important when talking to citizens in areas which maybe annexed. These people should be shown how much the city would receive in taxes and what it would cost the City to provides services to them. CITY COUNCIL MEETING KUNUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 ffm Councilor Hunt noted his position has been for "forced annexation." He stated he would consider bringing any islands into the City boundaries. Councilor Hawley agreed the City should initiate proceedings to bring the island areas into the City limits. Councilor Fessler advised she would prefer to specify a future date which would be announced so those people living in the island areas would know when the City plans to bring them into the City limits. City Administrator Reilly advised timing of the annexation would be important, so the services provided and the taxes received would occur together. Council consensus was to stress to staff that as much information as possible about pros, cons, and the financial information should be available to give to the citizens who would be affected. It was noted this would not be a financial windfall for the City, but it would be a good management opportunity. City Administrator Reilly advised staff will outline a more aggressive annexation policy, in skeletal form, for council review. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:10 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, meal property transactions, Adh current and pending litigation issues. Executive Session adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Business meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Council Communications/Liaison Reports: Council Fessler announced the Third Annual Fanno Creek Friends of Trees effort had been held recently. She reported 800 volunteers planted 10,000 trees in the Englewood area. City Administrator Reilly announced the Tigard Triangle update by the consultant would be placed on the agenda under Non-Agenda iteas. City Administrator Reilly advised Item No. 8 was to be deleted from the Agenda; no action or discussion was required by Council at this time. (9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Louise Shaw presented a hand-out to the City Council (on file with the Council packet). Ms. Shaw noted her concerns with the interpretation of the Oregon Constitution which says that the free speech clause may not be read to ban laws against c'-bscenity, including child pornography. She noted it was important this stance be reviewed in order to preserve the quality of life. She announced that Tigard is in a State which protects obscenity. She noted she was associated with a number of citizens, who felt there was a need to change, Oregon's Constitution. They are organizing to attempt to effect this change. She requested Council consider taking the following steps: A. Sign a petition to move this effort along. B. Gather signatures on petitions. C. Come out in support of this effort. Hank Miggins addressed the Council, advising he was a candidate to the newly-created (by Metro Charter) position of Auditor. He advised he was present to introduce himself to the City Council. 0 3. CONSENT AGENDA: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 8, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Tri-Met Agreement for 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.4 Approve Agreement with Fred Meyer for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection to Relocate Entrance with New Intersection Location and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Construction Contract for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project to N-B Hatch Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Councilor Hunt noted that the Council Calendar should be corrected to indicate the Mayors Reception would be held March 15, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. City Engineer Wooley clarified that the project in Item 3.4 would be funded by Transportation Impact Fees (TIF). Councilor Hawley questioned Item 3.5, asking how the lowest qualified bidder was determined. She noted there was substantial difference between the lowest bidder and the next bid. City Engineer Wooley explained the firm is reviewed by staff to determine whether they are registered with the Contractor°s Board and whether they have o13tained the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 necessary bonding. He advised they also do a check on the contractor to determine their ability to perform the type of work required. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the Council Calendar corrected as noted. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted BOyes01) . 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORKATION OF A REIMBURSWIENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION:. (This Agenda Item was withdrawn at the February 22, 1994 City Council meeting. Subsequently, the applicant, Mr. Craig Petrie, requested the council review district formation). City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report, noting this issue had been before the Council twice before. He advised the staff report is the same as presented on February 22, 1994. City Engineer Wooley reviewed on overhead slides the connection charges, and what was done to reflect Council direction and concerns by the developer. He noted on February 22, 1994 there had been discussion about a surcharge which the City had been collecting on sewer hookups. At this time the City Attorney's office has advised the City should cease collecting the surcharge until further review can be made regarding whether this charge should be collected. There were questions by Council regarding the developer's costs. City Engineer Wooley reviewed how these costs were derived. Testimon Mr. Craig Petrie expressed concerns with past dealings with the City of Tigard as well as this one now before the City Council. He said that when he bought this property, he also received the historical perspective on the property. He brought up several concerns dealing with the presentation of information by Mr. Maksym, including the declaration that there was a dedication of the right-of-way on 74th Street. Mr. Petrie advised that as a developer, he made an investment in the property with the hopes of return on capital. Mr. Petrie submitted pictures showing sewage flowing in ditches, to illustrate his point that sewer connections were needed. Mr. Petrie said. the Code language was fair and that he should be able to take advantage of the reimbursement district provisions as would any'other person. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINWES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 5 r Anthony Maksym, 13565 SW 72nd Avenue, responded to Mr. Petrie's claims that he had not been factual with regard to the 20 foot right-of-way dedication on 74th Street. He asserted this was a proper claim by him that the street had been dedicated for public use by him. He referred to 200 feet of land vacated by Council at the back of cherry Street, which was under private ownership and now has sewers installed. He noted he had placed some papers on the Council desk with the purpose of clarifying his points of testimony. Mr. Maksym advised he thought the agenda was in error. He said there is no valid application before the Council at this time. Mr. Maksym questioned the calculation of costs for construction of the sewer, and asked whether there was adequate proof of these costs. 'He noted the City must go out -to competitive bidding and that Mr. Petrie was not required to do this. He noted that if people are to participate in a reimbursement district, then they should also be afforded the right to have the costs be at the lowest possible price. He requested clarification information from the City Engineer, including the number of lots on the Petrie property. He also questioned the City Engineer on the cost verification of the construction. Mr. Maksym urged Council to revise the ordinance with safeguards normally available to citizens. He noted the zone of benefit was only for Mr. Petrie. He noted that if the ordinance is accepted as prepared, then this would be in error. Mr. Petrie responded to Mr. Maksym's concerns, noting "Mr. Maksym wants something for nothing." Mr. Petrie advised he thought Mr. Maksym was leaving out relevant facts, and advised he withdrew his application on February 22, 1994 because he wanted this issue to be heard before the entire council. He advised he had provided corroborating evidence with regard to sewer costs. Councilor Hawley asked some questions about documentation for engineering costs. She advised that if the City Engineer had gone over the reports and accepted the figures, then she would be accept this information as being satisfactory. Councilor Schwartz asked Legal Counsel to respond to the issue of hether or not this was starting over, or if the application should be accepted. Legal Counsel Ramis responded he had not listened to the tapes, and if it is Council's recollection that Mr. 'Petrie withdrew the application for decision by full Council, then. Council should proceed with a decision on the issue. . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 6 There was a letter submitted in the Council packet from Mr. Craig Petrie, requesting that City Engineer place the request for creation of a zone of benefit district on the Council Agenda for March 8, 1994. Councilor Hawley concurred that Mr. Petrie advised ha wished to have this issue be heard before a full Council. After discussion, Council consensus was to review the application. City Administrator Reilly noted the public hearing nature of this issue tonight was premature. Once formed, there will be an opportunity for public hearing. The item for Council to consider tonight is: Does this request meet the threshold test for a reimbursement district? If yes, then Counci?, should review to determine whether or not to approve the formation of a reimbursement district. Any affected party can appeal this approval, and then a public hearing is held. At that time, Council can uphold, reverse; or modify the reimbursement district formation. Councilor Fessler asked questions about the computation of the per-unit allowance on the costs of a sewer hook-up. Councilor Schwartz advised that when the ordinance was approved about four years ago, he believed the intent was to allow the person who had to install the line to be reimbursed if other property owners wished to connect. This way, the initial property owner or developer would have the opportunity to receive some reimbursement for the up-front costs. He noted that people would not be charged in advance for connections they are not using. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the costs claimed for reimbursement and how approval of the amount was obtained. Councilor Hunt noted he felt a different set of circumstances was before him if the $3,000 surcharge was no longer collectible. Councilor Hawley noted the Code now allows for a reimbursement district. This opportunity is offered with no means of distinguishing between a developer or private landowner. She noted staff had done a good job; Council should determine whether this application met all criteria. If.so, Council should approve formation of the reimbursement district and then the formal public hearing process can:be implemented. 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 7 Mayor Edwards agreed with Councilor Hawley. He said that the only way to resolve the concerns raised would be to form the reimbursement district and allow the public hearing process to follow. He supported the resolution in order to."get the process going." Councilor Schwartz agreed that the intent of the reimbursement district had been satisfied and said the district should be formed. He noted the concerns of Mr. Maksym with regard to cost allocations had not been supported. During Council discussion, it was noted there were concerns that the public hearing process should commence as soon as possible. Legal Counsel Ramis advised that property owners are asked to trigger the hearings. However, he advised that the City Council could require the hearing. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, that if the resolution is approved, the public hearing process would automatically be triggered and staff would start the process for formal notification. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present (4-1). (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to MOIL adopt Resolution No. 94-11: RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present (4-1). (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes", Councilor Hunt voted "no"). Council meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. (Mayor Edwards left the meeting at this time). Council meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL).- ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 93-0004 BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL, a. Public hearing was opened by Council President Schwartz. b. Declarations or challenges: Councilor Fessler advised she had visited the site. Ach CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 8 Ask C. Staff Report: Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. During the staff report, Community Development Director Murphy advised that an island area would be created if this annexation was approved. Councilor Hunt questioned whether the island created could be annexed now. Community Development Director Murphy advised staff would return at a later date with the island annexation proposal. It was noted the Bull Mountain Road portion which was annexed into the area would still remain a responsibility of the County with regard to maintenance. d. Public Testimony: Larry Altendorf, 14472 SW 130th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, had questions about what the zoning change from R-6 to R- 7 would mean. He asked for a better idea of what would be planned for the area. The decision on the type of development planned for this property was not before Council at this time. It was explained to Mr. Altendorf that the development approval would come before the Planning Commission at the time the development was to occur. Mr. Milford Pond, 14335 SW 125th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, questioned whether or not the area that was now an island would automatically be annexed into the City. Council President Schwartz responded the City of Tigard would not. automatically annex the area, but would be looking for annexation in the future. e. Staff Recommendation: Approve the resolution and ordinance. f. Councilor Fessler noted the staff report referenced an official letter which had not been received from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ball. Community Development Director Murphy advised the Balls were notified and had indicated by telephone that they had no objections to the annexation. An official letter is not required. g. Public hearing was closed. h. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Resolution No. 94-12. RESOLUTION NO. 94-12 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUT LINED IN EXHIBIT "A", AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (ZCA 93-0004 - STRAYER-BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 9 i. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") j. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded-by Councilor Fessler, to amend Resolution 94-12 to note that in Section 3, the City Council hereby declares its intent to annex the island in the short-term future. The City Council directs that proceedings be started for annexation no later than March 31, 1995. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") k. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt ordinance No. 94-04: ORDINANCE NO. 94-04 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ZONE CHANGES (ZCA 93-0004 - STRAYER-BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes"). S. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0007 FLDODPLAIN FLOOR ELEVATION a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. Councilor Hawley questioned what was meant by "substantial improvement" in the language of the ordinance. Community Development Director Murphy noted he did not have a definition for "substantial improvement" and this would need review at the staff level. He clarified that houses would not be allowed to be built in the floodplain. d. Public Testimony: None. G. Public hearing was closed. f. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to approve Ordinance No. 94-05. AM, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 10- ORDINANCE NO. 94-05 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN, CODE SECTION 15.84.026 (I). Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes") 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.44) Finance Director Lowry reviewed the staff report on this issue. The ordinance, if approved, will allow Council to change the sale terms for sale of property and if a sale is unsuccessful, try a sealed bid again, or list with a broker. Proposed amendments will also simplify the sale of substandard parcels such as those resulting from the Gaarde improvements. Staff noted these changes will greatly improve the sale process and make it more reasonable and flexible. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Ordinance No. 94-06. ORDINANCE NO. 94-06 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.44, SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND CONFLICTS HEREWITH. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes") 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COST SHARING FORMULA FOR GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - ARLINGTON RIDGE/VISTA POINT This item was deleted from the agenda. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: SELECTION OF INTERIM MAYOR City Administrator Reilly summarized this issue, noting Council had planned to interview interested applicants. Two applications had been received; however, one candidate had withdrawn his name. Councilor Fessler advised Council needed to move on this process. She said she supported the appointment of the candidate who had submitted an interest letter, Mr. Jack Schwab. 40 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH S. 1994 - PAGE 11 Councilor Hunt noted he thought the City was fortunate that a candidate had expressed interest who had experience, could step in and be productive for the City. He added-the City had been criticized that this process had not been well publicized, but advised it had been advertised in the Oregonian, Tigard Times, and Cityscape. Council President Schwartz noted Mr. Schwab had served as an appointed Councilor in the past, and appreciated the fact that Mr. Schwab was stepping forward to assist once again. He also noted Mr. Schwab was a past First Citizen for the City of Tigard. Councilor Hawley noted she was ready to "get going" with this appointment. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to appoint Jack Schwab. as Interim Mayor to be effective April 1, 1994. Motion was passed by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") Mr. Jack Schwab, who was present in the audience, advised he would accept the appointment and he said he hopes to "keep the Council running in good shape." 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Tigard Triangle - Update by Consultants Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the Tigard Triangle report. A recent open house devoted to the Triangle planning effort was well attended. During the open house citizens had the opportunity to review and ask questions about different ideas being proposed for the Triangle area. Mr. Ralph Terran from OTAK and Mr. Randy McCord from DKS were present to review the Tigard master plan with City Council. There was an adjustment in density from 165 residential units to 900 units in the area. Areas along 68th and 70th (which were not viable for, residential use) were recommended to change to office-park use. -Land uses as well as the site relationships to each other were reviewed. Mr: McCord reviewed the transportation element in the proposed Triangle plan. An inventory of the system was done and guidelines were developed to plan for transportation which would compliment the land use plans. There was reference to the I-5/Kruse Way connections, as well as addressing CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 12 AlbL pedestrian traffic and connectivity between mixed use areas. Associate Planner Acker fidvised the City has been going through a process of developing the plan. Now, implementation of the plan must begin. He noted that a specific area plan should be adopted; this would be accomplished through a series of proposals for Council consideration. This process of hearings should be completed by the end of the summer. 11. EkECUT3VE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:22 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. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:14 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City R co der Mayor/, (pity of Tigard Dat4: / L~!~a ICI =0308.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 13 ~~#f 3tD O `u CO an C O c a ~ 'U C U r;. . ry ? S C ~ w. " C t" 0 ~o Sr .e.~: 4 os•n ~ c a.E t ~ r•- ~s Cs rn . oo6 s, ai K ~ , G ~..9L vi '~~~:aJ O\ t1".A ~ C'„ D.:CX~~ .b.C S'V .A+~ u~.~. ( 4~, 1o e3.' t~ a ca o FH ° c cL E r: cad csr~s OE- ~c.O cN'r~ v r 'c7 G Or V as rl iry Sl zaX bC y > , nM~. ©Cr Qr~ r~i•,'.CC.:J~ ~'y, Oi..E~ C O'C CV N aU. 4 eQf. x a,~•~ i' y rrs cue per. pq v CO: p _~,+=+lx u.. c>ra#' w CK -~tv1 = GLr v F•a viia. v cs. ~t'y w oe'_ C , H H • oµ -ice _ , q ' W O ® : on a J b ~ ' yl cl) o ~ S u2 .o euN ,~c+ Qy t ^ . uYmQ 1 W- w (D > O Z LLI c i ED 4 ° C L I 0 ~ ` co tD 7 Z2 ® I- t~9 a ` ' ❑ ❑ w 0 O ~ z v m • ul Z w m 8 X J m 0 [h IL N ® rl ~ Ol 0 $4 r-q r. (U r-4 0 (d t3l •r:4 0) W W >4 N t[S 41 ra t3l -H -ri r-I v 0 z 0 Q V In CL U. Q AA E.. 0 Q Ve IL 0C=/) Q W Q 0 t1. LL 0 0~ W z t;v to ~ rl cis L C t7 " b _ c ®M >41 W ^ m > 61 Cd 0 U ~E c a a~i Ot cc - 24 c 3 td ® ~D rl rc OCJ P+ F4 Z C Ell C W o c: I W O EO O CD o O 0) o m ® V U ate.. CJ 03 Q C 13 43 w ~-0 rL - t 3 0 d tD . O L C C m 0 C O • r. O' Q W c. w Adl O a 7 .G ` > O. 8 O C m 0 0 Z > O wO V ww y~ ~ 3 ~ ~ l) to E7) 0 ' F m A®c~o 11 e a O « c m Gcc ca u 0 ® J > ; c oc m 0 C; 'U {J rv :DWG ; 3~ca~Un A4 , r O;,C, C 11.,. aS CG'V ~ O~ 1:. RF C ~yC cp) Z ~ 10 UiN Q 1<000ml W 2 , to J m-Z¢ as%n LL Z y u' O G ro ~4 tll w 44 O to ro 4 d' N L C E O E 3 art c C Eo E9 CD co C O Ol 0 O z t!i U W C O E a E 0 U. "E'tee foll9atag ie~irng h" ptibltsted for your information Fitil atgen a may be obtmrned`fro n the City Recorder,. 13125, S.W. 1101 IIrasd ward; Tigard, ®e~gon 97223, or by calling.6394171. CITY COUNCIL: BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 8. 1994 TIGARD CITY HALL TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. H LL,BOULEVARI),'1IGA D,' OREGON SOrl r Mceting (Torun. Hatt Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.) a Annexation Polic3lDiscussion Business Mee.tin (Toxin Hall) (7:30 P.M.) ' 0 Council Consideration: - Formation o -6 ReimbursementDistrict for Pacific Ridge Subdivision', ` (Withdrawr~ at February22, 1994, Council meeting; applicant ' hg"s'Xeyuested the Council review district formation on the March d, 1994. agenda) - Consider ordinance amending municipal code provisions concc,-ning the said of surplus real property. Public-Hearings: a' Annexation. 14carfns - ZC'A 93-0004 Brown/Eus6s/Ball. Location: North *of S.W. Bull Mountain Rbad,'east, of S.W; 129th Avenue, anti 12765 S.,W Bull Mountain Road. `A request to annex F two parc,cis consisting of approximately 11.90 and 2.04 acres to i the City. of, igard and to change the zone from Washington ' County R-6'(Rcsidential, 6 units/acre) to City of, Tigard R-7, (''i.esitiential 7 units/acre.) 'done Ordinance'Amendment, ZCA 93-0007 Fioodplain Floor Elevation tiffects-residential properties located within or adlacem'io the`tloodplain. This request, if at proved, would require the Iowtst floor cevation of one and two lam. ily si lIctures (other, .6 than' manufactured homes) to be. one foot above the elevation of, a ,P 100-year _i➢oodplain. Local Contract Review Board Meeting Ezu:uklue1Session: The Tigad City.Council may'go into Executive. Session under`theprovisions.ofQRS;192.660_(1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending i litigation issues. TT 1811 Publish March 3 1 D 1 0 R E C' I v E COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal MAR 9 1994 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7 811 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 cITY OF TIGARD Legal Notice Advertising ®City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW HA11 Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223. ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit o AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Ya4- Sn r o-' being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I am the Advenisin Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tualatin imes a newspaper of general circwotion " defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council Business Mtg. a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: March 3.1994 Subscribed and sworn to a ore me this3rd day of March, l9 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Natary P !ic for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 MY My Commission Expires: COMM155i0N EXPIRES MAY 18.1997 ON AFFIDAVIT__ 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose a say: That I posted in th follov✓ing public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) which were adopted at the Council meeting dated copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the a3 day of 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 DA QA Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of r: OFFICIALSEAL K JOANN HAYES Notary Pty c for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.006513 d 4 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY AY 5, ,1 1995 My Commission Expires. kfta" 11, ioginva\Wpost 4. h:\Iogln\jc\tssttfy apending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount f 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. DAN! Mares ~6r 4 PUBLIC BEARING (OUASI-JUDICIAL!) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 93-0004 BROWN/EUSTIS/BAL.L LOCATION: North of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue, and 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 9AD, tax lots 1100 and 1000). A request to annex two parcels consisting of approximately 11.90 and 2.04 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential 7 units/acre). The applicants are requesting annexation for the purpose of connecting the parcels to the city sewer line. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, and 10.3.2,; Community Development Code Chapters and Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, and 18.138.020 (A)(B). ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) The R-7 zoning designation allows single-family detached/attached residential units, duplexes, public Oupport facilities, mobile home parks, and subdivisions, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. N @-E dd~i~ e~t1~7 IN 1!J 1 w E SIGN F! a ■N T0" T EST IF: if l ■Y A V ®a Y `Po AT i ~ats~ ea~v AC S mug ~o~ ~ CNETe ~i E ra v PLEASE PRIM ~J a .~.ii li it i A 9 a 1 ...__nt epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Cvnalr o~ CI avis Cour.p cil r»e~Mi ..m,. •11he ...1'ri 49f 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. F J SIMI PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0007 FLOODPLAIN FLOOR ELEVATION LOCATION: Affects residential properties located within or adjacent to the floodplain. A request to amend Community Development Code Section 18.84.026 (1) to require the lowest floor elevation of one and two family structures, other than manufactured homes, to be one foot above the elevation of a 100-year fioodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.30.120 (Standards for Legislative Decision-Making). E. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS El GENDA ITEM NO. 6 PLEASE PPII.9°T Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) opponent - (Speaking. Against) me Name rasa Address IffaMMS ame Tess ress Name Name Address Address Name Nan Address V Name dress ® Name Address r"I Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Addrs-- Name Name Address Address F Name Name _ dress Address Name Name Address Address f r-.7 L ~r 31 ~ rq~ CITY OF TIGARD, ORDGICd RESCUMCN NO. 88. lI A RESCUM N ADS AN URBAN PUMMG AREA AM EE dW (UPAA) BMWEM 7W CITY O 11 AM 'P~-GIW C0GY MIU& ,S, the City of Tigard and Washuigtm C=rty, to ensure coordinated and consistent omVrehensive plans, omirier it MtUa iy advantageous to establish a process for coord hating oaaprehensive planning and developueat in the Urban Planning Area; and MMMAS, the Urban Planning Area Agreement expired on November 8, 1988; and SAS, the City of Tigard and Washington County have mutually agreed to I 6-711L a feasibility study to oo=i oar expansion of the City of Tigard°s "active plannjrq area" and the aVedienoee of the City to provide developmmt sex-vices to the expanded area; and MOWASI the Utd~in Planning Area A6eeeune-nt attached includes a provision zequiriM the City and the County to complete the feasibility study prior to C%XM081 :Ill. Of periodic rewlsw in April 1989. NOW THERMFURE, be it resolved by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The city Counc31 ads the attached EVId ait "A" titled " ri Chi COUNIT - TICS URA PlAWNING Awl AGUEHM. Section 2: One M yor and Deputy. City Fa=mder are hexer autha d.zed to sign the Urban Plannnuq Area Agreemmt on behalf of the City of Tigard and DePtxty City Rscoxder is furtlxer dried to file a noisy of said aunt with Washington County. PASSED: Mnis ~ 14-A day of ,)PGf'nhA1-), 1988. ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard 1&fA&U i Deputy Ric -City of yard 0- RECEIVED ri ; 2 1 1988 VIk" WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGAR.D URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT 8/88 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this W day of DeCPM jQ2nL 19_g&_ by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter'referred to as the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the'"CITY". WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local government may enter.'into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and. activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and , Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning requires that city, County, State and Federal agency and special district playas and actions shall-be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197;• and WHEREAS, the.Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgment of compliance to submit an agreement setting-forth the means by which comprehensive planning coordination within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and WHEREAS; the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: 1. A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the.Urban Planning Area; 3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and Affik MP) 4. A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Location of the Urban Planning Area The Urban Planning Area, mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. Dann 2 YY. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development A. Amendments 'to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan,or Implementing Regulation 1. Definitions comprehensive Plan as defined by L'-- ..~..l~j means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy.statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systeias and activities relating to the use of lands, incleiding, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs. "Comprehensive Plan's amendments do not include small tract comprehensive plan map changes. Zmvlementinca Regulation means any local government zoning ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing-a comprehensive plan. "Implementing regulation" does not include snail tract zoning nap amendments,. conditional use permits, individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit development approval or denials, annexations; variances, building permits and similar -administrative-type decisions. 2. The County shall provide the CITY with.the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the. appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the CITY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations: The following procedures shall be followed -by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one another-in the process to amend or adopt a-comprehensive plan or implementing regulations -a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the proposed action at the time such planning efforts are initiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final wearing on adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums o€ UnderstandingB° negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The Ll Page 3 "Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which the responding agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at the time of being notified of a proposed action, the responding agency determines it does not need to participate in the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding". b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations on any proposed actions to the .responding agency for its review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding", the responding agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to submit comments orally or in writing. .Lack of response shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. c. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by the responding agency either by a) revising the final recommendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency. explaining -why the comments. cannot be addressed in the.final draft. • d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed-action. .If after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency-may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the originating. agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documentation is available to properly inform the responding agency of the final actions taken. B. Development Actions Requiring. Individual Notice to -Property owners 1. Definition Aevelolpment Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local government which requires notifying by mail the owners of property which could potentially be affected (usually specified as a distance measured In feet) by a.proposed development action which directly affects and 'is applied to a specific parcel or parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be-limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive Page 4 plan asap amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual subdivisions, partitionings or planned unit developments, variances, and other similar actions requiring a hearings: process which is quasi--judicial in nature. 2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3.• The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY-and the CITY to notify one another of proposed development actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall *send by-first class mail - a copy of the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development action to the other agency; - hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than ten. (10) days prior to the date of. the scheduled public hearing. The failure ®f the responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was-made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency.receiving the notice may respond at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral responsd-may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal. c. if received in a. timely manner, the originating - agency shall include or attach the comments to the written staff report and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally at the hearing. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to,the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. Page 5 C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but are not subject to the notification and participation requirements contained in subsections A and B above. a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agendas which contain the proposed actions to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond at its discretion..-Comments may be submitted.in written form or an oral response may be•made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal. c. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the. public record. on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency-acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. III.- comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 1. Definition Active iPlanninca Area means the incorporated area and certain unincorporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY Active Planning Area is designated as Area As on Exhibit "Att. 2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within the Active Planning Area. Page 6 3. The CITY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Active Planning Area. 4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active *Planning .Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size, unless public sewer and water service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban densities consistent with CITY's Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shall be continent upon provision of adequate-urban services including sewer, water„ storm drainage, streets, and police and fire protection. 7. The COUNTY shall•not oppose annexations to the CITY within the CITY's Active Planning Area. B. Area of :Interest 1. Definition Area •of Interest a Prxmarv Area of Interest means unincorporated-lands contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the.CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A". 2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development actions within the Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of :Interest. 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for .development. Page 7 b. Ahnexat.ions by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation. c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means for annexation in the Metzger/r,rogress Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to-the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. d.' Upon annexation of land.withixn the Area of Interest to the CITY, the-CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the density, use _ provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year after-the effective date- of annexation unless both the CITY and the COUNTY- Planning.Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is-outdated and an amendment may be initiated before the one year period is over. 5.. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have reached an agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A". -Washington county recognizes that the future ' annexation area of interest boundary line may change -in-the future upon mutual agreement of both cities. C. Special Policies 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive planning and development actions to the Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures outlined in section' III of this Agreement. 2. At least one cop, of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan,, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY- development code shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. 3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. Page 8 4. The City of Tigard, City of.Beaverton and Washington County have agreed to the following stipulations regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road"to the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street: a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County agree to amend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect the following functional classification and.design considerations: , 1. Designation: Collector 2. 171=ber of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes ae major intersections)- 3. Bike Lanes: Yes 4® Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements where necessary) 5: Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum 6. Access: Limited 7. Design Speed: .35 M.P.H. S. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet 9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street 10. Upon verification of need-by traffic analysis, the connection may be planned to.eventually accommodate additional lanes at the Murray/Old Scholls Ferry and-Murray/New Scholls Ferry intersections„ 11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and Murray Boulevard connection will be designed with Hurray Boulevard as a through street with 135th Avenue terminating at the Murray connection with a "T" intersection. 12. The general alignment of-the Murray Boulevard connection is illustrated in Exhibit B. b. Any changes to larid use designations in the Murray Boulevard connection area :shall be coordinated with all-jurisdictions to assure that traffic impacts are adequately analyzed. Page 9 c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County shall support improvements to the regional transportation system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th avenue to Gaarde Street. e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by affected property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment for the connection of Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersections in 1986. 5. The-CITY end the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative procedures and designate appropriate personnel to receive and review notices required by Sections II A,- B and C of this Agreement. IV. Amendments to the TL rh_ ar, Plannincr Area A Bement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area Boundary:- 1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the proposal, shall submit a formal recauest for amendment to the responding agency. v . 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement describing the amendment. b. A-statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment is necessary. c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the recruest before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held within 45 days of the dare the request is received. 4. The CITY and COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request, or make a Page 10 determination that the proposed amendment warrant; additional review. If it is determined that additional review is necessary,. the following procedures shall,be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If inconsistencies.noted by both parties cannot be resolved in the-review process as outlined in Section IV (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiated a joint study. Such a study shall commence within SJ days of the date it is determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the record of the review. The agency considering the proposed amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior to making a final decision. B. Prior to the commencement of periodic review for the City of Tigard and ne County's Urban Areas (April.. 19891, the CITY and the COUNTY shall mutually study the following topics: 1.' The•feasibility"of expanding the "active.planning* area" to include the-current "area of'interest" and assigning land use planning responsibility to the CITY. 2. The'feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the CITY and the COUNTY contracting to provide building inspection and plan review services, administer development codes and collect related-fees within the active planning area. Proposed revisions to this Agreement shall be considered _by the CITY and the COUNTY as soon as analysis of the above topics is complete, subject to the time constraint and other requirements of the COUWTY's land use ordinance hearings and adoption process. C. The parties will jointly-review this Agreement every two (2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments. The.review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies thaw may have developed since the previous review.' If, after completion of the-60 day,review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may terminate this Agreement. Page 11 Elm= V.- This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the Urban Planning Area Agreement dated September 9, 1986. , 19 . This p greement ..commences on T)p c'em ber IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area ?agreement on the date set opposite their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD By Date Mayor WASHINGTON COUNTY By Date Chairman, Board'of County Commissioners- E Date Recording Secretary 1 Ilk i I 1 1 PY ~e I a Q 1 0 ® z LL. ® (X Z . i 2 o < X ` [~f Z t m C C f d 3 ~ ~ ~ its':?q•:2:r.. f .t ' - , ` `lam • f I I r7 Li• J `j' l V~ • .yJJJ - aso~ , ..J "-70.. y+ ? o ! i e 4 I o~- tz V iII.J 1 co w ui W OD cr cc < < CO) ~Z 2 Q z z W \ z z z a < a O IIIi zo L < I Co D W ¢ O it < < M=mm A& 1100 1200 201 1101 MURRAY BLVD. CONNECTION 100 200- 1301 1502 1500 100 l EXHIBIT "A" MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING C J. 'REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD AND WALNUT STREET This memorandum of understanding between Washington County, the City of Beaverton, and the City of Tigard is intended•to document the mutual understanding regarding the schedule for implementation of a portion of the existing Urban Planning Area Agreements between the County and the two cities, in order to assure an orderly and coordinated development of the transportation system in accordance with adopted planning documents. RECITALS: 1. In December of 1988, an Urban Planning-Area-Agreement was executed between Washington County and the City of Beaverton. In the same month, a similar Urban Planning Area Agreement was-executed between Washington County and the City of Tigard. Both Agreements provide for the extensions of Murray Poulevard and Walnut Street to form a collector street connection between the two cities. No schedule is specified for completion of the street connection. 2. The Washington County Transportation Plan, adopted in October of 1988, calls for the extension of Beef Bend Road as a minor arterial to connect between Scholis Ferry Road'and Sherwood. This road extension is also recommended in•the Southwest Corridor Report adopted by the Metropolitan Servicd District Council on'-May 28, 1987. 3. The Southwest Corridor Study Report recommends that the Murray - Boulevard extension not be completed until the Beef Bend Road extension-is completed. Completion of the Beef Bend Road extension is considered necessary,in order to discourage the use of the Murray Boulevard extension as a through route between Scholls Ferry Road and Highway 99W. The Southwest Corridor Study Report suggests that the portion of-the Murray Boulevard extension.to be delayed is the portion Iietween Walnut Street and Gaarde Street. The parties~to this agreement have previously supported the recommendations of the Report. 4. -The Southwest Corridor Study Report, while very specific in some aspects, is considered by the parties to be a generalized public facilities planning document. As the parties have undertaken further planning for the affected area and observed development patterns in the area, it has become apparent that the Southwest Corridor Study Report objective of discouraging the use of the 1 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD AND WALNUT STREET f1RR 11 Murray Boulevard extension as a through route pending the completion of the Beef Bend Road extension can best be implemented through a modifled approach to the one described in the Corridor Study. 5. In discussions between the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard, it has been determined that all portions of the Murray Boulevard extension need to be completed in conjunction with development of the adjoining properties in order to (I) comply with the intentions of the Urban Planning Area Agreement and (2) provide adequate traffic circulation in the developing areas.. Engineering review has further identified that the opening of the roadway to through travel between Old Scholls Ferry Road and the area south of New Scholls Ferry Road can be deferred until the completion of the Beef Bend Road extension or for at least five.years from the date of this agreement. AGREEMENT: I. The portion of the Murray Boulevard extensio,, between Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road shall not be opened to through traffic prior to the completion of the Beef Bend Road extension to Sherwood. Physical construction of the roadway will be permitted, but the actual connection for through traffic will be impeded by the use of barriers or other effective devices approved by all parties to this agreement. 2. Washington County shall actively pursue funding for construction of the Beef Bend Road extension. The Cities of Beaverton and Tigard shall support the County in this endeavor. 3. This memorandum of understanding shall remain in effect until amended by mutual agreement of all parties. WASHINGTON COUNTY By: Date: xae-lt" Chairman, Boar of o my Commissioners CITY OF BEAVERTON© By: Date: Mayor f 2- CITY 0 ARD By: Data: 7 J o2- Ma 2 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD AND WALNUT STREET PBC/ss (91-40507) 10. URBANIZATION P U This chapter addresses the concerns expressed by Statewide Planning Goal # 14: Urbanization, which is "to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." ' The Urbanization goal is important because it develops a framework within which all development activities have to be coordinated, and it integrates and balances all of the other available land resources in terms of the needs expressed by other goals; namely Housing, Economy, Public Facilities and Services, Natural Features and Open Space, and Transportation. The urbanization goal also requires an allocation of land for accommodation of urban expansion during the planning period (1980 - 2000), and development of plans to arrange the orderly and efficient transition from urbanizable land to urban land. The findings, policies and implementation strategies address a variety of topics related to urbanization. Policies describe the process which satisfies the need for efficient, orderly and logical urbanization within the geographical limits of Tigard's Urban Planning Area. Additional information on this topic is available in the "Comprehensive Plan Report: Urbanization." Findinas The City of Tigard g:_.-ew from 5,302 people in 1970 to 14,286 people in 1980 (Census 1970 & 1980) and the City predicts that Tigard :vill continue to grow to more than double its current size by the year 2000. The current 1983 population is 18,379. A portion of this increase is due to annexations. The City limits have expanded by approximately 4.4 square miles since 1970, to its present size of approximately 8.6 square miles. All lands within the Tigard Urban Planning Area as well as the City Limits have been designated for urban land uses, and are wholly within the Portland Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is an active plan, meaning the City plans and designates land uses within the Tigard Urban Planning Area (T.U.P.A.). Washington County retains legal jurisdiction over development proposals, zoning and public improvement projects outside the City limits but within the T.U.P.A. Tigard does have right of review and comment on proposals and projects within the T.U.P.A. • The area within the Tigard Urban Planning Area, but outside the current City Limits, that is not already developed to urban intensities will be made available for urban uses via an Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County;. annexation to the City and subsequent development proposals by the property owners. The City is committed to providing.urban -level services, or the coordination of providing these services with the appropriate service districts, to all areas within the city limits boundaries. ii - 64 • The intent of the City is to provide for an orderly and efficient land use pattern and urban services which must be available at the time of development. • The timing, location and expansion of (the] transportation systems are important factors affecting future urbanization. • The desired development and growth pattern for the Tigard Urban Planning. Area is to be defined by a growth management system, e.g., extension and services, streets and land use which will guide the timing, type location of growth. To assist in the financing of street facilities and improvements, Tigard has • imposed a Systems Development Charge (SDC) on new housing development. • Major trunk line sewer service in the Tigard Urban Planning Area is provided by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) of Washington County which has assumed this responsibility for the City's as well as that of eastern Washington County; major sewage system since 1970. • Water in the Tigard area is provided by the Metzger and Tigard 'dater Districts. These districts purchase their water from Portland, Lake Oswego and other sources. • An Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Tigard and Washington County regarding land use planning and annexation was adopted in 1983. The intent of this agreement is to: a. Identify the urbanizable lard within each jurisdiction surrounding Tigard; b. Provide for orderly and efficient transition from urbanizable land to urban land; C. Provide a process for reviewing the land use designations between the f City and County; 1 d. Provide for a process to extend existing services; and e. Provide a process for annexations of land to the City. • The agreement requires that the parties resolve various issues, otherwise the agreement will lapse on January 1, 1984 (or a later date if the parties extend the agreement) and the 1980 agreement between the parties is revived. • The City does not have an UPAA with the school districts (Tigard and Beaverton), but the districts do work with the City's Planning and Development Department to estimate the enrollment impact of new residential development in the City.- The City has made a significant effort in the past to manage the location and type of growth, and to coordinate this growth with the extension of services and expansion of facilities.-- The City is currently in the process of.including.all of. the unincorporated islands" within the city limits. II - 65 10.1 ANNEXATION OF LAND POLICIES 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD: a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE ALLOWED*, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE. LEVEL OF "SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE: 1. WATER; 2. SEWER; 3. DRAINAGE; 4. STREETS; 5. POLICE; AND 6. FIRE PROTECTION. * Most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan. b. IF REQUIRED BY AN ADOPTED CAPITAL ?MPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN AND RECORD WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: 1. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (L.I.D.) FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH SUCH A DISTRICT. THE EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE FOLLOWING : a) WATER; b) SEWER; c) DRAINAGE; AND d) STREETS. 2. THE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE SERVICES OR THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY INTO A SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE SERVICES. C. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES TO AREAS WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA OR WITH THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UPON ANNEXATION. 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING 'POCKET" OR 'ISLAND" OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY; OR (0 II - 66 b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN'AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY; C. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION; d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY; e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES LISTED IN 10.1.1(a). 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY. ZONING DESIGNATION. Rev. Ord. 84-21 10.2 EXTENSION OF SERVICES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS POLICIES 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) LINES EXCEPT: a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR 1 b. WHERE A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT TO ANNEX THOSE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN SIGNED AND RECORDED WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR C. WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS DECLARED THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OR IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD. 10.2.2 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 10.2.1, THE EXTENSION OF SEWER LINES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT REDUCE THE CAPACITY BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR AREAS WITHIN THE CITY. 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY). THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT: a. PRECLUDE THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES TO URBAN DENSITIES AND STANDARDS; OR. b. PRECLUDE THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE'FOtLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE"PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATING ORDINANCES: a. LAND USE; II - 67 b. DENSITY; PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITE; C. d. STREET ALIGNMENT; AND e. DRAINAGE. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES all of the urbanizable land within Tigard's Urban 1, The City shall encourage be within the City Limits. t o Planning Area shall direct its annexation policies to conform with and support Cit h 2. y e T the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The City shall phase annexations to allow for the incorporation of nsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, i s co urbanizable land in a manner that reement, and to provide for orderly transition a A A g re and the Urban Planning of urban services. 4 The City shall work toward establishing a workable, jointly approved growth The agreement shall assure . management agreement with the Washington County_ that: Area (T.U.P.A.) will be gard Urban Ti inside evelopment Urban a. of Tigard. City the an aged Significant differences between City/County Comprehensive Plar. policies within the Urban Planning b . are reconciled for the unincorporated areas Area (T.U.P.A.). 5. Land use designations, if not already designated, shall be assigned to a thorough study addressing statewide ft er purposed annexation areas only a d neighborhood needs have been completed and saw Planning Goals, and City an adopted by the City. 6. The City shall accept, encourage, and assist in the preparation of ithin its Urban Planning Area (UPA). annexation proposals of all levels w The City shall actively seek to include all 'unincorporated island' areas 7. into the city. 8. The City shall provide a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will promote most e ilities in those areas which ar f ac rc the development of services and comme tive in the ability to provide needed housing, jobs and ial f the Comprehensive d uc pro service opportunities in conformance with the policies o sin i of - neede sion Plan. The CIP shall emphasize the prov developme reas passed over by urban . established districts and those a 9 icts n County cooperate The City shall lann ng lact ions a which rhave s t i . p o on informat of exchange shay for review and comment shall Ample opportunity t s. interjurisdictional impac final action by a city, county or special district policy be given prior to making body on a matter of mutual concern. II - 68 10. The City and County will negotiate the existing Urban Planning Area agreement which responds to the needs of both the City and County. 10.3 ANNEXATION OF LAND OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY Q POLICIES 10.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER ANNEXATION REQUESTS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES 10.1 AND 10.2 A14D AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. 10.3.2 THE CITY SHALL DISCOURAGE EXPANSION OF THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA IN A MANNER. WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN IRREGULAR PLANNING AREA AND INEFFICIENT PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. (9 e Z% - 69 Lloyd E. Hayne, J.D., LISA, CFE, Chair Robe e. i H k suref Treaserer an Dave B rrezinsid,CPA Buisrnan Mia 1 for Metro Auditor - U ,=3 9 ald E. Clark _ Dr. Nathan Cogan Sarah Cogan EXPERIENCE: 35 YEARS IN AUDITING AND MANAGEMENT 114s Tanya Collor GinnteCooper CHAIR OF1HE BOARD OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY COR`s`_MI[SKONERS Cow~ctL Judge Chsdas Crookham, Rat. • Oversaw preparation and implementation of $450 million budget 3/f /ti u Jude Doctor J d D ~ Y Pr1 ors er octor 4L ~w George Eighmey, Esq EXEctmvE AssisTANT TO T= Mut:..o- mD COUNTY CHAIR Anne Kely Feeney. • Set policy for County departments including budget decisions m j -S Qa[ma Farrel Julie ek Frantz, Eaq f J Oversaw administrative operations of County government Rep. Ave! Goriy Herman Grimes DEPUTY COUN'T'Y AUDITOR, MULiwomAH COUNTY OREGON H red,CFP • Managed performance audits of all County activities Alan annawaR nawal Alan H Marilyn J. Harbur, Esq A. George Hellong INTERNAL AUDITOR, Mut;T,riomAH COUNTY OREGON MathewHennesoy Dzveloped audit programs and performed audits of County activities and programs Gary Harter Kathi Herter Gerald Itkin, Esq VICE P mTDENT OF FINANCIAL ATFAIRsr FORT WTUGHT COLLEGE Brad Jonasson, Esq Managed all accounting functions and implemented new operational policies Gretchen Kaufoury Nell Kelly Chip Lazenby. Esq INTERN,%AUDITOR, U.S. AIR FORCE Richard Low Supervised audit surveys, evaluated financial, managerial and procedural aspects of Peter Livingston, Esq numerous activities aMagionos * otyn Meeks, CIA hy Millard BUDGET ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE SUPERVI50Rr U.S. AIR FORCE No a • Supervised payroll records and developed annual budgets hardA RiehardA. Mortrey, CIA Bill Nafto Claudia Nelson QUALIFICATIONS. AND EXPERTISE Grant Nelson BOW Odegaard PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES Tom O'Laughlin, Sr. • Certified Internal Auditor Bob Oleson Sen. Glen Otto Sheilah 'Paddy" O'Brien PROFEssioNAL AFFuiATIONs Robert E. Phillips, MSW Institute of Internal Auditors, Portland Chapter Kristen Olson Rogers, Esq National Association of Local Government Auditors Tim Rowan • International City Managers Association Sherrill Rudolph Dan Saltzman Shiley M. Sanders EDUCATION: Mike Schrunk, Esc; Portland State University, Post Graduate Studies Henry Scott ManuelScon Fort Wright College, Master of Arts Joan Sears • Fort Wright College, Bachelor of Arts Timothy L. Steens, CPA Maria Rojo de Slegey Beverly Stein COMMITMENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Robert H. Strickland Member, Board of Directors, Mainstream Youth Program, Inc. Mark Sussman. Esq Robert Trachtenberg, Esq Chair, Supervisor Committee, Multnomah County Credit Union DonnaK.Tyner • Director, Board of Bar Governors Oregon State Bar r. J. Tyner 111. Esq , • Member, State-Federal Judicial Council IaA. Wakers William G.Whoadlay,Esq Treasurer, Blacks in Government, Region X Training Con-Terence M&rrio Mady - Paid for and authorized by: C ommtTrEE TO ELECT HANtc MtGGINS 6327 S.W. Capitol Highway • Box 159 • Portland, Oregon 97201-1937 Lloyd E. Haym, J.D 4CISA, CFE. Chair Roberts While, Treasurer Dave Boyer David A. Brezinskl, CPA ;E7C1.k Dr. Nathan Cogan Sarah Cogan Tanya Collier Ginnie Cooper Judge Charlac Crookham. Rat. Clyde Doctor Jerri Doclor George Eighmay. Esq Anne " Feeney Dakna Farrall Julie Frantz, Esq Susan R. Gutlerud. CFP Alan Hannawall Marilyn J. Harbur. Est; A. Ueocge : ia:long Mathew Hennesay Gary Harter Kathi Herter Gerald Itkin. Esq Brad Jonasson.Esq Neil Kelly Chip Lazenby, Esq Richard LOW Peter Livingston. Esq Rho Magionos arolyn Meeks, CIA my J Maid Norm Monroe Richard A. Morley, CIA SRI Naito Claudia Nelson Grant Nelson BOB Odegaard Tom O'Laughlin. Sr. Bob Oleson Sheilah *Paddy` O'Brien Robert E. Phillips. MSW Kristen Olson Rogers. Esq Tun Rower, Sherrill Rudolph Dan Saltzman Shirley M. Sanders Mike Schrunk. Esq Joan Sears Tumthy L. Steers, CPA Maria Rojo de Stetlay Beverly Stein Robert H. Strickland Mark Sussman. Esq Robert Trachtenberg, Esq Donna K. Tyner John J. Tyner 111. Esq alert Warmers am G. Wheatley, Esq Morrie ziady .Mt'a=T~e Hr T_ 1I ank hfiggIDLIS i9 for Metro Auditor METRO Metro represents the urban areas of Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties in matters of metropolitan concern. Metro is specifically authorized to acquire, develop maintain and operate a zoo, convention and entertainment facilities, solid waste facilities and a system of parks and open spaces. Metro, also plans and coordinates the regions disaster responses. Metro is a key player in these areas with a 1993-94 general fund budget of over $200 million. MIGGINE THE AUDITOR SHOULD EVALUATE METRO'S OPEWnONS: As Metro Auditor, I will professionally and independently examine all aspects of Metro's operations. This will be my primary duty. I will report directly to you, the citizens and taxpayers, the results of my findings. I will also provide Metro Council and the Executive Officer with the results of my examinations and investigations with recommendations for remedial action. My examinations will not be restricted to simply determining what is wrong. I will report Metro's efforts to correct identified problems and will also report on what is right. In this way, the public can develop a realistic perspective of Metro's performance. As Metro Auditor, I will perform my duties according to accepted auditing practices and nationally established standards for reviewing governmental organizations CITIZEN INPUT WILL ENSURE RESPONSIVENESS: I will form a Citizens Audit Committee to maintain communications between the Auditor and the public. The Audit Committee will help form the overall framework for audit planning to insure that all areas of public concern are investigated. AUnITING CAN PROVIDE ACCOUNTABILITY: Metro will be faced with major issues over the next few years, including mass transit, the urban growth boundary and issues associated with a population expected to expand by 500,000 people in the next two decades. Metro's auditor should be a key figure in making Metro Accountable to the taxpayers. This will require an Auditor with strong perfor- mance auditing credentials. I have the skills needed to continuously review, analyze and investigate all aspects of Metro's operations in order to assess its performance, recom- mend improvements, and report to the taxpayers. THE METRO AUDITOR SHOULD HAVE A STRONG PERFORMANCE AUDIT BACKGROUND: It is not difficult to determine where tax money is spent: Metro already hires CPAs to provide this information as required by State law. However, determining how well the dollars am being spent, how effectively they are being used and whether appropriate services are being delivered to the taxpayers is significanly more difficult to determine. Additionally, it is important to question whether the policies of your elected Metro Coun- cil are being; implemented and effectively managed. These duties require my specific skills as a Certified. Internal Auditor. COMMITTEE To ELECT HANK MIGGINS 6327 S.W. Cipitol Highway ^ i)we 159 • Portland, Oregon 97201-1937 i r~ 0-9 1-4 0-4 13 j ~ ~ ~ 1r!,, A 0 kn7 ~ M p o~ pp~ p ~ 61, 191, ~ ~ , y~ y Y ~ yyy ~~ggq D CHILD PORNOGRAPHY Statewide Ballot Measure Q. Why do we need this initiative? o We need to protect a law passed by the 1991 Oregon Legislature which outlawed the possession of child pornography by changing the Oregon Constitution. What does this initiative do? It amends the Oregon Constitution giving citizens of Oregon a right to pass laws regulating or prohibiting certain forms of obscenity (adult hard- core pornography) in accordance. with the United States Constitution and as defined by the United States Supreme Court. 0 Q. Whet is the current status of obscenity laws in Oregon? The Oregon Supreme Court has interpreted the Oregon Constitution as prohibiting us from enacting laws restricting or regulating obscenity (adult hard-core pornography). presently, it is legal in Oregon to sell, buy, or rent adult hard-core pornography over the counter no matter how abusive, coercive or violent. How does the United States Supreme Court define obscenity? l~. In layman's terms obscenity (hard-core pornography) is recognized by its graphic obsession with and explicit portrayal of sexual conduct and deviant behaviors. It is obviously offensive, and it has no serious artistic, literary or scientific value. It includes child pornography, sexual exploitation, prostitution, and rape in picture and progress. Examples are: bondage and sado-masochism, torture, mutilation, bestiality, rapes, ritualistic sexual abuse and sexual orgies. Q. Who is opposing this initiative? A. The ACLU and adult video stores. P A C P.O. Box 3082 Salem, OR 97302-0082 (503) 258-3502 Muted and Pali for by; Slop Chid Pwon" PAC !Dr 001615 r ` SMT=O~ P CH1L~ PORNOGRAPHY`., Q. who is supporting this initiative? A. The chief sponsors are State Senator Gordon Smith R-Pendleton, State Representative Kevin Mannix D-Salem and Bob Iseli (father of Lee Iseli who was killed by Wesley Allan Dodd in a brutal crime centering around pornography). ' Supporters also include a broad coalition of women's groups, churches, civic leaders, businesses and individuals. Q. What impact does this initiative have on soft-core pornography? A. None. The definition of obscenity in the initiative is tied to United States case law and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that soft-core pornography (such as Playboy) is legal for adults. Q. Isn't adult hard-core pornography east adult entertainment? A. The number one consumer group of adult hard-core, pornography is adolescent boys between 12 and 17 years of age. (U.S. Attorney General - Commission on Pornography) Exposure to this material distorts their view of women, family life and their own sexuality. Q. Does hard-core pornography really impact children? A. Yes. According to the Children's Legal Foundation, a child is sexually molested every 47 seconds in America. As many as 90% of the abused children are shown adult hard-care pornography prior to their molestation. Q. How many children are victims of sexual abuse? A. One out of three girls and one out of seven boys will be sexually molested by age 18. Many become the subjects of child pornography. (Dr. Gene Abel, Emory University). A child molester usually has from 30 to 60 victims at one time. A typical child molester will sexually abuse 360 children in a lifetime (Dr. Gene Abel, Emory University). In Oregon 3092 cases of child sexual abuse were reported in 1992 Children's Services Division). How many signatures are needed to place the measure on the ballot in November of 1994? A. 89,028 valid signatures of registered voters. What is the deadline for gathering signatures? A. July 8, 1994 P o PACTS ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY SOME TRY TO TELL US THAT HARD-CORE PORNOGRAPHY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME, BUT CONSIDER THE FACTS: 1. There are more outlets for hard-core pornography in the United States than McDonald's Restaurants. (National Coalition Against Pornography) 2. According to the Children's Legal Foundation, a child is sexually molested every 47 seconds in the United States. As many as 90% of the abused children are shown adult hard-core pornography prior to the molestation. 3. A woman is raped every 46 seconds. (National Victims Center) Pornography often serves as a manual for rape. 4. Studies show over 86% of rapist admit to regular use of hard- core pornography with 57% admitting direct imitation of pornographic scenes they enjoyed in the commission of their rapes. (Dr. William Marshall, Report on the Use of Pornography by Sexual Offenders, Report to the Federal Department of Justice, Ottawa, Canada) 5. The #1 consumer group of adult hard-core pornography is adolescent boys between 12 and 17 years of age. (US Attorney General - Commission on Pornography) This distorts their view of women, family life and their own sexuality. 6. One out.of three girls and one out of seven boys will be sexually molested by age 18. Many become subjects of child pornography. (Dr. Gene Abel, Emory University) 7. A`child molester usually has from 30 to 60 victims at one time. A typical child molester will sexually abuse 360 children in a lifetime. (Dr. Gene Abel, Emory University) 8. In Oregon 3092 cases of child sexual abuse were reported in 1992. (Children Services Division) Many cases go unreported. 9. In Oregon there were 1552 rapes reported in 1991. (Oregon Law Enforcement Data System) Usually only one in ten rapes is reported. 10. It is legal in Oregon to sell, buy, or rent hard-core adult pornography right over the counter - no matter how abusive, coercive or violent it is. 11. The pornography industry is an $8 to $10 billion-a-year business. (FBI) Pornography is not a victimless crime! We need to STOP THE VICTIMIZATION OF CHILDREN, WOMEN AND FAMILIES IN OREGON! For more information contact: STOP CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PO Box 3082 Salem, OR 97302-0082 (503) 258-3502 Authorized and paid for by Stop.Chitd Pornography PAC,10#001615,PO Box 3082, Sateen, OR97302-0082 Council Agenda item 3.a. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGAI°.D, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrate DATE: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CATZNDAR, March, 1994 - May, 1994 Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. March 194 1 Tues Special Council Meeting Interview of Interim Mayor Candidates, Tigard Senior Center (7:00 p.m.) 7 Mon Filing Deadline - Council Positions 3 & 4 for 5/17/94 Election * 8 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 12 Sat Council Goal Setting (8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m.) City Hall - Town Hall Conference Room * 15 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 16 Weds Joint Council/School Board Meeting - School Administration Offices (6:00 p.m.) * 22 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting Reception for-Mayor Edwards Argil 194 * 12 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 19 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 26 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting May * 10 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 17 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) ELECTION DAY * 24 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting h:\ t og i n\cakhyr\ccco l AGENDA ITEM # 315 For Agenda of 3-8-94 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE PREPARED BY: CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DEPT HEAD OK Cdr CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approval of an agreement with Fred Meyer allowing the City to relocate their entrance to the new intersection location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the agreement with Fred Meyer and authorize the City Administrator to sign the agreement. INFORMATION? SUMMARY The new 72nd Avenue intersection at 99W will require relocation of the existing traffic signal at the Fred Meyer entrance and the entrance itself to line up with the new location. A new entrance to Fred Meyer will need to be consLcructed including curbs, sidewalks, relocating the Fred Meyer sign, 9 reconfiguring the parking lot and landscaping the entrance planter areas. All of the work will be accomplished by the project except the landscaping. Fred Meyer has provided a cost of $16,180 to relandscape the entrance similar to the existing landscaping. This cost is reasonable to design,- irrigate and landscape the new entrance areas. The agreement requires the City to pay Fred Meyer the cost to relandscape. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES The 72nd/99W project, including the new entrance construction and the landscaping, is funded from Traffic Impact Fees. ga\72-99wfm.ss AGENDA ITEM # 3A For Agenda of 3-8-94 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Tri-Met Agreement for 72nd Avenue/99W PREPARED'BY: G Alfson6v DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approval of a Tri-Met Intergovernmental Agreement improvements along 99W at 72nd Avenue. providing for transit STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve a Tri-Met Intergovernmental Agreement and authorize the City Administrator to sign the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tri-Met has requested that transit improvements be included in the 72nd Avenue/99W project. The intergovernmental agreement provides for a bus turnout to be constructed as part of the City°s project. 100% of the costs 0 for the bus turnout are to refunded to the City by Tri-Met. The total cost of the transit improvements are estimated to be $26,361. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES The agreement provides for Tri-Met to refund to the City all costs associated with the transit improvements. qa\72-99wtm.ss v ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intersection project PREPARED BY: G Alfso: Award the Co., for AGENDA ITEM # 3.5 For Agenda of 3-8-1994 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL construction contract to the lowest responsible the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project. bidder, N-B Hatch STAFF RECOMMENDATION Award the contract to N-B Hatch Co. and authorize the City Administrator to sign the contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY The project will construct a new intersection at 99W by extending 72nd Avenue past Villa Ridge. 72nd Avenue currently ends at Villa Ridge. Villa Ridge will be bisected by 72nd Avenue and anew access will be construction off 99W to Villa Ridge east of 72nd Avenue. The existing traffic signal at the Fred Meyer access will be relocated approximately 100' to the west. The Fred Meyer access will also be relocated to the new intersection. The south side of 99W will be widened to provide a bike lane and a right turn lane into 72nd Avenue and to provide a bus turn out on the far side of the 72nd Avenue intersection. Twelve bids were open on March 22, 1994 for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection project. The bid results are as follows: N-B Hatch Co. Portland $482,465.00 Kerr Contractors, Tualatin $505,306.70 Northwest Earthmovers, Tualatin $506,675.52 Coffman Excavating, Oregon City $508,203.50 Paul Bros, Inc. Boring $536,889.00 Dirt & Aggregate Inc. Troutdale $537,359.00 Copenhagen Utilities, Clackamas $543,139.00 Marshall Assoc. Tualatin $549,859.50 Parker NW Paving, Oregon City $550,868.00 Clearwater Const. Tualatin $553,631.50 Gelco Const. Salem $566,318.00 Emery & Sons, Stayton $586,690.50 Eagle-Elsner, Tigard $638,956.00 The engineer's estimate was $480,000.00 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . FISCAL NOTES unding for this project is provided from the Traffic Impact.Fees. ga\72-99waw.ss CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM 4 For Agenda of March 8, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of areimbursement district for Pa Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN'OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL ` Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district.. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council previously discussed this item at the meetings on February 8th and 22nd. However, during the,February 22nd meeting, the applicant (Mr. Petrie) withdrew the application. Therefore, Council made no decision on the matter. On February 23rd, Mr. Petrie requested that the application be reinstated. (See attached letter.) 0 Attached is a copy of the previous staff report. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES rw/petrie6 THE PETPIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL. ESTATE (503) 246-7977 February 23, 1994 FEB 2 3 1994 TO: Randy Wooley City of Tigard CITY OF TIGARD FRONT: Craig A. Petrie RE: Zone of Benefit District # 5 Dear Randy, I am requesting that you place the above mentioned request F -r the creation of a zone of benefit district on the council agenda for lard 8th, 1994. This zone will not only benefit me but it will benefit the owners of tax lots included in the zone in that without the zone a hookup will pay an additional S 3,000.00 and with the zone a hookup will pay a figure of $2,096.32. The zone of benefit exists in the City code, my request qualifies according to the code, the City has never denied a request for formation of a zone of benefit, and the formation of the 49 requested zone is fair and equitable. The formation of the zone will also save others within the zone S 903.65 per hook up. You previously have on file the information that I am required by the code to submit and ask that you submit the information that you had prepared for the meeting February 22, 1994. Sincerely yours, Craig A. et e 9600 SW CAPITOL HIG14WAY ® PORTiAND. OR 97219 1 'AK I i i I /a tf~ rGz rn-~ -f- 3 /8/G Lf AGENDA ITEM # L4 For Agenda of February 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific-Ridge PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY ADMIN 0 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 8th the Council heard citizen comments on a proposed reimbursement district for sanitary sewer to Pacific Ridge Subdivision. After considerable discussion, the Council determined that revisions should be made to the proposed method of calculating the connection charge. On February 10th a letter was received from Craig Petrie (copy attached). WThe engineer's report has been amended. Exhibit A has been revised to reflect the February 8th Council discussion. Exhibit D has been revised by adding Note 4. Staff believes that Note 4 satisfies the general intent voiced by the Council on February 8th. At the same time, staff believes that Note 4 responds to the concerns raised in the letter from Mr. Petrie. Note 4 provides that the connection charge for a house would be at the rate of one unit on any of the lots. If a second house on the same lot is later connected, the connection charge for the second house would be one unit. If a property is re-developed as commercial property, the connection charge would be two units. The total connection charges for any tax lot, over the ;life of the reimbursement district, would never exceed two units. Although Council has heard comments from citizens, there has been no formal public hearing. TMC 13.08 provides that affected property owners may request a public hearing, if the request is made within 60 days after formation of the district. Therefore, the opportunity for a public hearing will remain even if Council approves the resolution forming the reimbursement district. In accordance with TMC 13.08, each affected property owner will be mailed a copy of the resolution and advised of the option of requesting a hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Wf the Council finds that the revised Exhibit D accomplishes the changes that Council discussed on February 8th, then it is appropriate to approve the AML fizam attached resolution. If Council determines that Exhibit D needs further revisions, the report should again be returned to staff for more work. FISCAL NOTES All costs.are borne by the Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer line. rw/petrie3 THE PE T RIE O P"AN" COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (603) 246-7977 February 9, 1994 TO: Randy Wooley City Engineer Tigard Oregon FRONT: Craig A. Petrie RE: Modification to Sewer Reimbursement District Dear Randy, ,ISO 0 FEB 10 1994 Cj.TY OF -TIGARD The following modification is requested for the Reimbursement District # 5. From questions Mr. Maksym asked you last nightat the City Council meeting, specifically, could he pay one of the two hook up fees, run a sewer line onto his property and then run laterals off of that one line and get by with only paying the one fee it is very clear his intent is to find a way to circumvent paying his fair share. I non requesting that for tax lots 300, 400, and 500 which are the lots within the reimbursement district which are zoned for commercial office use that upon full development of those sites that the hook up fee be $ 4,192.64. So in other words if an office building/or development is proposed for the whole site (full development of the site) then the fee should be $ 4,192.64 even if there is only one nook up. On the other hand if an existing structure is hooked up and there is still land which is developable; the current hook up fee should be $ 2,096.32 and upon full development of the site the remaining fee of $ 2,096.32 would be paid. This would not apply to tax lot 3501 which is in the single family R 3.5 zone. In order to achieve full development of that site it would have to be subdivided; being subdivided full development would require the two sewer hook up fees allocated to that site being paid. The above request is fair and equitable by using full developm, ent of the site as the standard for the office zoned property. By doing this we avoid a situation where the residential property is fully developed and they have paid their full share and the commercial property is fully developed and have only paid one half of their share. Today I am mailing this to the addresses on the tax rolls for tax lots 300, 400, and 500. Thank you for your lime, please call with any questions. Sincerely yours, Craig A. POrie 9500 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY ® PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 0 03/08/1994 17 18 TSS February 28, 1944 503 692 0587 P.01 T0: Tigard City Council, RE: City Council meeting, March 8th, Reimbursement District. Council Members, Since I will be out of town for the City Council meeting on March 8th, I decided to write a note regarding some concerns I had after the~February 22nd Council meeting. During the discussion between the Council Members on the merits of allowing the developer to form a reimbursement distinct it was pointed out to the Council that if there-was not a reimbursement district the City could collect $3,000 per hookup from the property owners. This is $1,000 more then the homeowners would. be required to pay under the reimbursement district and I don°t feel this is equitable. Instead of trying to help the homeowners it appears the City is eager to increase our costs if it benefits the City. I would hope your decision is fair for those concerned, especially the homeowners who it appears will be paying some of the costs. Sintereji Steve Wilmarth Lot #500 0. -S L4-J von.. -7210- El AM, Lim C7 a N N m M 0- = = X C) IM6 ® m v~ °O 0 0 N 0 d M 1= } .0 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: March ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: '.f"A qi-nnnd / 7nnA DEPT HEAD OX SUBMITTED: 02/23/44 EVIOUS ACTION None 4fill PREPARED BY: Victor Adonri CITY ADMIN OR" QUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council forward a request for annexation of two parcels consisting of approximately 13.94 acres to the Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission?. T'_e parcels are located. north of SW Bull Mountain Road and east of SW 129th Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance which forwards the annexation to the Boundary Commission and assigns a comprehensive plan map designation of Medium Density Residential and a zoning designation of R-7 to the properties. INFORMATION SUMMARY This annexation request consists of two parcels totaling 13.94 acres that is contiguous to the City of Tigard on SW 129th Avenue. The owners of the properties requested annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer service for future development of the properties. Staff is recommendling that approximately 550 feet of SW Bull Mountain Road be included in the annexation. This is suggested to create a more consistent boundary, aid police patrol and enable the future annexation of island properties. Notices were sent to property owners within 250 feet of the subject properties. The annexation of these properties will result in the creation of a nine (9) lot island on SW Bull Mountain Road. A total of ten (10) property owners were contacted by mail to inform them that their properties will become an island within the City of Tigard as a result of this annexation. Only one property owner responded by phone and requested that his property be included with this annexation (Ball). While the property of Robert and Julia Ball is included with this annexation, the City has yet to receive an official letter requesting annexation into the City of Tigard from 'Mr & Mrs. Ball even though they indicated they would send one. Both parcels are within the City's Area of Interest and as such, Council should be made aware of the 1.983 Urban Planning Area Agreement, Section 111.B.4. (b) which states that: "Annexation by the City within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the City declares gftits intent to complete the island annexation". a AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 1 { {79 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and assign a zoning designation of R-7 to the properties. 2. Deny the proposal. FISCAL NOTES The City will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $1050 for annexation. The current tax assessment is $579,660. The City could increase its tax base by approximately $1,640. (Assessed value multiplied by City tax base portion of tax rate of $2.83/1000 as of 1/1/93 = $1,640.44). AGENDA ITEM NO. PAGE 2 STAFF REPORT Agbk March 8, 1994 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. CASE: Zone Change Annexation ZCA 93-0004 REQUEST: To annex two parcels consisting of approximately 13.94 acres of unincorporated Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for zone change from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). The properties should also be designated Medium Density Residential in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map. The applicant requests annexation to obtain sanitary sewer service for possible future development. IVE PLAN DESIGNATIO17: Washington County Residential, 6 units per acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). H APPLICANT(S): Julie Ann Strayer-Brown 920 Main Street West Monmouth, Oregon 97361 Sara Louise Eustis 11287 Marine View Drive SW Seattle, Washington 98146 Robert and Julia Ball 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, Oregon 97224 OWNER(S): Julie Ann Strayer-Brown 920 Main Street West Monmouth, Oregon 97361 Sara Louise Eustis 11287 Marine View Drive SW Seattle, Washington 98146 Robert and Julia Ball 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard, Oregon 97224 ZCA 93-04 Staff Report PAGE 1 AM& LOCATION: North of SW Bull Mountain Road and east of SW 129th Al~ Avenue, including the property, at 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 09AD, tax lots 1000 & 1100) 1. Background Information No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to this property. 2. Vicinity Information The properties to the north of the site are in the City of Tigard and are zoned R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). Five of the properties to the east are in the City of Tigard and zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), and R-1 (Residential 1 unit per acre). The nine remaining properties to the east are in Washington County and are zoned for single family residential development. Properties to the west are in the City of Tigard and are zoned and developed at a density of 7 units per acres. All properties to the south are in Washington County and are zoned for residential development. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description There are two parcels proposed for annexation. The larger of the two parcels is currently undeveloped, while the smaller parcel is developed with a single family home. The undeveloped property is primarily covered with grass and trees, and the developed property has some trees located around the single family home. The applicants requested that their parcels be annexed into the City of Tigard in order to obtain sanitary sewer service for possible future development. An existing sewer line is located at the eastern boundary of the Woodford Estates subdivision and west of the parcels to be annexed. 1 gr.y 4. Other Staff Comments The City of Tigard Engineering Department and City of Tigard Building Division have reviewed the proposal and have offered no objections or comments. 5. The City of Tigard Water Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Review of the water system will be completed by the Water Department. ZCA 93-04 Staff Report PAGE 2 6. Agency Comments Metro Area Communication, Tualatin Valley Fire District and Portland General Electric have reviewed the proposal and have offered no objections or comments. 7. Police Department's Consideration The Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: The City should proceed to include the islands into this annexation. 0 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.4.1, Developing Area; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and Chapters 18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification of the Tigard Community Development Code. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the West Citizen Involvement Team and Community Planning Organization #4B as well as surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the request. 2. Plan Policy 6.4.1 is satisfied because the area to be annexed is designated as a developing area on the development standards map. 3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the Washington County Urban Services Study which includes the subject properties. This study indicates that adequate services are available in the vic-Lnity and may be extended to accommodate the subject properties. 0 ZCA 93--04 Staff Report PAGM 3 4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation is a first step in eliminating an island and an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to respond in a timely manner. Inclusion of the street right--of-way of SW Bull Mountain Road will make police patrol more efficient and effective. The properties are located within Tigard's Area of Interest, and adequate service capacities can be made available to accommodate the eventual development of the properties. A nine lot island will be created north of SW Bull Mountain Road and east of the properties to be annexed. 5. The Urban Planning Area Agreement, Section 111.B.4. (b) states that: "annexation by the City within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the City declares its intent to complete the island annexation". The City will be in violation of this agreement if these properties are annexed without a declaration of intent to complete the island annexation. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: 1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is met because all facilities and services can be made available, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies discussed above have been satisfied and the properties has been determined to be a developing area in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code. The properties are within Tigard's Area of Interest, the zone designation shall follow the City's Comprehensive Plan Map designation for medium density use. The most appropriate zone is R-7 and would allow for potential future development of the parcels. 2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the properties meet the definition for a developing area and are designated as such on the development standards area map. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends approval of ZCA 93-04, including the street right- of-way of SW Bull Mountain Road. Staff further suggests that the City Council should declare its intent to annex the island that will be created as a result of this annexation. PREPARED BY: Victor Ad_onr1, 'Assistant Planner ZCA 93-04 Staff- Deport PACE 4. AGENDA ITEM # ~0 For Agenda of 3 7-4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Code Amendment - Lowest Floor Elevation for One and Two PREPARED BY: Goodwin DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE TH OUNCIL _Should the City revise the Development _ode to be consistent with s ate standards for the lowest floor elevation of one and two family dwellings sited on property on or adjacent to the floodplain? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Development Code Section 18.84.026 (1) be amended to require the lowest floor elevation of one and two family dwellings constructed on property below the base (100-year) flood elevation to be at least one foot above base flood elevation. INFORMATION SUMMARY Effective May 1, 1993 the CABO One and Two Family Building Code was amended to require the lowest floor elevation of one and two family dwellings to be elevated one foot above base flood elevation. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has advised Oregon cities and counties to review their floodplain ordinances for compliance and to change them where necessary. Code Section 18.84.026(2) currently requires the lowest floor elevation of one and two family dwellings to be at or above base flood elevation. The proposed change would bring the Development Code into compliance with CABO Building Code requirements, provide greater flood protection, help reduce the cost of flood insurance premiums for individual homes, and contribute to lower insurance rates for all Oregon communities. The revised ordinance excludes manufactured homes. FEMA regulates manufactured homes in or adjacent to the floodplain in a different manner. Specifically, manufactured homes located outside of an existing mobile home park must be a minimum of three feet above grade. Existing mobile home parks and the manufactured homes within in them must meet FEMA requirements in the event they are destroyed by flooding. New mobile home parks must meet FEMA standards. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No other alternatives have been considered. FISCAL NOTES None applicable. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE AGENDA ITER # 1-7 For Agenda of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK MdqJ CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Tigard City Council amend the procedures set forth in TMC 3.44 regarding the sale of surplus real property. STAFF RECOMbIENDATION Staff recommends that TMC 3.44 be amended to clarify and streamline the sale of surplus real property process.. INFORMATION SUMMARY Over the past several years, the City has attempted to sell real property using section 3.44 of the TMC. The procedures set forth in this section are not clear and place unnecessary burdens on the process, the council and City staff. The procedure requires the council to approve the sale terms, award the sale to the highest bidder, and if necessary, select a broker. Under the current rules, if a sealed bid sale is not successful, the council may not change the sale terms for a period of one year. The amended rules allow the council to change the terms and try a sealed bid again or list with a broker. Under this proposal, the City Administrator or designee may select the broker and has the authority to negotiate the final sale within the minimum terms established by the council. The proposed amendments also simplify the sale of substandard parcels such as those resulting from the Gaarde improvements. Once the council directs the parcels to be sold, the City Administrator has the authority to publicize, and negotiate with prospective buyers. Once an agreement is reached, the council will have the opportunity to approve the agreed upon terms. We believe that these changes will greatly improve the sale process and will make it more reasonable and flexible. For comparison, we have attached a copy of the current TMC section and the Ordinance which indicates the proposed changes. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES None 3,44.405-•-3.44.010 ,6KIS7'r0J9fj Chapter 3.44 SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY Sections: 3.44.005 Qualification--Classification.' 3.44.010 Disposal of substandard undeveloped property. 3.44.015 Disposal of standard undeveloped property and developed property. 3.44.020 Initial offering by sealed bids. 3.44.025 Disposal of special-case property. 3.44.030 Broker selection. 3.44.005 Qualification--Classification. Real property qualifying for the procedure established in this chapter is R classified as follows: A. Substandard Undeveloped Property. Parcels with no structures thereon which are not of minimum buildable size for the zone in which located; B. Standard Undeveloped Property. Parcels with no structures thereon which are of minimum or greater buildable size for the zone in which located; C. Developed Property. Parcels of any size with structures thereon; D. Special-case Property. Parcels that, notwithstand- ing subsections A, B and C of this section, were acquired by the city for capital improvement-as 7defined by this code and were purchased subject to an agreement for the manner in . which any surplus would be disposed. (Ord. 87-48 §1, 1987). 3.44.010 Disposal of substandard undeveloped property.. A. Whenever a particular parcel or parcels is proposed for sale by the city, or a purchase inquiry is made, and the property is classified as substandard undeveloped property, the matter shall be set on the regular council agenda, but no public hearing is required- Notice shall be given, how- ever, of the agenda item to all property owners within two hundred fifty feet of the parcel and to any parties who have inquired about purchase. The council shall determine wheth- er it will offer the property for sale and what the minimum acceptable terms of the sale shall be. B. If no acceptable bids are received on a particular parcel and it is classified as substandard undeveloped prop- erty, the parcel will not be listed but shall remain avail- able for sale through the city for a period of one year on the same minimum terms as established under subsection A of this section. C. After expiration of the period set out in subsec- tion B of this section, the property shall be removed from 39-20 (Tigard 10/15/87) 3.44.015 f the market. Any decision to sell a it has been removed from the market entire procedure set forth in this (Ord. 87-48 §2, 1987). piece of property once shall require that the chapter be repeated. 3.44.015 Disposal of standard undeveloped property and developed property. A. Whenever a particular parcel or parcels is proposed for sale by the city or a purchase in- quiry is made and the property is classififed as standard undeveloped property or developed property, the matter shall be set for a hearing before the council. B. Notice of said hearing shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. Said notice shall be published at least once a week prior to the hearing and shall describe the property proposed for sale. C. An appraisal shall be `made prior to sale for any parcel classified as standard undeveloped propert_y.or devel- oped property, including any structure thereon. In the dis- cretion of the council, such appraisal shall be available at or prior to the hearing or shall be ordered after the hear- ing is concluded if the council determines a sale is appro- priate_ D. Public testimony shall be solicited at the hearing to determine if a sale of any parcel is in the public in- terest. E. After the hearing, the council shall determine whether it will offer the property for sale and what the minimum acceptable price shall be. F_ If an offer to sell is authorized by the council, a notice soliciting sealed bids shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. One publication shall be made a least two weeks prior to the bid deadline date. The notice shall describe the property to be sold, the minimum acceptable terms of sale, the person desig- nated to receive bids, the last date bids will be received, the date, time and place that bids will be opened. G. If one or more bids are received at or above the minimum acceptable terms, the council shall accept the high- est bid and direct the city administrator to complete the sale. ' H. If no acceptable bids.are received on a particular parcel, the parcel shall be listed for six monthszwith.a lo- cal real estate broker on a multiple listing basis with the same minimum terms as established under subsection E of this section.' Brokers shall be selected in accordance with the criteria found, at Section 3.44.030 of this chapter. A list- ing may be renewed for an additional one six-mono- period. I_ After expiration of the period set out in subsec- tion H of this section, the property,shall be removed from the market. Any decision to sell a piece of property once it has been removed from the market shall require that the entire procedure set forth in this chapter be repeated. (Ord. 87-48 $3, 1987). 39-21 (Tigard 12./87) 3.44.020--3.44.030 3.44.020 Initial offering by sealed bids. All prop- erties classified as substandard undeveloped property, stan- dard undeveloped property and developed property authorized for sale shall be ,intially offered on the basis of sealed bids only. (Ord. 87-48 §4, 1987). 3.44.025 Disposal of special-case property. A. When- ever a particular parcel or parcels is proposed for sale by the city, or a purchase inquiry is made, and the property is classified as special-case property, the matter shall be set on the regular council agenda, but no public hearing is re- quired. B. The-council shall determine the validity of the agreement for the manner in which the surplus property would be disposed and whether all preconditions have been satis- fied. If the agreement is deemed valid, the property shall be disposed of pursuant to the agreement's terms. If the council concludes that the agreement is not valid, the prop- erty shall be disposed of in the manner described under the appropriate alternate class, substandard undeveloped prop- erty, standard undeveloped property or developed property. (Ord..87-48 §5, 1987). 3.44.030 Broker selection. The selection of a real estate broker shall be in accordance with the following procedures: (1) The city shall publish notice in'a newspaper of general circulation in Tigard inviting proposals for the sale of the real property. The notice shall be published at least one week prior to the meeting at which the council intends to select a broker- (2) The broker's proposal shall be in writing and it shall address the selection criteria set forth in subsection (3) of this section. (3) The council shall consider the following factors in the,sele.ction of a broker: .(A)`. The broker's record in selling the type of real property being offered.by the city for sale and the broker's familiarity'with Tigard-area market values; (B)l The broker's proposed marketing plan and time- lines: signs, advertising, direct mail and/or other methods; (C)' The amount of the broker's commission; and (D) Other factors which the council has stated in the notice of the invitation to submit a proposal. (Ord. 85-09 §3, 1985). 39-22 (Tigard 10/15/87) J<e nod 2Wi-eWeA h , h r; l- Q p_1 Uou-0 AGENDA ITEM # 8 For Agenda of March 8, 1994 _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Arlington Ridge/Vista Point Cost Sharing of Gaarde Street extension PREPARED BY: Ed Murahy_ -DEPT BEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL How should the costs associated with extending S.W. Gaarde Street be shared between the two adjoining subdivisions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION t is recommended that the Council hear arguments from the developers of both subdivisions and then ake a decision on the cost sharing formula. INFORMATION SUMMARY See Attached. (Note - both parties were given the opportunity to submit written materials. Pacific Land Management (Arlington Ridge) submitted the attached. Matrix (Vista Point) did not submit any material.) OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED See Attached. FISCAL NOTES There is no direct financial impact to the City in terms of City participation in the street construction - costs. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor Edwards and Members of the C FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development DATE: February 22, 1994 SUBJECT: Arlington Ridge (formerly Ames Orchard) and Vista Point Cost Sharing 1. OVERVIEW A. Summary The purpose of this hearing is to decide on a cost-sharing formula for the construction of a portion of S.W. Gaarde extension, where it will abut both Ash the Arlington Ridge and the Vista Point subdivisions. The role of the City Council in this case is to hear the arguments of both parties, and then to either make a decision regarding the appropriate cost sharing formula, or to refer the matter to a different individual or group to decide. This is not a land use hearing. Only the two affected property owners were noticed of the meeting. B. Policy Implications The issue concerns the City policy regarding street improvements required of development. C. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications, since the City will not be a financial contributor to this portion of Gaarde Street. There are implications related to how "reimbursement districts" can be used, and what other financial tools may be available. D. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council establish by motion a percentage share between the two subdivisions for the cost of Gaarde St. extension improvements. 1 II. ANALYSIS A. Qjrrent Situation, 1. Vista Point was approved by the City Council on August 18, 1992. The key conditions related to Gaarde Street were as follows: "#19 The SW Gaarde Street extension shall be built to major collector standards from SW 121st Avenue to proposed Lot 52 with development of phase I. Prior to or concurrent with construction of phase II, the applicant shall construct the SW Gaarde Street extension to a point 140 feet south of the northern edge of the subject parcel. The collector street improvements shall be 44 feet in width for phase I and 40 feet in width for phase II. The applicant shall not be responsible for the second lift of asphalt for the section of roadway to built with phase II." "#31 The City of Tigard will initiate the formation of zones of benefit for the reimbursement of costs incurred for development of the extension of SW Gaarde Street and the extension of sewer to the subject property." This decision was not appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. 2. Arlington Ridge (formerly Ashes Orchard) was approved by the Council on August 24, 1993. The key condition related to this subdivision was as follows: "#6 The applicant shall participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of 121st where it abuts the north property line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent proceedings. If the Ashes Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property abutting SW Gaarde to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show and additional documents will be required to be recorded, that each individual lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision." 2 AIQk On September 14, 1993, the owners of Vista Point filed a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appals on Arlington Ridge. A central concern of the appeal was that the developers of Vista Point could not be certain of the degree of participation of Arlington Ridge for the improvements to Gaarde, since that decision was put off until a reimbursement district could be formed in the future. 3. The LUBA appeal has not yet been decided, at the time of this writing. It may be decided or remanded back to the City by the time the Council meets on March 8, 1994. 4. Construction of improvements to Arlington Ridge has started. The final plat has not been recorded, nor have any building permits been issued. 5. Construction of Vista Point appears to be on hold, temporarily, while the developers further review the costs and feasibility of serving the property with sewer. 6. The estimate provided by Matrix Development Corporation for the full street improvement for that section of SW Gaarde extension where both properties share in the frontage is $87,400. B. Points of Agreement In reviewing the situation with representatives of both development proposals, all three parties (counting the City) could agree on the following: Both parties should participate financially to some degree in the costs associated with extending Gaarde Street. The shared participation would be for that portion of Gaarde Street on which both properties have frontage. 2. Most of the new street will be on the Vista Point property, and therefore right-of-way would have to be dedicated before any improvements could be made. The owners of Vista Point would be willing to dedicate right of way prior to their commencing with construction improvements to Vista Point if an agreement was reached on cost sharing. 3 3. No building permits would be issued for Arlington Ridge without some financial contribution to the extension of Gaarde. Based on an estimated amount, and an allocation formula, a fee-in-lieu-of would be collected at the time of each building permit issuance, and would be used for Arlington Ridge's share of the Gaarde improvements. 4. Owners of Vista Point would be willing to withdraw the LUBA suit if what they considered to be a fair apportionment of the costs of Gaarde extension was agreed upon. 5. 'T'here is no need for Gaarde Street extension to actually be constructed until Vista Point is developed. There is a need for Gaarde street extension to be built when Vista Point subdivision is constructed. 6. A portion of the Gaarde Street extension costs would be eligible for traffic impact fee credit (everything between the curbs is eligible). C. Points of Disagreement 1. The major 'and possibly only point of disagreement is the degree to which each party should participate in the portion of Gaarde Street extension on which both properties have frontage. This represents approximately 250' of shared frontage. D. Determination of a fair share allocation of costs 1. Code Requirements. Pertinent sections include the following: Section 18.164.030 (A) - Improvements: No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street: a. Streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with this title; b. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this code; and 4 Section 18.164.030 (J) - Partial Street Improvements: 1. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 24 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. 2. Precedents (or City's normal practice). a. Ralf street improvements. Typically, if a street already exists, but is not to current city standards, the city requires the adjoining property owner to make "half street improvements" to the street. b. Whichever one goes in first builds two-thirds. Typically, if no street exists at all, the city requires the first developer to build adjacent to a proposed street to build a "two thirds" street improvement, after which the second developer on the opposite side of the street would build the remaining one-third. C. LTD's. Local improvement districts are sometimes used to improve an existing street or to build a new one. Costs may be apportioned out under any number of alternative methods, but most typically it is done on a front footage or acreage basis or some combination of the two. 3. Rational nexus test. One of the "tests" used to judge fairness is called "rational nexus", meaning the degree of participation in an improvement project needs to be rationally connected to or related to the impact of the development on that project. If one used this test in this case, one would have to look at the degree to which each subdivision impacted the proposed Gaarde Street extension, and allocate the costs on that basis. (For instance, using the number of lots as an indication of impact for the street, the Council could determine the cost sharing to be 33:64 or approximately 33-1/3/66-2/3% with the 33-1/3% being Arlington Ridge and the 66-2/3% being Vista Ridge. r l yF 5 4. Access to Gaarde or "need" for Gaarde. One of the criteria may be the "need" for the street, which is partially determined by whether it is needed directly to service the development, and whether, or not the subdivision has direct access onto the street. It should be noted that both subdivisions could have developed without the Gaarde extension if the City would have allowed it. 5. Oversizing, or difference between a local and collector street. Another method that has been mentioned is to have one developer pay for the equivalent of a local street, and the other pay for the difference between a local street and a collector... paying only the marginal cost difference. E. City Financial Methods Available Just to review the different financial methods available to the City Council to deal with this issue. Note that regardless of which method is chosen, there still would have to be a decision made on how to allocate the costs. 1. Reimbursement District a. Vista Point installs the full street; Arlington ridge reimburses Vista Point when Arlington Ridge develops b. Arlington Ridge installs the full street, and Vista Point reimburses Arlington ridge when Vista Point develops 2. LID. Both parties participate in a Local Improvement District. 3. City accepts "cash-in-lieu" of from the Arlington Ridge development, and uses the money to reimburse Vista Point. (Note that there cculd also be a private agreement between the two parties, wherein the developer of Ames Orchard would pay the developers of Vista Point a certain dollar amount as a contribution towards the street construction.) 6 F. Alternatives Considered 1. Actually form a reimbursement district now. Conclusion 2. Adopt a resolution of intent to form a reimbursement district in the future, and determine the cost sharing formula now. 3. Council just decides on the cost sharing formula now and adopts a resolution - the best-method would then be deliberated further by the parties involved. 4. Council and both parties agree to assign the whole matter to a third , party mediator to help negotiate a settlement. The range of parameters of the decision are fairly narrow. Arlington Ridge should share in the cost of Gaarde Street extension by at least 33-1/3% and no more than 50%. The right-of.--way should be dedicated by Vista.Point, without credit tov,rards the cost of the street. Based on the estimated provided by Matrix, Arlington Ridge's share would be $26,225 if their share was 33-1/3% and $43,700 if it were 50%. H AdF& IF 7 PACIFIC • February 16, 1994 To: Ed Murphy - City of Tigard From: Mark Rockwell Ref: Arlington Ridge (aka Ames Orchard II) subdivision - Tigard, Oregon Ed: Per our telephone conversation yesterday, enclosed is a better quality copy of the two memos (September 1, 1993, and February 8, 1994) from Gary Katsion of Kittelson Associates. I've also sent a fax to Jack Orchard asking whether he thinks it would be useful to provide anything further for the City Council packets. I'll contact you again in a few days. 0 Thanks, Mark • PACIFIC Effilam- TELECOPY February 10, 1994 F E B 101994 PACIFIC LAND MGMT Mr. Ed Murphy Director of Community Development CITY OF TIGARD 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97035 Ref: Bull Mountain Land & Development Company Arlington Ridge (aka Ames Orchard) subdivision - Tigard, Oregon Future utilization of the S.W. Gaarde Extension Ed: Enclosed is a February 8th, 1994 letter from Gary Katsion of Kittelson & Associates, in which he refers to his September 1, 1993 report (copy attached), which analyses the future traffic flow in and out of Arlington Ridge. In his analysis, Mr. Katsion lays out two scenarios. One being the extension of S.W. Gaarde Street to serve the Vista Pointe subdivision. The second being the extension of S.W. Gaarde all the way through to S.W. 132nd / Walnut Street. It's interesting to note that in both scenarios, traffic from Arlington Ridge utilizing the S.W. Gaarde Street extension, is a minute percentage of the total traffic volume. In the first scenario, Arlington Ridge traffic will be approximately 1.5% of the total. In the second, Arlington Ridge traffic will be less than 11% of the volume. Ed, we have taken the position that Arlington Ridge should participate in the cost to extend S.W. Gaarde street. However, whether the cost sharing arrangement takes the form of a Cost Redistribution District, a Local Improvement District, or some other financial mechanism, the portion of the cost to be bome by Arlington Ridge needs to be in relationship to the benefits realized. The information provided by Kittelson & Associates illustrates that Arlington Ridge should be responsible for a nominal percentage of the costs to extend S.W. Gaarde Street. Sincerely, Mark Rockwell cc: Jack Orchard - Bail, Janik & Novack Bob Ames 16325 SW Roones Ferry Rd Suite 203 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503-635.2996 Fax: 503-635.3122. f1te KIT'TELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. NI<L, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING K610 S.W. ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OR 97205 • 1,503) 228.5230 • FAX (503) VS-8169 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Rockwell PFF 1 "5a FROM. Gary D. Katsion, P.E. C"I. DATE: February 8, 1994 PROJECT: Arlington Ridge (Ames Orchard 11) Subdivision PROJECT NO.: 1015.00 i-. SUBJECT: Extension of S.W. Gaarde Street ~.;:'c:,r;•,'?~:~~~ The purpose of this traffic analysis is to document the estimated amount of traffic generated by the proposed Arlington Ridge subdivision that is likely to use the S.W. Gaarde Street extension. Future traffic volume estimates for the section of Gaarde. Street to the west of S. W. 121 st Avenue were developed for the following two extension scenarios: Extension of S.W. Gaarde Street to serve development of the Vista Point subdivision as described in that development's conditions of approval (City of Tigard Resolution No. 93- 19). • Extension of S.W. Gaarde Street to S.W. 132nd Avenue/Walnut Street as designated in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. Site Generated Trip Characteristics As previously described in our September 1, 1993, memorandum to Mark Rockwell (See Figure 2 - Condition 1 of attachment), the total number of peak hour trips to be generated by the proposed Arlington Ridge subdivision was estimated to be 31 (23 outbound and eight inbound) morning peak hour trips and 40 (14 outbound and 26 inbound) evening peak hour trips. Figure 2 also illustrates the assignment of the trips generated by homes in the Arlington Ridge subdivision under the two S.W. Gaarde Street extension scenarios described above. Scenario 1: S.W. Gaarde Street Extension to serve Vista Point Subdivision Under this scenario, the extension of S.W. Gaarde Street has been constructed to provide access to the public street system for the residents of the Vista Point subdivision. The extension does not provide any additional access to the Arlington Ridge subdivision. Condition 2 of Figure 2 depicts the peak hour (a.m. and p.m.) traffic volumes on the extension of S.W. Gaarde Street under this scenario. During the peak hour it has been estimated that no trips from the Arlington Ridge subdivision are to be made on the S.W. Gaarde extension. On a daily basis, it is estimated that very few trips (10 would be made by future residents of Arlington Ridge to visit homes in the Vista Point subdivision. Therefore, on a daily basis, the split between the Arlington Ridge/Vista Point generated traffic on the S.W. Gaarde Street extension would be 10/640 or-about 1.5 percent. BELLEVUE • PORTLAND SACRAMENTO Arlington Ridge Subdivision February 8, 1994 S.W. Gaarde Street Extension Page 2 Scenario 2: S.W. Gaarde Extension to S.W. 132nd Avenue/Walnut Street The Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study recommended that S.W. Gaarde Street be extended as a major collector street facility between S.W 121st Avenue and 132nd Avenue/Walnut Street. This extension would provide alternative public street for all residents of this section of Tigard, including Arlington Ridge and Vista Point subdivisions, to travel west and north. As shown on Figure 2 - Condition 3, just over 22 percent of the peak hour trips from Arlington Ridge have been estimated to travel on the Gaarde Street extension. However, the peak hour trips generated by the Arlington Ridge subdivision will represent less than one percent of the total future traffic volumes expected on this section of the S.W. Gaarde Street extension. E-1 IVED FA KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. SEP 7 1993 TRANSPORTATION PL.ANNINGITRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 S.W. ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 • (503) 228.5230 • FAX (503) 273.816VAR K K ROCKWELL I ~ L/ MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Rockwell FROM: Gary D. Katsion, P.E. DATE: September 1, 1993 PROJECT: Ames Orchard 2 Subdivision PROJECT NO.: 1015.00 SUBJECT: Traffic Operations and Geometric Layout of Proposed S.W. 121 st Avenue/121st Place/Gaarde Street Intersection A meeting was held on August 16, 1993, at Alpha Engineering, Inc. with representatives of Washington County and City of Tigard to discuss the future traffic operations and geometric layout of the proposed S.W. 121st Avenue/121st Place/Gaarde Street intersection associated with the construction of the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision in Tigard, Oregon. The following people were in attendance: Doug Norval, Abbas Shafii and Norm Rindal (Washington County DLUT) Randy Wooley (City of Tigard) Nick Haas (Alpha Engineering, Inc.) Gary Katsion (Kittelson & Associates, Inc.) The purpose of the meeting was to set the parameters for the traffic analysis for the proposed intersection operations and traffic control that was required by the County and City. The remainder of this memorandum describes the methodology, assumptions, findings and recommendations for the S.W. 121 st Avcnue/121st Place/Gaarde Street intersection analysis associated with the construction of the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision. DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS It was decided by the group that three development conditions were likely to occur at the proposed intersection between the completion of the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision and the build-out of the roadway system in this part of Tigard and Washington County. The three development conditions that were identified are shown on Figure 1 and described in the following subsections. Condition Existing plus Ames Orchard 2 Subdivision Ames Orchard 2 subdivision has received preliminary plat approval with its primary access to the public street system as the proposed southerly extension of S.W. 121st Avenue (Place) at Gaarde Street. Based upon our discussion, the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision is planned to be constructed prior to the proposed Vista Point subdivision, which would require the westerly extension of S.W. Gaarde Street. Therefore, Condition 1 will result in a three-leg configuration for the S.W. 121st Avenue/121st Place/Gaarde Street 0 intersection. Ames Orchard 2 Subdivision S.W. 121st Avenue/121st Place/Gaarde Street September 1, 1993 Page 2 Condition 2: Existing plus Ames Orchard 2 and Vista Point Subdivisions The construction of the Vista Point subdivision, located to the north and west of the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision, will require the westerly extension of S.W. Gaarde Street for its access to the public street system. Condition 2 will result in a normal four-leg configuration for the S.W. 121st Avenue/121st Place/Gaarde Street intersection. It has been assumed in Condition 2 that Gaarde Street has not been extended westerly to S.W. Walnut Street. Condition 3: Future Build-out of the NE Bull Mountain Area Since the S.W. 121 st Place approach (south leg) of the intersection wili be constructed as part of the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision, the ultimate configuration of the intersection with future Build-out of the street system in this part of the County and City needs to be identified at this time to avoid unnecessary reconstruction at a later date. Condition 3 assumed the westerly extension of S.W. Gaarde Street to S.W. Walnut Street and the completion of other collector roadways in this area as described in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS & FINDINGS 40 Traffic volume estimates were developed for the morning and evening peak hour periods for each of the development conditions. The peak hour volume estimates used in this analysis were compiled from data provided by the County (existing traffic plus Arnes Orchard 2 and Vista Point subdivisions) and the City in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study (future build-out). The traffic volume estimates for the three conditions are shown on Figure 2. Condition l: Existing plus Ames Orchard 4 Subdivision The capacity analysis conducted for this condition consisted of both all-way and two-way stop control. For all-way stop controlled intersections, capacity can range between 1 100 and 2100 entering vehicles per hour depending upon the percentage of turning vehicles and the loading of each approach. In both of the morning and evening peak periods, the total approach volumes are below 75 percent of the low range of the capacity amount. Therefore, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS "C" or better. Likewise, the operations of the intersection under a two-way stop condition will result in LOS "C" or better. Due to the large volume of southbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound movements at this intersection, a concern arises to the efficiency and safety of operations at this intersection under a two-way stop control. "Stop" sign control, in combination with the "RIGHT TURN PERMITTED WITHOUT STOPPING" sign on the westbound Gaarde Street approach would improve the efficiency of the predominant movements and minimize the safety concern at this location. Condition 2: Existing plus Ames Orchard 2 and Vista Point Subdivisions The capacity analysis conducted for this condition consisted of all-way stop control. In both of the morning and evening peak periods, the total approach volumes are below 75 percent of the low range of the capacity amount. Therefore, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS "C" or better. Ames Orchard 2 Subdivision September 1, 1993 Auk S.W. 121st Avenue/121st Place/Gaarde Street Page 3 Condition 3: Future Build-out of the NE Bull Mountain Area As previously discussed, Condition 3 assumed the westerly extension of S.W: Gaarde Street to S.W. Walnut Street and the completion of other collector roadways in this area as described in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. The capacity analysis conducted for Condition 3 consisted of both an r0l-way stop control and a signalized control. Under all-way stop control, the intersection is expected to operate within acceptable service levels with the exception of the evening peak period. The analysis results indicate that during the morning peak period the intersection is expected to operate.at a "C" level of service with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.77. During the evening peak period the intersection is expected to operate at a "F" level of service with a volume-to-capacity ratio of '1.18. With signalization the intersection is expected to operate at level of service "B" or better throughout the day. The analysis results indicate that during the morning peak period the intersection is expected to operate at an "A" level of service with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.38. During the evening peak period the intersection is expected to operate at a "C" level of service with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.55. RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 3 illustrates the proposed ultimate configuration of the S.W. 121st Avenue/121st Place/Gaarde Street intersection. Based upon the capacity analysis of the build-out conditions in the area, it is anticipated that this intersection will ultimately require signalization to provide adequate capacity and safety of operations. However, two-way stop sign (for the north and south approaches) or all-way stop sign control should be utilized until signalization is warranted. As indicated in the findings of the analysis for Condition 1 with the construction of Ames Orchard 2 subdivision, the interim intersection configuration and traffic control recommendations are shown in Figure 4. It is recommended that the following items be included with the construction of the Ames Orchard 2 subdivision to provide adequate traffic operations and safety: • The S.W. 121st Place pavement be 34 feet in width and striped for one 12-foot southbound travel lane, one 12-foot northbound travel lane plus five-foot bike lanes on both sides. • The S.W. 121st Place approach (northbound) be controlled by a "STOP" sign. • The S.W. Gaarde Street approach (westbound) be controlled by "STOP" ans "RIGHT TURN PERMITTED WITHOUT STOPPING" (OMUTCD sign code number OR3-11) signs. • The S.W. 121st Avenue approach (southbound) be uncontrolled. • A "NO OUTLET" warning sign (MUTCD sign code number W 14-2) be placed along the west side of S.W. 121st Place within clear sight lines for motorists traveling southbound on S.W. 121st Avenue. .I CONDITION 1: Li N 3. n .4--r, NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) H I SW GAARDE ST. f ' a N 3 N CONDITION 2: Q N 3 Vf SW GAARDE ST_ a - N r 3 CONDITION 3: L 3 1 vSW GAARDE ST_ or- a r- cn N TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CONDITIONS AMES ORCHARD 2 SUBDIVISION FIGURE SEPTEMBER 1993 i~ " iu~~r vui 0 rnNnITION 1: <I NORTH In ! (NUT TO SCALE) N t -co N SW GAARDE ~ M n -r 250(395) Q 5(15) 1 O M N 1 b~ N a V1 CONDITION 2: Q 1•- N W) ~ - O r ~ N wM ~nMv ~ SW GAARDE ST. (11)17.11 250(395) ~ (1(21 Q ° 5 15) 4 y ooM a o r.:. vtp CIO y w N 1!1 W CONDITION 3: N O co 3 ogg y Ln. SW GAARDE ST. ems (44)30 ~-135(75) (810)(S8)Z--® *e-5(55)90) I or J a M ~ M v ~ N r 3 N LEGEND XXX - A.M. PEAK HOOUR (XXX) - P.M. PEAK HOUR MORNING & EVENING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMES ORCHARD 2 SUBDIVISION FIGURE KA SEPTEMBER 0993 2 mil 0 NOTE: 50` WIDTH OP FUTURE S.W. GAARDE STREET AND S.W 121ST AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS IS BASED UPON DISCUSSION WITH COUNTY AND CITY STAFF AT AUGUST 16, 1993 MEETING. 21 ULTIMATE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION AMES ORCHARD 2 SUBDIVISION FIGURE I KI SEPTEMBER 1993 J I V 10, uv W M z W S Q N vi v I NORI11 (NOT TO SCALE) ~ t I .o z o. IL 0 40' RAO. p H 0- 0= W' < cx a 3 S.W. GAARDE ST. (EXISTING' 0 'NO OUTLET STOP" 25' RAO. ' W v d ' ' s 12 12 g. Ln I t N Vi INTERIM INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL AMES ORCHARD 2 SUBDiVISiON F113URE SEFIEMBER 1993 4 K SENT BY: 2-23-94 ; 2:06PM ; BALL,JANIK,& NOVACK 503 684 7297;# 1/ 5 BALL, JANIIC S NOVACK Attorneys at Lana 1100 one Maim Place 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204-3274 Telephone: (503) 228-2525 Telecopier: (503) 295-1058 TELECOPY TRANS1ISSION FORK Date: February 23, 1994 SEND TO: Mr. Ed Murphy COMPANY: Community Development Director City of Tigard FROM: Jack L. Orchard CLIENT/MATTER: Rockwell/Amen CLIENT NO. 2863.2 TELECOPY NO. 684-7297 VERIFICATION NO. NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover Page): SECRETARY: Charlene Sharer IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT (503) 228-2525. THIS TRANSMISSION MAY INCLUDE CONFIDENTIAL XNFOR[AATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT (OR OTHERS AUTHORIZED BY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT) IS PROHIBITED FROM READING, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTING THIS TRANSMISSION. COMMENTS: SENT BY: 2-23-94 ; 2:07PM ; BALL,JANIK,& NOVACK-+ 503 684 7297;# 2/ 5 9ALL, JANIK ba NOVAGK ATTOPINEY6 AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 5.W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 torn n oox,nOI PENH*V W&"1. AVE. N. W PORTLAND.OREOON 07204.3274 WABHIMOTON, D.C. 110004 TELEPHONE (5031228-Z525 TELEPHOHC I?Oq 6]0-9307 JAC:11 L. ORGHARO TCLECOPT (509) 792-In%6 TCLI.COPY (102170]-0847 February 23, 1994 By TeleCtsM Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Zge of Benefit Cost Redistribution-District for S. W. Gaarde Street Extgnsion Dear sad: Mark Rockwell asked that I prepare a short submittal for your use in considering the issues involved in formation of a Cost Redistribution District which would reimburse Matrix Development for extension of S. W. Gaarde Street off-site from the Vista Point subdivision. I have done this through a series of discrete "bullet" points. i have included a reference to the applicable land use approval or code section for each point, as appropriate. Mark Rockwell will be out of town for tho next two weeks. Therefore, I would appreciate you notifying me of the status of the Cost Redistribution District, any staff positions concerning this District and the schedule for any hearings before the City Council. If you have any questions about the enclosed materials, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ( Jack L. Orchard Enclosure cc: Mr. Mark Rockwell J LO/ers/BJFI/HUrph7.823 SENT BY: 2-23-94 ; 2:07PM ; BALL,JANIK,& NOVACK 503 684 7297 4 3/ 5 LEGAL ANALYSIS RE: S. W. G tDE STREET EXTENSION COST REDISTRIBUTION DISTRICT • Vista Point is required to construct to major collector standards the S. W. Gaarde extension from S. W. 121st west. The City agreed to initiate a zone of benefit which would provide reimbursement to Vista Point for S. W. Gaarde extension construction costs, where other development, properties are benefitted by the extension. (Ref.: Vista Point Approval Conditions C and 19-20) • The zone of benefit applies to improvements which are constructed on property not owned by Vista Point, i.e, on that portion of the S. W. Gaarde extension which is off-site from the Vista Point property. (Ref.: Tigard Code §13.08.020(a)) Because the City Council already decided on the need for a zone of benefit reimbursement as part of the Vista Point approval, the issue is not whether the zone of benefit should be created but the extent of its geographic area and the allocation of the reimbursement to Vista Point for those portions of the S. W. Gaarde extension constructed outside Vista Point. (Ref.: Vista Point Approval Condition C) • While the zone of benefit ordinance allows a choice of methods for allocating the reimbursement obligation, the most equitable and accurate method should focus on the SENT 6Y: 2-23,84 : 2:06PCd : BALL, ANiK,& N(WACK-a 503 684 72974 4/ 5 probable use of, or impact on, by non-Vista Point development properties relative to the S. W. Gaarde extension. Each such development, as a requirement of its land use approval, already must submit traffic impact information which can be used to predict usage of the S. W. Gaarde extension by traffic generated from that development. Typical cost allocation formulae, like frontage, acreage, aggregate number of lots (or building sites) all have flaws when analyzed relative to projected impact (or benefit) of the S. W. Gaarde improvements. A zone of benefit works best when the benefits of the improvement to a particular property are considered as the measure of financial participation. (Ref.: Tigard Code §13.08.020(b)(4)) Arlington Ridge is already required to construct the extension of S. W. Gaarde Street to the east and to improve the S. W. 121st-S. W. Gaarde intersection as the main access to Arlington Ridge. Vista Point does not have direct access to S. W. 121st, but benefits from the extension of S. W. Gaarde to the east and its connection northbound to S. W. 121st. Therefore, Arlington Ridge is contributing directly to the S. W. Gaarde extension project by its conditioned improvements. Additionally, Arlington Ridge must provide right-of-way dedication where Arlington Ridge abuts the future S. W. Gaarde extension. (Arlington Ridge does not have any approved direct access to the S. W. Gaarde 2 SENT BY: 2-23-94 ; 2:08PM ; BALL,JAN1K,& NUVACK-+ 503 684 7297;# 5/ 5 extension.) These contributions to the S. W. Gaarde extension project should be taken into account in determining Arlington Ridge's allocable share of the reimbursement under the zone of benefit. (Ref.: Ames Orchard II Approval Conditions 5, 6, 7 and 20; Tigard Code §13.08.020(b)(4)) JL0/crs/8JN/Aockve11.Lng 3 'Mon 1 e 37 36 1e 9ss=t 35 - ' - 38 „o ~'o osox = . 34 1 +TRACT 'A' 39 « `'o I• ' y'~ 33_ o Jd .c. 32 i 31 a ; ,42 0l ~i ar . 11-c uo ' 7,1 43 vl 1• 30 II o n~ 45 +44' C,4 29t j .46 28 ~ -H.,970 ~ 7/300 I brat 237 ' X48 @ 49?' 26 TRACT 50 8 9.9990 " oo• 33u~ 24 x - -cc+0_ (Sta Point t ;F 17 p 9,199 6~. 64- '55 v 7 I ep 1 , r 8.9905 ~ 8.T59t 9' ~ _ , i~ ~ ~j a-s9e as7 ~ s.^58 j~ 59 s s99e 87we 602 t 8 61 ot •h s? Vista Point and Arlington Fridge Subdivisions ~a• 350 . toss=L . W r it SY_~ 14 °S3 ° i2 e` 91 ~ IO '9Uac 8 0 cs• er ~ v of ;l-~,\y: eM'e 3 ~ 60 :8 1 :S ; ~s 3 a 5 6 % •7wQ 7aod~ 7.6a0~ tt 7paae li yao_'! I 1~n•. ~e.'c ~e ~ ~ - S.W- GAAR®E ST. ij I., -1 R JJJ --Arlington Riffge 74 ,0 50• 100 200 d. " Aspraod by MY d TVwd C-ky ' .R. •..•e F- +eMy-m 0cpuw~ M17 damd Sam a . Aiptedatm tweoea LSm Inhumay dsea •t 7 tr~~-••••~ NORTH