City Council Packet - 07/12/1994
Revised
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 items
can be heard in = order after ZM am,
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should
be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.
Please call 639-4171, Ext: 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices
for the Deao.
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to
allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on
the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above:
639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean.
SEE A7TACHED ACEiVDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 1
y
all:
1
AGENDA
5:30 p.m.
4ft EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
• STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.)
Meeting with representatives of the Tigard Downtown Merchants Association
Agenda Review
TCYS Building
Special Presentation from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.)
1.1 Call to Orc:er - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
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:
Ask 3.1 Receive af1E-! F Council cil C-1--Aar for July, 1~4 through September, 1994
3.2 Approve IGA Cooperative Agreement with Public Agencies of Washington
County to Share Equipment and Services
3.3 Transportation Systems Study Contract - Contract for Professional Services
3.4 Authorize completion of property transactions for Gaarde Street Project.
4. PUBLIC !HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA
92-0004 (TREE REMOVAL)
LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.150
of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions
pertaining to tree removal and to provide definitions for the following terms:
developed commercial and industrial land, developed residential land, hazardous
tree, pruning, removal, tree and undeveloped land. In addition, the proposed
amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit exemptions; 2) Add a section
explaining code enforcement actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for
the issuance of permits; 4) Simplify the sections pertaining to expiration of
approval, extension of time, and revocation of approval; 5) Add significant natural
areas and sensitive lands to land requiring tree removal permits; and 6) ' Add
provisions for replacement of illegally removed trees. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 2
r (General Policies), 2 (Citizen involvement), 3.4.2.b (Natural Areas), and
Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code
Chapters 18.30.120.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d.' Public Testimony
Applicant
• Proponents
• Opponents
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 9a-
5. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA
94-0004 BULL MOUNTAIN ISLAND -
LOCATION: South of SW Bull Mountain Road and east of SW Aspen Ridge Drive
(WCTM 2S1 1013D, tax lots 1300, 1400, and 1500). TO annex three parcels that
create an island of unincorporated Washington County that are completely
surrounded by the City of Tigard and change the zone from Washington County
R-6 to City of Tigard R-4.5. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review
criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen
Involvement; 6.4.1, Established Areas:; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity and;
10.1.2, Boundary Criteria. Also Community Development Code Chapters 18.136,
Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
a, Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony
C Applicant
• Proponents
• Opponents
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94--L!; Ordinance No. 94-
6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• Review of Capital Improvement Program Priorities
7. T-APENTA 1
v~
8. ADJOURNMENT
0=0712.94
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 3
WOW
Council Agenda item 3.1
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994
• Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor John Schwartz.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wend! Conover Hawley, Paul
Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City
Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner;
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community Involvement
Coordinator/Deputy City Recorder; Jim Coleman and Ty Wyman, Legal Counsel;
and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
EXECUTWE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 5.35 p.m.
under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
STUDY SESSION
Study Session convened at 6:53 p.m.
City Administrator Reilly reported representatives from the Tigard Downtown Merchants
Association would report on the use of the $50,000 Council appropriated for use in the
downtown and Main Street area two years ago. Mike Marr, Chairperson of the Tigard
Downtown Merchants Association, along with members Don Myers, Chuck Woodard, and
Mark Wright were present. Mr. Marr reported the Association had submitted a list of
items for use of the $50,000. A few of the items were a traffic signal at Burnham and
Main Street, public parking, benches and 'planters, and a contingency reserve fund for
other items that might come up. He noted the Association knew the $50,000 would only
go so far, and hoped the benches and planters could be none on a volunteer basis. He
noted the $5,000 for the traffic signal is a small amount, but the Association feels the
immediate problem at the intersection could be addressed for a lesser amount of money
that is required.
Councilor Hunt asked if he was referring to a three-way red light stop, or a yellow flashing
light. Mr. Marr stated it could possibly be a four-way light which would include a light at
the car wash driveway. 1 he light could stop traffic in all directions in a stop and go
manner just like a four-way stop sign in a neighborhood. Mayor Schwartz asked if the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES,- JULY 12, 1994 -PAGE 1
MIRA
Bemis
W
N2
$5,000 was tie complete cost. Mr. Marrr said it was not, but the Association felt the stop
sign was important enough that they would give up some benches or planters and use
$5,. ' to ac tc..'ards tha cost of the signal. He reported Mr. Woodard had done some
research and discovered there is a signal available on a barter or exchange arrangement
with the City of Lake Oswego. He noted there may be concern by City Enginear tivcle.^,,
that it did not meet requirements for propriety. Mr. Woodward reported a three-signal
light would cost approximately $380, and the City of Lake Oswego would barter an
extension arm; the State of Oregon might put up a trial light if there was an arm available.
He stated $15,000 to $20,000 would be an arm complete with a three-way stop with a
controller for the fire department; the fire department indicated they might meet the rest
of the requirements; perhaps they would be willing to put in the rest of the $10,000 to
$12,000 that might be needed. Mr. Woodard reported that is not going to be the final
solution; the final solution is the tavern gone, a right turn lane put in, etc. What iz needed
now is to get the traffic at a programmable rate and get them off of Burnham Street; and
get rid of the left-lane turn off of Main Street onto Burnham. At the present time the fire
department cannot make a right hand turn off Burnham onto Main if someone is sitting
in the left turn lane.
Mr. Myers reported he felt it was essentiai Council know the Association's approach is
to blend with long-term thoughts and desires as far as the City is concerned, such as the
tavern change, etc. The Association would like to implement something quickly now in
order to change that intersection now.
Mayor Schwartz asked if the Association wanted to coordinate with the City a short-term
fix to a long-term solution. Mr. Myers responded that as long as the short-term bandaid
works for the City.
Mr. Marr reported additional public parking is needed in the downtown Main Street and
Burnham. This could possibly require the removal of current buildings. The Association
is proposing the $2,000 be put in the City's financial statement as earnest money reserve,
when the property is identified, which would serve as a reminder additional parking is
needed. He noted the downtown theme amount of $1;1SOO i$ an °eco io, il dcjvaloprner iit
program to cause people to be renewed in thought that there is a downtown area with
valuable businesses, and - the Association wants to create a pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere. Regarding the reader board which would be positioned adjacent to Main
Street at South Park, where the new apartmants are located, it would announce
community items, Council meetings, theater activities, and let people know what is
happening in the community. He suggested this could be a revenue-generating activity
if a particular business wanted to buy space on it. Mr. Woodard estimated the reader
board could cost approximately $25,000,, and might possibly be patterned after the
Tanasbourne reader board.
Mr. Marr pointed out that the majority of items on the list require no maintenance. He
described the proposed planters, and shared photographs with Council. The Association
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULIA 12, 1994 - PAGE 2
111:1111111a, ig~ 11111
10 1:
ANNE llw~ i Ill
Emil ''i
hopes to accomplish all these items at a minimum expense to the City and would put
responsibilities on the merchants to do as much as they can themselves for maintenance.
Mr. Myers referred to the area as identity. The Association's goal is to create an
atmosphere that is similar to other areas, and hopefully Council will understand their
interests are for the downtown core to create something that is unique; that is where their
major focus is coming from.
Councilor Hunt commented he was against planters, because too often they are also
used as an ashtray or waste receptacle. Mr. Marr stated the Association would police the
businesses that were not maintaining the planters. Councilor Hunt had a concern with
regard to safety of the reader board, and suggested the Association spoke with the Chief
of Police or State o' Oreaaon to ensure it would not be a problem.
fCc md'.nr Hunt recommended the $2,000 to be reserved for par king be used elsewhere.
It was recommended that possibly the $2,000 could be used for the capital improvements
project funding on Main Street, to find, locate, purchase, and prepare for use of some off-
street public parking.
Councilor Hunt noted that Judy Fessler, as a representative of Council, had worked on
this project for a long time and actually started working with the Main Streets to keep the
project going. Most of the project has been done with the blessing of City Council. It
was noted the Association was appreciative Council has held the money in abeyance for
more than the original year it was budgeted.
Councilor Hawley applauded the Association and stated she was proud of the work they
had done, especially the parking project.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the benches would be stationary; he noted Mr. Woodard has
placed one near his place of business; in case the Council is interested in looking at it.
ILA Iveayo -J I I4ra1 LX_ u 1611 MSG U ID ASOVVIGLLIVI I .v1 a No I .GQ u
Council meeting recessed at 7:28 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened at 7:39 p.m.
B INESS MEETING
Mayor Schwartz announced he attended the Washington County Transportation Advisory
Committee meeting on July 11, 1994. He noted Tri-Met has been looking at a $600
million bond issue to go out for a north-south light rail system and some public
transportation. The members were notified yesterday that it has been reduced to $475
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 3
JIM I 111111''I 'ji
. 111 1111101 AVON, million and would be only for a north-south light rail system from Vancouver to Milwaukie.
He also noted they were hoping to put this on the November ballot and there would be
matching funds from the State as well as some federal money.
Special Presentation from Tuaiatin Valley Fire and Rescue: Firefighters honored the
following individuals for their heroic actions during the April 12, 1994 Council meeting.
Mayor John Schwartz, Gary Ott, Jim Davis, Paul Johnson, Laura Miller, Rick Boothby and
Mario Fisher. These individuals were directly responsible for saving Mr. Bob Parsons' life.
Councilor Hunt noted that Mr. Parsons had by-pass surgery on July 11. Mayor Schwartz
expressed his appreciation to those who were honored, and encouraged poople to attend
training in CPR and first aid.
Mayor Schwartz noted that under Non-Agenda, Item 7, the following will be discussed:
a. Discussion to contract with an Interim City Administrator
b. Community Development Block Grant
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
• Gene McAdams discussed the 130th and Winterlake connection, and stated
he wanted to withdraw his statement regarding barricading Brittany Drive.
Mr. McAdams stated he is interested in assuming his share of the traffic
load, but is not interested in assuming his share of everyone else's traffic
load. He stated he feels the City of Tigard issues too many building permits
too soon, prior to street construction. He asked that if the Comprehensive
Plan is to be rejected, and if the voter-approved Parks Plan isn't going to
have status in relation to this project, would the barricaded streets
(Wnterlake and 130th) be cul-de-sacs. He also wondered if under the City
ordinances, they are legal or illegal. He asked what the City's plan is to
handle the vehicular traffic load on Brittany. Mr. McAdams noted his
interest in the City completing the project as provided in the Comprehensive
Plan and as shown in the voter approved Parks Plan.
Mayor Schwartz advised Mr. McAdams the tentative date for discussion of
the 130th and Winterlake issue is scheduled for July 26.
• Michael J. Woodley, 11590 SW Fonner, Tigard, Oregon, presented Council
with written testimony regarding request for an LID. He requested the
fiormation of an LID for a sewer line to run from Genesis, up 115th, and
down Former. He is currently on a septic system which failed three years
ago. He had the system repaired, and three days later it failed again. lie
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU"T"ES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 4
ME:
11512
noted he met with John Acker and Michael Robinson regarding the issue,
who provided him with a topographical map which shows the sewer location
and where a line would have to be run. He said Mr. Gearhart Mathis of
Washington County Health and Sanitation examined the system today, and
basically Mr. Mathis' conclusion is the ground is totally saturated and will
not absorb any more water. He noted Mr. Acker and Mr. Robinson
indicated it might be six months before the job could be done, so he is
requesting an LID. He stated he was in the Walnut Island area.
City Engineer Wooley noted that because the property is not in the City, he
does not believe the City can form an LID which is outside the City. City
Engineer Wooley asked if he had contacted other neighbors in the area to
discuss an easement or other alternatives. Mayor Schwartz stated Council
could not form an LID tonight, and suggested Mr. Woodley meet with City
Engineer Wooley to look at the options.
• Jim Nicoli, 9025 SW Center Street, Tigard, Oregon, requested Council
schedule an agenda item for a future Council meeting to discuss the
ordinance which pertains to charging business owners to put public utilities
underground, (telephone, power, and possibly cable). Mr. Nicoll feels it is
not a fair policy and hopes Council will abolish it off the books.
Mr. Reilly noted the July 19 Council Study Session will be devoted to a
series of development related items, and it could be possible to include this
issue in the agenda.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
F'
Councilor Hunt requested a change in the Council Calendar, removing the July 29
Council Tour of Potential Capital Improvement Projects.
3.1 Receive and File Council Calendar for July, 1994 through September; 1994
3.2 Approve IGA Cooperative Agreement with Public Agencies of Washington
County to Share Equipment and Services
3.3 Transportation Systems Study Contract - Contract for Professional Services
3.4 Authorize completion of property transactions for Gaarde Street Project.
Councilor Hunt made a motion to adopt the. Consent Agenda, as amended;
Councilor Hawley seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-
0004 (TREE REMOVAL)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 5
MONA=
a. Public Hearing was opened.
b. Declarations or challenges.
Mayor Schwartz declared he met last evening with a person who will be
testifying this evening regarding proposed changes. He noted when this
issue went before the Planning Commission, the acreage that would require
a tree permit approval was selected at three acres or more, and there was
an allegation it was crafted with Mayor Schwartz's back yard in mind, rather
that the public's interest in mind. He noted a statement had been made
that he has a 2.7 nacre lot; Mayor Schwartz stated he has 1.63 acres, and
he wanted to make this information part of the public information. He also
wished to declare that he is concerned about tree permit approvals,
because it affects his property, and as a private propsr ty owner, what
Council does this evening also affects him.
Councilor Hunt declared he was also contacted by a person and spent
some time reviewing the proposed ordinance with that person.
Councilor Rohlf declared he was contacted by one person in connection
with the proposed ordinance and spent about an hour filth tl yen; 41Vcutm77ing
the issues.
AID, Councilor Scheckla declared he was contacted by one person on the
telephone and discussed the proposed ordinance.
C. Staff Report:
Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the proposed Tree Removal
Ordinance, and stated that because of significant interest in tree removal,
the scope of changes has increased. He said the new code sections are
an attempt to make the tree removal code section more clear and easier to
administer, as well as address some of the new issues heard by the
Planning Commission. Senior Planner Bewersdorff discussed the following
proposed changes:
(1) defining terms including "developed residential property";
(2) specifying situations where trees shall be exempted from the tree
removal permit process (hazardous trees, pruning, etc.);
(3) permitting the Director to require justification for tree removal;
(4) providing for the mitigation of adverse impacts by requiring the
planting of additional trees;
(5) specifying that tree removal permits may be extended for up to one
additional year;
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 6
-1! -'11 1 Wig Rffll
(6) providing for replacement trees if conditions have not been satisfied
or trees are removal illegally;
(7) adding a $500 per tree penalty for violation of chapter standards;
(B) allowing for setback adjustments to preserve trees (suggested by the
Home Builders Association); and
(9) establishing standards for tree removal on sensitive lands, significant
natural areas and greenways.
Senior Planner Bewersdorff provided Council with a copy of letter received
from David Smith, attorney for Rita Hart. The letter was in opposition to
Council's adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment. A copy of that
letter is filed with the Council packet.
Legal Counsel Wyman was involved in drafting the proposed ordinance, and
pointed out some key legal issues in the code.
Councilor Hawley had a question regarding wording in the ordinance
pertaining to Page 2, No. 3 - definition of developed residential land shall
mean a lot or parcel "or contiguous combination of such under the
same ownership." She asked if that means if she owns six lots altogether,
would this cover every one of those six lots? Senior Planner Bewersdorff
said yes; that was what it was intended to do.
Councilor Hawley asked a question regarding the discussion paper in the
packet, pertaining to the issue of property rights versus the benefit of the
whole lc;ity. She noted it was suggested the individual property owner
would have the right to remove trees within 200 feet of his residence.
Senior Planner Bewersdorff explained that was the original recommendation;
they proposed about an acre at the time, and to make that acre work, they
were talking about 200 feet from the building. He stated the Planning
Commission changed that recommendation to a lot that could be divided
to equal that.
d. Public Testimony
Proponents:
• Irene Mills, 13;530 SW 115th, Tigard, Oregon, stated she is a member
of The Citizen's Natural Resources Committee sponsored by the City
of Tigard. She stated the committee strongly advocates an effective
tree ordinance, She noted she has some concerns about this
ordinance and how effective it will be.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1954 - PAGE 7
!!I' solIg gin !I'
NMI
• Carl Meininger, 16545 S` V 93rd, Tigard, Oregon, stated he feels the
ordinance is a step in the right direction. He noted the fee system
will place more importance on the ordinance, and suggested
perhaps the foes could be used to hire an arboris#. Mr. Meininger
suggested notification of surrounding neighbors should be required,
with a ten day waiting period. He noted he would like to see
language on protection of trees in Section 18.150.040. He also
suggested leaving 40% of the trees over 10" in diameter, with
mitigation allowed in deference to development.
Councilor Hawley asked staff if the concern is protection for trees, is
there somewhere in the draft ordinance that addresses that concern?
Senior Planner Bewersdorff answered only those criteria that are
listed; they would have to show reasons why they removed the trees.
He noted there is nothing saying specifically you have to protect a
certain amount/percentage of trees. Councilor Hawley asked Senior
Planner Bewersdorff if he agreed with the assessment that there is
not protection for trees in the draft ordinance. Senior Planner
Bewersdorff responded the process in requiring tree removal permits
is a protection, in a sense.
Mr. Meininger asked Senior Planner Bewersdorff if the same thing
that happened at the Thomas Dairy could happen again, under this
proposed ordinance. Mr. Bewersdorff responded it could, because
of grading and utility and street locations.
Councilor Scheckla asked if there was a problem protecting trees,
based on the proposed draft ordinance. Legal Counsel Coleman
responded that preservation of trees is something you can build into
the ordinance. He noted that as Senior Planner Bewersdorff said,
a tree cutting regulation in itself is a preservation ordinance.
Requiring a specific percentage of trees to be left is one way to do
that, and then you apply that on a case-hy-case basis, and look at
the result. Legal Counsel Coleman suggested if Council builds in a
40% requirement, they also build in some sort of exception process
so Council is not locked in with an inflexible code that could result in
a taking issue being raised. '
• Dan Mitchell, 16585 SW 92nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, encouraged
laves that protect trees. Mr. Mitchell is a construction superintendent
for a large construction company, and he outlined his process and
requirements for protecting the trees during construction. He
mentioned an excellent workshop recently sponsored by the City of
Tigard entitled "Designing Wcffi Nature."
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 8
• Carl Johnson, 8965 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon, suggested the fee
be dropped, because it is already incorporated with other fees.
• Irene Mills read a letter from Terry Moore, Metro District 13
Councilor, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97232,
addressed to Council, encouraging passage of the ordinance.
• Christy Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, stated she
felt the ordinance was long overdue, and encouraged passage of the
ordinance.
• Curtis Herr. 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, encouraged
passage of the ordinance, and stated he felt the ordinance would
enhance the livability of Tigard.
• Doug Smithey, 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, discussed
the price of timber from 1991 to 1993. Mr. Smithey noted the
definition of undeveloped land from the Planning Commission is
appropriate to protect trees. He questioned some of the ordinance
language; namely Page 5, definition of unreasonable economic
hardship on the applicant, which he feels is too vague; Page 5,
Sec ion C.2.a, he feels the language on significant negative impacts
should be consistent; 18.150.060, he feels this should include
provisions for public input, notice requirements; 18.150.050.c, he
questions when application submission requirements would be
walved, and what the funCion and need is for that. Mr. Smithey also
stated he feels fines should be higher.
• Mike Gerking, 11149 SW Eschman Way, Tigard, Oregon,
encouraged passage of the ordinance.
• Greg Gerking, 11149 SW Eschman Way, Tigard, Oregon,
encouraged passage of the ordinance.
• Rose Cicero, 11127 SW Eschman Way, Tigard, Oregon, stated the
ordinance will protect trees. She noted fines need to be severe if
trees are damaged, not just out down.
• Judy Fessler,11180 SW Fortner, Tigard, Oregon, suggested "certified
arborist" be added to Director in the decision-making sections of the
code. She suggested increasing fines to three times the stump
value. Ms. Fessler noted she supports the Planning Commission
recommendation to fines and fees collected for a tree planting fund.
She recommended providing incentives (tax break, grants) to
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 9
1111 pll ill I'l
92 ,1 p I
residents to keep maintaining the good health,of the existing trees.
age Ms. Fessler also suggested permit fees like Lake Oswego's - $35.00
plus $10.00 per tree, so that it is affordable. Ms. Fessler encouraged
approval of the ordinance.
• Carole Krieger, 11910 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon, ,(work
address) stated Tigard should have an appeal process and a
notification process. She noted she supports a tree ordinance.
• Malcolm IGrsop, 11322 SW Basswood Ct., Tigard, Oregon,
encouraged passage of ordinance.
Opponents:
• Larry Westerman, 13665 SW Fern St., Tigard, Oregon, noted he was
generally in favor of the proposed ordinance. He made reference to
the following sections of the ordinance:
Section 18.150.030 - permits should either be required or excepted.
Section 18.150.040 - should include grounds for denial for
landscaping purposes.
Section 18.150.070 - should allow replacement of trees a? similar
species of those removed.
Mr. Westerman stated the ordinance does not protect trees the City
owns (right-of-way). He noted that cutting timber for sale violates the
intent of the ordinance. He stated the ordinance should state ail
cases where a permit is required, and it should define what is meant
by tree removal for landscaping purposes. Mr. Westerman
recommended modifying the list of street trees to allow mature old
growth species as replacement trees. He stated he feels staff needs
training on application and enforcement of ordinance, and
recommended applying the ordinance in active planning areas.
• Ferd Moreno, 14430 SW McFarland, Tigard, Oregon, stated he was
concerned about interpretation. He noted he supports a
replacement provision, and also recommended exempting single
family lots with a residence from the ordinance.
• Jim Nicoli, 9025 SW Center, Tigard, Oregon, noted he is not against
a tree cutting ordinance, but is concerned this ordinance will
encourage tree cutting. He stated he feels that fines and regulations
"scare' people. Mr. Nicoli referred to a model similar to the City of
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12,19C.4 - PAGE 10
Tualatin's tree ordinance that offers incentives, and feels the
ordinance should take a positive approach. He asked if the 50' limit
around a house is enough distance for large fir trees. He stated he
feels the application submittal requirements (site plans, etc.) are
difficult for all to comply with. Mr. Nicoll noted staff should have
more discretionary powers to save trees, and that difficult ordinances
are costly to enforce. He stated he was not in favor of notification,
and stated a too-aggressive ordinance will cause more trees to be R
out down.
Councilor Hawley asked Mr. Nicoli what kind of incentives he would
recommend for those people who save trees on their properly. Mr.
Nicoll suggested if those involved in developing a site could save a
tree, it could be considered as grounds for a variance.
• Ira Price, 6208 SW Southview, Portland, Oregon, stated the proposed
ordinance should have more review by the public and arborists. He
did note the testimony this evening on both sides was excellent. He
stated he fears Council is acting too hastily in passing the ordinance.
• A letter from Amy Patton, 15735 SW 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
was submitted as testimony. A copy of the letter is on file in the E
Council packet.
e. Staff Recommendations
Senior Planner Bewersdorff discussed some of the major issues raised
regarding the proposed draft ordinance. He reported staff renwrnmende~:
adoption of the ordinance as drafted by the Planning Commission, but
stated he felt Council should consider testimony presented this evening.
Councilor Hunt questioned staff on one of the issues regarding Planning
Commission's recommendation that 50% of permit money be set aside for
tree planting. He asked if this was establishing a precedent, or do we have
other areas where we have fees and we are setting money aside from those
for certain type of activity? City Administrator Reilly said there was no
policy on that issue, and that in the building and development area,
revenues are generally directed towards expenditures related to that activity.
Councilor Hunt asked if a special fund is set up, as this draft ordinance is
recommending. City Administrator Reilly said it is not a special fund.
Mayor Schwartz asked Legal Counsel a question regarding liability. If the
City should disallow removal of a 150 foot tree, what is the potential liability
if the tree should fall over and hit a house? Legal Counsel Coleman said
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 11
ti
012
UNION
in carrying out the regulatory program, the City cannot be negligent. if
standards are constructed such that if a tree is unsafe, the permit will be
granted by correctly applying tho standards, and the City will be immunized
from liability as long it correctly applies its standards and its standards make
sense in the real world.
Mayor Schwartz asked if an individual has a tree that is greater than 6° and
is tired of pruning, raking leaves, etc., and is denied a permit by the City to
remove it, what is the City's liability? Legal Counsel Coleman said City has
no liability; it is private property, and the owner is responsible.
Councilor Hawley asked staff about the NPO wording in the draft ordinance,
and asked if the CIT's had seen the draft ordinance. Senior Planner
Bewersdorff said this has been ongoing for 2-1/2 years, and that the CIT's
have seen it.
Councilor Hawley asked about the contiguously similarly owned property
phrasing, and the concept of her owning one piece of property where her
residence is, and she also owns three or four other lots. She stated she
understands the way the ordinance is written, she has the have right to take
down trees within 50 feet of her house, but does not right to take down any
other trees on the other properties, even if there is a rental on the next
property over. She asked if she can take a tree down within 50 feet of that
residence? Senior Planner Bewersdorff, answered she could, s°id she could
also do that on the other lots, if there was a residence on there. He stated
if the properties were undeveloped, she would be required to have a tree
removal permit.
g. Public Hearing was closed.
h. Council Consideration.
Councilor Scheckla stated he feels the draft ordinance should be modified,
based on testimony, and also noted he feels the fine should be greater than
$500.
Councilor Rohlf stated he is a strong proponent of property rights, but feels
Council needs to recognize the community has certain standards that make
that community unique. He noted he feels the ordinance needs more
'teeth," and proposed passing the ordinance tonight, and then modifying it
at a later date.
Councilor Hunt stated he is concerned about the 50% going into ai fund,
and doesn't want to set a precedent by dividing resources and setting up
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 12
11i I Ill 11 11 INN III
a
funds for special areas. He noted he is also concerned the $500 fine is not
enough and that it should be related to the stumpage. He stated he feels
the City would have to hire someone to determine the value of the tree, and
then litigate how much the tree is worth when it was taken down. He noted
the idea of charging more is gri but thinks It should be set on a
determinable basis as to how you are going to arrive at the amount of the
tree. He noted he doesn't want the City to have litigation every time a tree
is cut down. Councilor Hunt stated he is in favor of changing it and make
it so it is not profitable to take the tree down, but not to present the City
with a problem when they do ft. Councilor Hunt also noted he was in favor
of the ordinance, but has concerns regarding several issues, including
notification.
Councilor Hawley stated she believes the ordinance reeds to be very
explicit, and should contain incentives. She noted she also feels the fees
should relate to a developer's pocketbook when they disobey the law.
Council Hawley stated she doesn't feel $500 fine is enough, and feels that
amount needs to be changed, and shculd include non-survival of trees that
are left. Incentives should be included for the developer to leave the trees.
She noted she has a difficult time with the property rights issue, and if the
Council could find a way to leave single-family lots, where there is one
property owner controlling their own residence (she noted she is not sure
about rental issue yet), and believes she would stand in defense of that if
there is way to keep ft from happening, where 85 property owners get
together to decide to all cut down their trees. She stated she likes the idea
of including the active planning area that is within Washington County's
jurisdiction in the ordinance, perhaps through an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Washington County, or maybe through the building permits
the City supervises. She agrees there needs to be definition of a couple of
terms; namely landscaping issues, if ft is decided to leave the 50 foot
residential buffer where you have the right to take down trees. She would
like landscaping purposes to be defined. She would also like to see the
economic hardship issue defined better. Councilor Hawley stated she
doesn't know if tying it to zoning is the appropriate way to define it.
Mayor Schwartz noted he is concerned with the severity of fines. He stated
that many ordinances now involve a fine, and feels Council needs better
definition to protect citizens not familiar with the law. He noted ignorance
of the law is no justification. Mayor Schwartz stated he is concerned with
cost of notification to other property owners, and also noted it is sometimes
difficult to notify all property owners. He also stated he feels the ordinance
should be for every property owner in the City of Tigard.
Council consensus was to schedule a workshop pertaining to the draft tree
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 13
WIN
IIIQI
1: iiii 11 1 11 X i , I 1 11 umm
removal ordinance on August 2. Prior to that time, Council will be provided,
by staff, a list of Issues raised at the meeting this evening. Council will also
submit a list of their concerns, and a master list will be available for the
August 2 meeting'. The meeting is open to the public, but no public
testimony will be accepted. Council also- agreed that the nn iss, le rn the
August 2 workshop agenda would be the proposed draft ordinance.
L' Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to continue
Council Consideration on this portion of the hearing to August 2. Motion
was carried by unanimous vote of Council present.
Council meeting recessed at 10:25 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened at 10:37 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL! - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 94-
0004 BULL MOUNTAIN ISLAND
a. Public Hearing was opened.
b. Declarations or challenges - there were none.
C. Staff report.
Associate Planner John Acker summarized the zone change issues, and
noted the proposed annexation consists of three parcels totaling 3.54 acres
that are completely surrounded by the City of Tigard. He stated the area
is located south of Bull Mountain Road, east of Aspen Ridge Street, and is
within Tiigard's area of interest. He noted this is a staff-initiated annexation,
a %J Ie u y ser'et out la <erto all affected property owners, including
people within 250 feet of the area approximately 20 days ago.
d. Public Testimony.
Sam Gotter, 12096 SW Aspen Ridge Drive, Tigard, OR 97224, stated he
supports the annexation. However, he is concerned about withdrawing the
annexed property from the Tigard Water District, and the City of Tigard
would have control. City Administrator Reilly explained that regardless of
whether the property is in or out of the city, it will be hooked up the same
way. He stated the same rules apply, whether it is the Water District or the
City of Tigard water, and that the City of Tigard is operating the water on
behalf of the Water District.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 14
i ii
EM inom ME 9mm MW
e. Staff Recommendations.
Associate Planner Acker recommending Council adopt the resolution and
ordinance.
f. Council Questions.
Councilor Hunt said he believes this is the way Council chose to go; to
anne-m ti ie IJ16Rnd.°7 '-SO fcakst as possible.
Councilor Scheckla askod if the annexation would go through, regardless
of where the sewer and water lines were located. City Administrator Reilly
explained it would have a bearing on the sewer lines; the City does not
extend sewer lines into unincorporated areas. He explained that in terms
' of water, it makes no difference.
Councilor Hawley stated she agreed with Councilor Hunt that this goes
along with Council's policy to annex the islands.
g. Public Hearing was closed.
h. Motion by Councilor Hawley; seconded by Councilor Hunt to adopt
Resolution No. 94-32.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
Motion by Councilor Hawley; seconded by Councilor Hunt to read
Ordinance No. 94-14.
ORDINANCE NO. 94-14 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 94-04, BULL
MOUNTAIN ISLAND) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The ordinance was passed by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - Review of Capital Improvement Program Priorities
City Administrator Reilly stated there was one issue that staff needs direction on,
primarily because of, the Community Development Block Grant money the City is
receiving, if Council decides to exercise that option for the Grant Avenue sidewalks.
The Planning Commission priority was to continue the Park/Watkins project, but
that has not been an official recommendation yet to Council. Staff is requesting
Council accelerate the Grant Avenue sidewalk project in order to obtain the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 15
10 Em
Nam
Community Development Block Grant money. If Council does not favor the
acceleration, the Community Development Block Grant administrators need to be
so advised.
Councilor Hunt made a motion to accept the grant; Councilor Hawley seconded
the motion. The motion was carried by unanimous vote of Council present.
City Administrator Reilly noted the remainder of the Capital Improvement Program
is now stalled, until Council provides direction to the Planning Commission on
priorities.
Councilor Hunt noted he thought Council was going to. discuss this issue at the
same time as the tax base was discussed. City Administrator Reilly said ideally
before Council makes the tax base decision, they would want to have the Capital
Improvement information. He stated that deferring the Capital Improvement issue
makes the opportunity less likely. He noted the idea was Council was going to
bless or alter the priorities and it would go back to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission would then submit to Council their plan for capital
improvements for the next five to seven years. He noted that in order to do the
tax base, a public hearing is required in early August, and that requires publication
prior to that.
Councilor Hunt noted he would like to see more money set asides for sidewalk
improvements. City Administrator Reilly said the current plan envisions $50,000 a
year. Councilor Hunt asked about the Bull Mountain project, and City Engineer
Wooley said $500,000 was originally set aside. He noted he would like a couple
of specific areas identified. City Engineer Wooley stated the Park/Watkins project
was identified as the first project for the sidewalks, and project 20 (Grant Avenue
sidewalk) has been elevated, which is also a sidewalk project.
City Administrator Reilly said Council could ask the Planning Commission to allot
a minimum amount of dollars per year for sidewalk improvements, over and above
any one of the proposed projects.
City Engineer Wooley explained that what is envisioned in the report now is that
after the Park/Watkins project was completed, $50,000 a year would be shown in
the plan for sidewalk projects in the future years. The particular projects would be
picked out over the next few mon±he and the priority process with the CIT's and
back to the Planning Commission and Council for the pedestrian improvement
projects would be completed.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt there were some projects he felt should have higher
priorities; namely Main Street, 79th Avenue, Commercial Street, and 130th and
Winterlake. He asked if the City receives any funding from the impact that Tri-Met
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 16
NINEPIN! OEM
causes on Commercial and Main Street. City Engineer Wooley said we do not; Tri-
Met funds are restricted and cannot be used for normal street maintenance and
improvements.
City Administrator Reilly explained the 130th and Winterlake connection could be
set aside; he suggested Council not lose sight of it; and then make a decision on
it at the July 26 Council meeting. That will help to keep the process moving and
assist Planning Commission in the opportunity to continue.
Councilor Hawley said she felt the Main Street project should be placed below the
Hall and 99W. She also agreed with the 79th project; and felt it should be moved
up on the list.
Councilor Hunt noted he is hesitant to move the 79th project up.
City Engineer Wooley reminded Council that the Grant Avenue bridge and the
Tedeman Avenue bridge have potential grant funding in 1995 and 1996, which is
part of the reason why they were ranked high. He stated the assumption is that
the City will still campaign for State funding for Hall/99W, but that it needed to be
high on the City's priority list in order to help the campaign.
City Administrator Reilly asked Council if they felt any obvious projects were
missing from the list. Councilor Hunt asked if the City will be needing money when
the Tigard Water District assets are distributed. City Administrator Reilly answered
that when the assets are distributed, there will pe certain shared assets, and there
will be some proportional interest with Du,' Dam, King City and Tigard Water District.
it may well be an advantage in the future where the Cky buys out the other entity's
share of that particular asset; vehicles, building; those pieces of equipment or
those facilities that might be used for broader City purposes, assuming the other
parties are open to that type of negotiation.
City Administrator Reilly noted Council can always delay a capital improvement
project until all the answers are in. He urged Council continue to put together this
five to seven year plan now; it can be amended as time goes by, but it is a starting
point.
Councilor Hunt made a motion that Council move the 130th and Winterlake project
aside to a no-rank, and go ahead with the projects, with $50,000 for sidewalk
improvements. Councilor Hawley seconded the motion. The motion passed by
unanimous vote of Council present.
Regarding the parks projects, Councilor Hunt noted he is opposed to project No.
2 - 74th near Barbara. He noted he felt there were a lot of problems there,
including access in and out of the park. He suggested an equal amount of money
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 17
LMMMMM190M OEM
be set aside for acquiring a park. He recommended finding an area where trees
could be developed and one which could be of more use to the City than the
Cedar Forest park.
Mayor Schwartz noted he felt Council should identify particular areas for possible
parks, study their value, and put the issue on a bond issue. Senior Planner
Landsman submitted information regarding the proposed projects, and said her
recommendation would be in reverse to what Mayor Schwartz proposed.
There was lengthy discussion on the proposed City resources. The Gage property
is 4 acres and is not part of the City's greenway park system, and the Barbara and
74th proposal is 14 to 16 acres.
Councilor Hunt recommended property be found to add another public park;
perhaps in the Walnut area, or between there and Bull Mountain. Councilor
Scheckla also recommended putting a park in the Triangle area.
A recommendation was made that a fourth park be added to the list; possibly for
the West CIT area.
* made a motion to accept the parks projects as they are, with
the addition of a fourth park in the West CIT area. Councilor Hawley seconded the
motion. The motion carried by a majority vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley and Rohif voted "yes,"; Councilor Sc.r lec kla vc aeud
"no"; and Councilor Hunt abstained.)
Councilor Hunt made a motion to approve the remaining sanitary sewer projects,
storm drainage projects, and water system projects; Councilor Rohif seconded the
motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Council present.
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Schwartz announced that Bill Monahan has been named Intedn'i City
Manager for the City of Tigard. Councilor Hunt moved that a contract be entered
into with Mr. Bill Monahan as Interim City Manager, not to exceed a six month
interval; Councilor Rohlf seconded the motion. Motion was passed by unanimous
vote of Council present.
The Community Development Block Grant for Tigard Community Youth Services
was discussed. Councilor Hunt mo,,:ed that Council turn down the block grant;
Councilor Rohlf seconded the motion. After discussion, Council passed the motion
by a majority vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hunt,
Rohlf,,and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hawley abstained.)
* Correction to minutes: "Councilor Rohlf made a motion..." (See Study Session
minutes - 8/9/94)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 18
8. ADJOURNMENT - 11:55 p.m.
Attest: Jo H y s, Administrative Secretary
May ity zodfTrigoard
Date:1
x=0'012.94
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 12, 1994 - PAGE 19
I
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
2 li C E I V E 0 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7 9 2 9
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
JUI. 1 "1994 ` Ll IJE_ RiN67
Legal Notice Advertising
~_(1"y ()F IC,ARp The follow ig ill l coalsldared by rile T Bard City~ouncil'owhjjy~i ,
*City of Tigard ° 17 Tearsheet Nc 1994, at 7:30 P M;, At3';atd:Civic Oente,'f wa Hall:ltoom,13i25S:W
Ha; Boulevard Tigard, gon Euither'inforMgtioo may lie obtai ed
13125 SW Hall Blvd. from tYe I bevel ent Director 0
Ci
®Tigard, Oregon 97223 d ❑ duplicate AffE location or by 30411 are Invited to ubIwtvnt<en tese
timony to advance a01'e p4 b1i1r, he;teing, written and`nrat testtinony will .
® 0 be cortsrdecd at thezitiearir.~a,: ThC l)itc hP3rit►g bVill'bo Conducted in-ac
cbi~datice`vvith the ap~liC~bldCFi~ar Ili x? of111te.Tigarcl l~trjnic►~at Code_
an_d any rule's;of praci~fure uErlS*.ei#;y the G~ancil and aVailabl° at City
`"Pall.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ZQNE ORDINANCE AMEND s~l'1` ZOA~2-00()4>
TREE REMCVAL I DN: City>itdt ~-A request by the Cif/.of
STATE OF OREGON, ) Tigard to replace~Chapt6fl 130 of t ie City of Tmmpererty
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as- DevetopmenkCode-with nei cA:ie r royesz vis pertaiaung toigard,Crtree f2i~ oval
1, Kathy Snyder and, to provide aelinitionsifotb+( ~faillognng te►s developed conamereia!;;
and_rndustridl land; develoled res~duenitial.land, hazardous tree,~ssuurung,
being first duly sworn, depose and Ti tharda Tua latns~ngg Times removal, tree and undlrveloged land; In addition, tb`e`propred ainerd
D'srector, or his principal clerk, of 4he ~L 1 nerits are iniendecl to i tip. it ezem ttons 2) Add a
a 'newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ) p
1Earplaini}1g-code enfvrccme iii actions for illegal tree:removal, 3)1~€y~~
and 193.020; published at T, Bard in the ;
aforesaid county and state; that the itrti9 T~ir.yElte i.tStbBn t; oc Ibetitttts, 4j Simplify the sectron3 peit~taut~:t€
Hearj,gg- Zane Ord-92-0004 Tree Removal u+~xpiratic~nupeoval,ealensionofUme,gridrevocaitionofagprovat,_
X~Add srgnraca,at natiira! areas and sensttive_lands to-land requering;t~ee
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the i eoval 1'ItriitS; Wild b) "Add previsions fos rep+al ement of illegally
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and i moved trees AFPI.ICAIILE REVIEW t~RMRIA` Statewi& Punning;
taoais 1, 2, and S, Cssmpre ensive Plan Policies (General Faliciesj 2
consecutive in the following issues: (;Citizen Inviilve{nent)E 3 4;2 f► atiiral Areasfa anil Implementation
'ai aCeg~~ of I'ohey` d, ai d 'omM-unity De- y- Codefirti~a tees
June 30,1994 1fis3u1212„;.
Subscribed and sworn to o e me this30th day of June, l OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
G(/Y~ \ sfY NO?AfiY NL3:3LIC - OREGON
L takt c; 119Ai$fiioN NO. 024552
Notary Pu ,f regon 1tY 0011 %iI ~iON ! XP!RE.S LMY 16,
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
11111~1111S:111 S!
I XI 1 15
ZONG CHANGE ANNE 'I' ON Trj ,4+94=
13 LL MOUNTAIN-ISLAND? I.oCA:Tfc i do tkofS W. Bull Moun
s'taa,pRoad and east of S` W Aspen :Ridge Drive (WCT M 2S 1 IOBD,_taz
,;Tots 1300; 1400; and 1;500) To;annex three parcels that create.an island q
unincorporated. Washington Co my flat are completely surrotinded by the.
City of-.Tigard and change the'ione fromWashington County R=6;to City,
df Tigard R-4:5 APPLICABLE'REVIEW,CRITERIA. The relevant
re4l6v. riteria in thAS cafe are Tigard Comprenensiee Plan Policies 2.1.1;
°Ci@zeti Involvement, 6:4 1, Estal~l~shed Areas; 10 1.1 Delivery
Capacity and l'0 1.2, Boundary Cnieria Also, omenunity De ilopment
Code :Chajters 18 i36nexations; and j8 138'; Es'tablished/Develpping;
:area Class cation i
:.,P 7929' Nu uih Juno 30,1994
b
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 H- otice TT 7936
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
DECEIVED
Legal Notice Advertising
TJUL 14 199
°City of Tigard ° 0 Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd. CITY OF `IGAIRD
®Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® ®Duplicate Affidavit H
® ® Tftc Poll svu g, fnftd h'W- - satePdbfish$ti if Yc o ~dn
crtds~s try be bb' fined from_thc_City 6606 der, 13125 &W Rail
* 6` 9 174:
Sou a ~`1 i o 97M M IIV,
CPT"b Co (''1LFUSIN-FMS !()?"~ii~iG
AFFIDAVIT OF FUBLICATIOIVT 1 iS rq~y irls.a v
9f
.Lai 6:i rv 1 I.
STATE OF OREGON. ) 1312 S;#~ 31.s 1$'• GREG JI
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. +L,~~c~ R~=tea ~.3 P ~b1)
Study I1 w4r,g
1, Judith Kolher ® Ate sd a.~`,6
isinE
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advert
Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi gard-Tina 1 at; n Tl ; I3usinsss 2Jr l?~~ ! 1 ;7,30PA.)
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.014
and 193.020; published at T; ga rd in the C minis
aforesaid county and state; that the i ; Zaz~; Amendment ZOA 9'2-IDW4 gree R~ovd)
City Council Business Mtc„
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Annexation ZCA 94-00C4 Bull Moun?zm bland ?
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive anal
>
ICrA.L~ac_RcvcwOc~¢~lPaic~t g
LCw
consecutive in the following issues: _ - X
vRdvx„w 4 (*itai f,~npror~.~.ittettlgcutn Frioritzq
:h?1 7 ,1994
B ~ru,rve Session :Thc Tigard Cttq Coumcil may go new Exec eetsve:
'A_ S~ssaan tltts°r thecovistgnS of f~F fl92 teSQ (fl) (d), (e), (f)`c6t (h fA
~ gs3 -ft on real 'tj G&d t; current and s: a
lid~~.rsan+t~uds. z
'I'; j936 -P,,b]9 t hey 7,1994 - - ,
Subscribed and sworn to re me this ;j9 0. FECIAL SEAL
_MM ROSIN A. BURGESS
I NOTA JtFY P. IC RGON.
,t.9l,:afi, 4
Notary Pu for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY i6,1497
L~o
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT- -
smog= Eli El Him;
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING;
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and y:
That I posted in the fallowing public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s)
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated c~ Ok,
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being reto ached and by reference made a part hereof,
on the 1 day of 1 L~r .
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. 'Test One Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Comer of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
OFFICIAL SEAL
CONNIE MARTIN l~l ~/~/1 ~1 G~/
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON Notary Public for Oregon
COMMISSION No. 015877
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 4,1990
My Commission Expires: x.
b91nVa\affpost
1~4f ~~?~'"'~.s`{~~.. - 2 iv7.►~~~M.#7V tA•b~~NI~A 'k! VA~s. SMap, r~., xcl
(limited to 2 minutes or less. please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The council wishes to hear from you on
other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
STAFF
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
/3 20 . [tJ<
G G~c7 5 rlb-ci 13~ ` 4 Cl1►tr ~eY~alC~
K r S war /t'!+c rre(✓•c~erS
~ J -
iG e ~
F
t~ n e v s ors.sht
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to S - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0804 (TREE
REMOVAL)
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY OIL THE ATTACHED SHEETS
i
i
0
w p
n . - eakdng Against)
opponent - (Sp
drop>onent - (Speaking in Favor;
e 1 r l dre, l S G t ~j
t ~p fp .1a1
rem 5 Sw ci ?(-A Name
-714~
Nome Address
Address qL~ J
_ 5w f Name
J Name 1 D % {n dress
dross `t ¢ Name ` r , n /I Yd~)h
V - ~ r
Name Addrose of
Z
re f1 u Name
me ress
1S
Name
teas `J , , \ N~ U417 Loo?
rl so
J ;dame l ( Address
Address mQo rb w ®o G Name
t 13 B b s'"'' ~1 a
Name ' C t: Address
c
ress Name
Address
F tom= X
ctlj
Address n-S-1 "On Name
s Aa rose
re" S ~ dJ i ~1e
T G /zU Address
as ~2
Address J6 t-)s c r
PLEASE PRINT
Proponent - (Spea ' g In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
V e Name
Address
L1.J _
Nam ame
Address r-dreas
/ /d me
Address Address
-Wa-ne acne
Addre Address
me Name
Address dress
Name e
Address Address
Name _ Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
h:\logln\(o\testify
jI;nI:I
NEW
a
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
PUBLIC BEARING o (QUASI-JUDIC!AL.) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 94-0004 BULL
MOUNTAIN ISLAND
ci
PLEASE SIGN? IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS
vilmig
PLEASE PRINT
Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
e ame R
.Sr} eK GrsZT L
Address Addre
094 5_v~ P ~ti1 R D
sme Name
Address Address
Name . Name
r
i
Address
Name Name - -
ress Address
Name ame
Ad r ss dress
ame Name
Address
Name Name
i
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
I
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
gil
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
'FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: July 1, 1994
SUBJECT: Agenda for July 12 Study Session
1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - Tigard Community Youth Services
(TCYS) Building.
The City has been awarded a $58,600 grant to upgrade and expand the City-
owned building, located at Ash and Burnham. Total improvements approach
$72,000 and include an additional meeting room and a child day care room
($53,000); electrical system upgrade ($2,000); interior and exterior painting (in kind
services totalling $4,000); handicap access modification ($3,000); and a children's
play area ($2,000). The City's dollar match is $9,350.
TCYS utilizes the building for $1 per year. The City has retained the property,
once used by the Police Department, in the event the maintenance yard is
expanded and if Ash Avenue is ever extended. Staff does not envision a long
term use for the structure.
Acceptance of CDBG funds obligates us to maintain a CDBG-eligible use of the
building for not less than 20 years. Should the building be demolished or be used
by a non-eligible tenant (per CDBG definition) during this 20 year period, the City
would need to reimburse the CDBG agency the full amount of the grant.
Obviously, the question is, do you wish to accept the grant, given these
requirements?
Io91njo\pjr0701
Nii
WILLIAM ARTHUR MONAHAN
Bill Monahan has experience in municipal legal and planning issues
-both as a city attorney and in the capacity of a municipal planning
director. His practice is primarily in the areas of land use, real
estate, and municipal law. He presently advises the Cities of West
Linn, Milwaukie, and King City on legal matters.
Mr. Monahan has held positions as a planning and community
development director for cities in 'Massachusetts and Oregon. These
positions have provided him with experience in implementing and
enforcing municipal regulations, particularly in the planning,
zoning, public works, and personnel fields. He has experience in
both rapidly developing and redeveloping cities advising city
councils, planning commissions, and city managers on municipal
questions. .
Mr. Monahan's municipal background has included the preparation of
comprehensive plans, preparation of ballot titles, drafting and
revising zoning regulations, administering personnel rules, and
negotiating labor agreements. His experience as a manager of
municipal services including planning, building, engineering, and
public works has provided him with a working knowledge of issues that
arise in the context of legal questions.
70003/jlh/RESUMEI.WAM
NEW;
WILLIAM ARTHUR MONAHAN
O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach
Attorneys at Law
1727 NW Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
Telephone: (503) 222-4402
EDUCATION
Northwestern School of Law
Lewis and Clark College
Juris Doctor
Portland, Oregon
Suffolk University Law School
Boston, Massachusetts
University of Rhode Island
Master of Community Planning
Kingston, Rhode Island
Stonehill College
Bachelor of Arts
North Easton, Massachusetts
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
January 1989 to Present Senior Associate
O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan &
Bachrach
Involved primarily with issues related to land use, real estate and
municipal law. Acts as city attorney for West Linn, King City and
Milwaukie.
February 1988 to January 1989 Attorney at Law
Sole practitioner engaged in the practice -of law with emphasis on
land use, real estate, municipal law, and governmental relations.
PLANNING EXPERIENCE
August 1982 to February 1988 Director, Community Development
City of Tigard, Oregon
Supervised the planning, building, engineering, public works, and
codes enforcement functions of the city; directed a staff of 50
employees; managed an annual budget of $2.4 million.
AMML
Am=
1- 7 William Arthur Monahan
19 Resume
Page 2
June 1979 to August 1982 City Planner (Director of Planning)
City of Brockton, Massachusetts
Directed the planning programs for a reucJel.opyiaay cl..r o. ~oc+
population; advised the Mayor and City Council on issues including
downtown renewal, neighborhood revitalization, zoning, housing needs,
and grants; negotiated collective bargaining agreements with city
unions representing 900 employees and directed the city labor
grievance resolution process; coordinated selection of cable
h
television franchise.
December 1978 to June 1979 Chief Rehabilitation Officer
Brockton Redevelopment Authority
Brockton, Massachusetts
Directed the design and implementation of a housing rehabilitation
program for low income homeowners.
September to December 1978 Community Planner
U.S. Department of HUD, Area Office
Louisville, Kentucky
Advised Community Development Block Grant recipients of program
regulations, reviewed housing and land use elements for compliance.
June 1974 to September 1978 Planner, City of Brockton
Brockton, Massachusetts
Prepared Community Development Block Grant applications, housing
assistance plan, grantee performance reports, and planning studies;.
participated in collective bargaining sessions representing manage-
ment; Assistant Director from October 1975 to 1978.
PUBLICATIONS
W. Monahan; L. Epstein: LAND USE (Oregon CLE Supplement (1988))
ZONING ADMINISTRATION
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Oregon State Bar, Member (Real Estate/Land Use Section)
American Institute of Certified Planners, Member
American Planning Association, Member
MIME= 'S
A
Jul y 12, 1994
RE: 11590 S. W. F'onner Street
The purpose of this letter is a request to be annexed into the
city of Tigard and the formation of a LTD for the purpose of
bringing sewer service to the above referenced property.
The reason for this request is that our home is now twenty seven
years old and we have had one failure of our septic drain field
three years ago. At that time we added an additional two hundred
feet of drain lines. Now just three years later we are having
problems again with the backing up of sewage waste. We spent
close to $3000.00 three years ago Counting the new drain field,
Aft septic tank pumping and new landscaping. Now we have just spent
another $700 to have the septic tank: pumped and distribution box
chectr.ed. Gerhard Matheis from Washington county health
sanitation department visited our home today and it is his
opinion that the ground is saturated and water is not being
absorbed. He also stated that we do not really have anywhere
else to add addticnal drain lines. 'It is our understanding that
we will be annexed into the city within the next six months
anyway, but that sewer service will not be brought down our
street at that time. We are requesting that it be done as soon
as possible. We know it will happen eventually, but really don't
want to continue to have to have our system pumped every month at
a cost of around $250.00 each time.
Thank: you for your consideration of this request.
Respect f ly,
Michael J. ;_~c-dIey j
511511
a o
o
1 0
O Od
Z'bSZ
071
V ~r
Q _
a ~
a
a -S -10- Q 4
x
~ c: d o~ssz
® ~Q-
a
Ole
x x
x e,
x I
1
.00, osz
Elm It 3.111 83ANOd 'R'Av S"IbZy~
I ~ I I 1~
~ - 11
!1
.ate`"~"~`\`\ ao.
MMI
plig
! 0 442 o
LAOR(
14 ~p
S# 0
r /
}
~tH
~opQ
~r To
a
00
'to
P
tt 1AH
d
.2 7
-_--Reply LINE
JAI~~-~CI -
.d®x _ i----------- -
F - -4 --=A
-
.77
- - - ~-a----_ - -
R z
_ - ----p _r ~~:b- - -
(P IC7 7__
- ~-ems ~==D• - - -
.
g •
MMNGTOff
. I 1 -t t-- _snr~tln~ dej~, P- ' sflTnrrJ ~-i ,~;;«,r. t
--T-L.. - 07 the Individual septic tank `system (Includin - I
g - - i on ;box & subsurface 11"02 wi5
«hs-Plot-
tan at Para thdWa nu;:
- Do approvedjby the County Hoaltb, Department
--i---~-- --r---
III g-Tb-advan~c 'of INSWIN OM f3TWi
a
X - - • comply 'Witt th"a rsqui ar}ceats VOW an'
li5ll 11:: ISO
Council Agenda Item ~•B
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator.
DATE: July 2, 1994
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, July, 1994 - September, 1994
Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk
If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the
Monthly Council Calendars.
July
4 Mon 4th of July Holiday - City Offices Closed
5 Tues Special Council Meeting - Orientation (6:30 p.m.)
* 12 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
* 19 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30)
* 26 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
29 Wed Council Tour of Potential Capital Improvement Projects
(3:30 p.m.)
Auggst
* 9 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
* 16 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30)
* 23 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
September
5 Mon Labor Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
* 13 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
* 20 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
* 27 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
h:\login\cf,thy\cccal
AGENDA ITEM #
For Agenda of _ 7
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/'AGENDA TITLE _Inter o P me tal A ee e t for Sharing of E u e t
nd Services.
PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE_ THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve and authorize an Intergovernmental Agreement
for sharing of equipment and services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Council approve the Integovernmental Agreement that sharing
equipment and services promotes cost effective and efficient use of, public
resources.
INFORMATION SUMMARY w~~__N__N
The Cooperative Public Agencies of Washington County is trying to coordinate
efforts in the County to benefit taxpayers. One such way is the
Intergovernmental Agreement for sharing equipment and services. The
Agreement allows agencies such as City of Beaverton, Tualatin Valley Water
District, City of Tualatin and City of Tigard, to share equipment and
services on an as needed basis, with the owner having first rights of refusal
due to their workload and availability. Many communities are already doing
this, including City of Tigard, this Agreement. would only formally outline
the procedures.
At this time, most Communities and other governmental agencies in Washington
County have adopted this Agreement.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The City of Tigard would not participate in the IGA for sharing of equipment
and services.
FISCAL NOTES
The Maintenance Services Division will be responsible for the record keeping
and budgeting for any expenses. The main purpose of the IGA is to share
equipment and services at minimal expense, if any.
-Egg
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR
EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into by and between the undersigned public entities pursuant to the
authority provided by ORS Chapter 190.
WHEREAS:
1. Each party owns certain equipment and provides services which may be useful to
another party for public works construction, operations, maintenance and related activities; and
2. The parties agree that sharing equipment and services promotes the cost-effective
and efficient use of public resources; and
3. The parties desire to enter into an agreement to es~ablish procedures for sharing
equipment and services, and defining legal relationships and responsibilities. Therefore, in consideration
of the mutual covenants herein; it is
AGREED:
1. The parties shall make available to each other vehicles, equipment, machinery,
related items and services in the manner and on the terms and conditions provided for herein.
2. Equipment shall be provided upon reasonable request at mutually convenient times
and locations. The provider retains the right to refuse to honor a request if the equipment is needed for
other purposes, if providing the equipment would be unduly inconvenient or if for any other reason the
entity determines in good faith that it is not in its best interest to provide a particular item at the requested
time.
3. The entity receiving the equipment ("user") shall take proper precaution in its
operation, storage and maintenance. Equipment shall be used only for its intenders purpose. User shall
permit the equipment to be used only by properly traint-d and supervised operators, and shall be
responsible for equipment repairs necessitated by misuse or negligent operation. User shall perform and
document required written maintenance checks prior to and after use and shall provide routine daily
maintenance of equipment during the period in which the equipment is in user's possession. User shall
not, however, be responsible for scheduled maintenance (P.M.) or repairs other than repairs necessitated
by misuse or negligent operation.
4. Provider shall endeavor to provide equipment in good working order and to inform
user of any information reasonably necessary for the proper operation of the equipment. The equipment,
however, is provided "as is", with no representations or warranties as to its fitness for a particular
purpose. User shall be solely responsible for selecting the proper equipment for its needs and inspecting
equipment prior to use. It is acknowledged by the parties that the provider is not in the business of
selling, leasing, renting or otherwise providing equipment to others and that the parties are acting only
for their mutual convenience and efficiency.
5. The parties shall provide equipment storage space to each other, at no charge, upon
request iVirucu HOW-a'111-y- W11VG111Gl11. i€ is recogniiai that such storage is for the benefit of the party
requesting it. The party storing the equipment shall be responsible only for providing a reasonably safe
and secure area.
MEN NMRNEIEHO!115111W'
. w
HIMRGOVERNNIENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
EQUII PENT AND SERVICES
Page 2
6. The provider may, in its sole discretion, require that equipment be operated only
by provider's personnel. In so doing, provider shall be deemed an independent contractor. The provider
shall meet the technical standards of the user, but shall retain full control over uie manner and .means of
using the equipment.
7. User will reimburse provider for equipment and services based on the rates used
for its internal financial management of personnel and equipment. These rates are included in the
Equipment Sharkig Catalog. Supplies will be charged at provider's invoice cost plus 15% or may be
replaced by user. On May 15th of each year, all parties will each total all reimbursement for equipme.
and personnel reimbursement shall be paid within thirty (30) days of billing, and payment for any
monetary difference may be billed at that time to any or all providers.
8. "The parties are independent contractors. Nothing herein shall alter the employment
status of any workers providing services under this Agreement. Such workers shall at all times continue
to be subject to all standards of performance, disciplinary rules and other terms and conditions of their
employer. No user shall be responsible for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, compensation or
benefits for providers's workers performing services on behalf of user under this Agreement. No user
shall be liable for compensating or indemnifying any employee of a provider for any injury or work
arising in any way out of work provided pursuant to this Agreement.
9. Each party shall be solely responsible for its own acts, and those of its employees
and officers under this Agreement. No party shall be responsible or liable for consequential damages to
another party arising out of providing or using equipment or services under this Agreement. Providers
requiring that their personnel operate equipment shall, within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act,
hold harmless, indemnify and defend the user, its officers, agents and employees from all claims arising
solely by reason of any act or failure to act by the provider. Notwithstanding the above, the user shall
bear sole responsibility for ensuring that it has the authority to request the work, for its designs and for
any representations made to the provider regarding site conditions or other aspects of the project.
10. Any party may terminate its participation by providing thirty (30) days written
notice to the other parties. Any amounts due and owing by a terminating party shall continue as a debt
and shall be paid within thirty (30) days of termination.
11. Nothing herein shall be deemed to restrict the authority of any of the parties to
enter into separate agreements governing the terms and conditions for providing services on a specifically
identified project.
12. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of execution by the last signatory
as evidenced on the attached pages.
13. Any public entity not a party to this Agreement when it first becomes effective may
become a party to it by signing the Agreement after being approved by its governing body. Upon the
signing of the Agreement by the additional party and sending a copy of Agreement to all ether parties,
the Agreement shall become binding among all the parties that have signed the Agreement.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
Page 3..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, by the signatures of their authorized representatives, have
executed this Agreement effective on the date shown below each signature.
A E AGENCY
By: By:
ted Name: 16 ~►or Printed Name:
Title: ft-44o Title:
Dater Date:
AGENCY ~d AGENCY
.
B By:
Printed Name' n. e if t. t Printed Name:
Title: • w.: •s> 3'~`I± R.'~ o Title:
De te: L • L~~ Date:
AGENCY a AGENCY
By: By:
Printed Name: t*)t 9 he 2 Printed Name:
Title: ►"~Qon°~t~~-~v:e~~ ~~Rte, Title:
Date: 03 I Date:
AGENCY AGENCY
By: By:
Printed Name: Printed Name:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
111Z! 1~w
AGENDA ITEM m '3' a
For Agenda of
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Transportation Systems Stud Contract
PREPARED BY: Carol Landsman DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE.BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with DKS
Associates consulting firm to conduct a transportation systems study of
Tigard?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council should authorize contract.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This study will review Tigard's transportation network and street
soon classification system and recommend improvements. Street classifications
will consider both function and land use. The study will evaluate the
existing transportation system in light of new development, zoning and policy
changes that have occurred since the transportation plan was adopted in 1984.
This study will provide technical input to the update of the existing
comprehensive plan transportation plan.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL NOTES
This study will cost the City $75,000. It was included in the approved
FY1994 capital projects budget. The funds haire been carried over into this
year's budget.
r
F
Exhibit A
Scope of Fork
Task 0: Kick Off Meeting
A series of issues with the work program require quartifica:ion and agreement as to roles and
responsibilities. The kick off meeting will be used to clarify this scope of work and the particular
roles that the City of Tigard, DKS Associates and other agencies can best fit into. To be effective this
meeting should include City staff for the majority of the meeting with small side meetings with Metro,
Washington County and ODOT staff members to gain other agency information and coordination.
We have assumed this to be one person day for meeting(s).
Product: Confirmation of contract Work Scope.
Task 1: Data Collection/Reconnaissance
There are seven elements of the reconnaissance phase of the Tigard Transportation Systems Study.
Each of these elements requires specific field work, data collection and assembly of past and historical
transportation references.
Traffic Volumes. Traffic counting will be organized into two groups: I)intersection turn movements;
2) 24 hour machine counts. While several intersection counts have been conducted in past studies,
a current, consistent set of information will be necessary for the decision making process of the
System Study. The City will conduct or contract separately for all traffic counting. As a starting
point this could include weekday AM and PM counts along with a weekend counts at 20 to 30
intersections. These counts would include counts of trucks and buses. Machine traffic counts showing
24 hour voltu-nes will be needed over two key screen lines within Tigard and at key gateway locations.
This data will be used to verify Metro modeling information and provide a monitoring mechanism in
the future for measuring system performance. This would include some weekend monitoring. This
could include about 20 count locations, plus any available recent counts from other studies or projects.
Average Vehicle Occupancy. The average vehicle occupancy will be measured at two locations
within Tigard as a system performance measure. These will be two hour counts in the AM, PM and
midday weekday and midday on a Saturday at: Pacific Highway south of Hall, Hall Boulevard south
of Pacific Highway.
Travel Time Surveys. Floating car travel time runs will be made on key Tigard arterials to
benchmark system performance. Three runs will be made in the AM, midday and PM weekday peaks
and on a Saturday afternoon for each corridor. The corridors will include Pacific Highway from the
Tualatin River to I-5, Main/Greenberg from Pacific Highway (south) to Hall Boulevard, Durham Road
from Boones Ferry Road to Pacific Highway Hall Boulevard from 85th Avenue to Scholls Ferry Road,
and 72nd Avenue from Pacific Highway south to Lower Boones. These travel time runs will
document the presence of queuing (both extent and duration - where possible).
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Page 1
Work Plan June 7, 1994
1III,I!!NIII11I11 IN;
LOB
Access Issues. Hall Boulevard represents a key route in Tigard where some form of access
management may be applied. An inventory of driveway conditions will be provided in sections with
number of driveways.
Past Documents. All historical transportation documents for the City of Tigard will be reviewed and
an annotated bibliography of key references will be prepared.
Land Use Data. The City of Tigard land uses will be review and a logical Traffic Analysis Zone
system will be developed working within the Metro zone system (the TAZ's will be subsets of Metro
TAZ's). Land use categories will match material presented in the Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan.
It is assumed that the City staff will provide data for this task, with DKS summarizing
information. THIS IS A ClUTICAL TASK TO THE PROJECT. The future land use data will
build off" two sources: 1) Metro 2010 base forecasts, 2) City Planning records of project under
construction, approved or under planning consideration (using City CIS data). A separate City Build
out scenario will be developed by city staff (working with DKS and potentially building off the 2040
information from Metro).
Network Inventory of Signals, Stop Signs, Lanes. A map showing the locations of existing (on
the ground) signals, stops signs, number of lanes, street classification for the Tigard street network
will be prepared (for arterials and collectors. It is assumed that available information will be
provided by the City staff for this task. This information will be summarized into graphics for the
project report.
Transit Use. Available transit use information will be collected from Tri-Met for key routes in
Tigard. Daily and peak boarding data (as availab.'.e) will be documented.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Activity. Working with City staff, key pedestrian and bicycle activity areas will
be identified within Tigard. The focus of this effort will be to determine where this activity is most
prevalent today and where key activity center are present in town that would have the potential to
generate pedestrian and/or bicycle activity, as it relates to the street network.
Product: The existing conditions will be summarized in a report chapter of the project report. This
chapter will be submitted for initial review prior to assessment of future conditions.
Task 2: Public Meeting.
DKS would attend an open house meeting through the city organized public involvement program.
This meeting would have material about the existing conditions available and be an open forum for
people to casually discuss current issues, problems and the future with city staff and DKS (assumed
three people from DKS). The intent would be to document issues raised by the community.
Task 3: Review Street Classification System.
The current adopted system will be reviewed and recommendations will be identified to incorporate
modifications. The street classification review would occur in a four step process. First, DKS would
prepare a summary of current "state-of-the-art" in street classification systems. This would include
a summary of adjacent jurisdictions classifications and how they, match at city limits, comparisok of
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Page 2
Work Plan June 7, 1994
01
various categories and outline of recent regional work in classification. Second, the city would collect
all comments and issues raised regarding street classification over the past several years from citizens,
staff, comi..unity groups, planning commissioners and city council members. This list would provide
an statement of concerns from the community. Third, a workshop with between DKS and city staff
would be conducted to review information collected and discuss the objectives and requirements of
the street classification system. Cases where roadway function does not match classification will be
outlined. Conversely, oppoartualties will be identified to encourage consistent use of streets, eg.
keeping local trips on local streets. Fourth, a recommended street classification system will be
developed with a map and summary table of characteristics for each classification based on criteria
which may include mode, land use and function. The classification will consider both functional use
and land use in developing guidelines for each classification. Design, cross section, spacing, traffic
control, speed, speed control, volume and access guidelines for each classification will be developed.
The current City of Tigard code will be reviewed to identify conflicts. Specific classifications which
clarify details of local streets will be identified (for example, various applications for local streets).
Level of service standards will be defined as suits the needs of Tigard.
Product: A chapter of the project report will be prepared regarding functional classification of Tigard
streets. This memo can be used by City staff in community meetings for review of concepts.
Task 4: Street System Analysis
The street system analysis task will be conducted identifying needs in four primary areas: vehicle
traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, transit. Identifying links to/from Tigard activity centers will be the
primary assessment. City staff will assist in the definition of activity centers (ie. Washington Square,
schools, civic center, etc...).
The vehicle traffic analysis will focus on two scenarios: 1) 2010 fixture Metro forecast and 2) full
Tigard buildout on top of either the regional 2010 or 2040 base. Land use from task 1 will be an
input. A vacant lands assessment will be performed to assess where if land use changes can in these
areas could influence traffic requirements (use Tigard GIS data). finis will, be documented in a memo
prior to the traffic analysis. Scope modifications may be necessary if further alternatives analysis is
requested to test various land use combinations.
Traffic Forecast: The traffic analysis will build off the Regional 2010 modeling framework. Two
tiers of analysis will be performed: i) link analysis to determine general circulation deficiencies, 2)
intersection analysis to determine more specific arterial streets needs. To get to collector or some
local streets level of analysis will require working with Metro to do a focus area model of the Tigard
area. The model can address all arterials and collectors and a few local street:; may be added.
Circulation analysis will focus on any local street which may be acting in a general capacity as more
than a local street (DKS and City staff will identify these potential locations in a working meeting
associated with data collection in Task 1). It is assumed that Metro will perform the EMME/2
modeling tasks with assistance from DKS. DKS will provide Metro assistance on TAZs, land use,
network (accuracy of existing model, links and centroid connectors). Metro will produce the existing
area model (calibrated to ground count screenlines produced by DKS), provide plots of traffic
volumes, provide mode split data, some select zone/link assignments, and node to node data. DKS
will take the information and produce link and local intersection level analysis. The City will need
to coordinate their planning assistance funds with Metro and Washington County for this talk.
AM% City of Tigard Tmnsporiation systerns Study Page 3
Work Plan June 7, 1994
N't
Study of Link Connections: Evaluate up to three circulation connection alternatives in the 2010 and
buildout scenarios. These link connections may include past proposals which the city has discussed
by not formalled adopted. Evaluation will focus of traffic projections and analysis of the connections
` and potential improvements over base conditions.
Focus Issues. Based upon input from City staff, focused assessments will be performed to discuss
and review issues which will need resolution working with staff and community groups. Many of
these issues have been remained topics of discussion for some time. The intent of DKS work will be
to collect information regarding the issues and relate them to the City circulation and how they fit (or
do not fit) into the circulation plan for the city. These issues play be documented in a question and
answer fo*mat with some analysw t ouppvi< %AW rU&41 i11WLIWAl. One area G study includes the
identification of where transportation/land use conflicts exist within Tigard. More specific issues
include (,there were eight issues identified for budgeting): 1) ORE 217 split diamond, 2) Oaarde Street
Extension, 3) LL-J&--g Ash to Walnut, 4) Loop Ramp from CARE 99W to Tigard Street, 5) Link
between Hunziker and ;Hall, 6) Hall Extension to the south, 7) BL-11 Mountain Plan area, 8) Metzger
area.
Mitigation. Three analysis scenarios (existing, 2010, buildout) will include assessment of traffic
without improvements and conditions following mitigation (added lanes, turn lanes, connections).
Mitigation measures will be reviewed with City staff and alternatives will be discussed. For analytical
purposes, intersections will be mitigated to 1985 Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service D,
demand-to-capacity ratio 0.90 conditions. Some decisions to recommend improvements may be based
upon other service standards, as defined in this project. Analysis will focus on arterials and collectors
on the basis that if these facilities operate at acceptable service standards, the potential for
neighborhood intrusion, will be significantly reduced.
The outcome of this task will be a chapter in the project report which defines the traffic needs and
mitigation of.pach of the three scenarios. This work will be packaged into the task on the draft project
report.
Task 5: Sensitivity Test of Alternative Mode Mitigation.
DKS will identify, based upon the model data, a sensitivity test for alternative modes. This may
include transit or TDM measures for testing in the network. The Metro model would be re-run to test
the 2010 scenario under a single plan where vehicle trip generation is adjusted downward in Tigard
by the maximum likely condition based upon a series assumptions regarding alternative modes. The
network load plots will be used to measure variations in travel demand. Locations where street
oriented mitigation can be reduced will be identified.
'T'ask 5: Refine Classification System
Adjustments to the street classification system will be made following Task 5. Any technical findings
which would alter the classification system or need for key linkages will be outlined. Consideration
willl be given to land use, mode and function base upon both existing information and findings of task
3 and the analysis findings of task 4 and 5. Recommendations which refine the classification system,
guidelines and maps will be made.
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Page 4
Work Plan June 7, 1994
Task 7: Improvement Costs
Cost estimates for arterial and high level collectors streets will be made for each of the recommended
improvements for the existing, 2010 and buildout scenarios. Costs will be order of magnitude level
estimates for comparison purposes in 1994 dollars (referenced to an Engineering Neµ•s Record Index).
Product: A report chapter on cost estimate methodology, assumptions and approach will be prepared
outlining project costs. Local street cost will not be included in this task. Costs will focus on capital
projects. Operating and maintenance costs will be noted but not estimated, unlc:s City staff has
available information.
Task 8: Develop Draft Street System Plan
DKS will prepare a draft street system plan incorporating the findings of Tasks 1-7. This document
will have chapters on existing conditions, street classification, future land uses, travel forecast,
sensitivity testing, street system needs and mitigation, costs, suggested guidelines for streets a.^d key
questions to be addressed. The product will be a draft report incorporating staff, citizen and
consultant input. This document will go through a limited staff review (project manager) prior to
being submitted.
Product: A project report will be prepared.
.d, Task 9: Response to Comments and Final Technical Document
DKS will respond to comments on the draft report in preparing the final project report. DKS will
respond to one unified set of non-contradictory comments on the draft provided by the city project
manager. Based upon information received, the report will be modified and reissued.
Task 10: Coordination
Meetings: DKS will attend up to three public meetings, two meetings with city policy boards and up
to 10 other working meetings with staff or interested parties (authorized by city) over the course of
the study. If additional meetings become necessary, they will be addressed separately from this scope.
Product Review: Chapters of the project report will be prepared as interim technical memoranda.
These memos will be submitted to the City for review (two bound copies and one reproducible
original). DKS will respond to one set of unified, non-contradictory comments provided by the city
project manager in submitting the final memo for city use (two bound copies and a reproducible
original). All other comments will be collected by the city and forwarded to DKS for incorporation
into the project report. The project report will be prepared in draft format with the same review
process and number of copies as the technical memoranda. Disk copies of the text (WP5.1) and
AutoCAD maps will be provided, if requested.
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Pagw 5
work Plan June 7, 1994
Tigard Transportation Systems Study 07-Jun-94
DKS Associates
Budget Estimate
Staff Hours
Project Engineer/ TOTAL TASK
Tasks Manager Planner Graphics Support HOURS Expenses BUDGET
0-Meeting 4 4 8 $50 $670
1-Volumes 1 4 5 $0 $305
1-AVO 1 4 5 $480 $785
~1-II Surveys 2 80 2 16 100 $300 $5,090
~1-Accuse 1 8 2 11 $50 $655
t--
f1-Land Use 12 80 8 16 116 $150 $6;290
! 1-Notwork 2 24 4 30 $50 $1,660
1 -Other Data 1 16 _ 17 $20 $925
j2-Meeting 4 4 2 10 $30 $750
1 3-Classification 30 100 8 8 146 $5,500 $14,290
4-Analysis 40 160 4 16 220 $2,500 $15,380
15-Sensitivity 4 20 2 26 $500 $1,980
6-Relinement 20 40 4 4 68 $50 $4,470
7-Costs 24 32 4 60 $250 $4,490
8-DraltPlan 20 60 16 40 136 $250 $7,350
9-Rosponse 8 20 6 8 42 $20 $2,400
10-Coordination 40 30 24 12 106 $250 $7,510
TOTAL 214 686 80 126 1106 $10,450 $75,000
R, 11,111 2 1
4
Tigard Transportation System Plan
Schedule
DKS Associates
Task Jul August September October November December ).I-- Fcbr ry March
I -Data
< r :MO.
COl1CCLlOn
J.t;7 R' Z.
2-1VIeeLln8
77
3-Classification a':' ^%avi»#:'•>
4-Analysis
5-Sensitivity
6-Refinement
7-Costs
8-Draft Plan
9-Response
PLAN
nm/::uun/tigard/up~ ~.-hedule
Miss=
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT TITLE: Tigard Transoortation Systems Study
Ttii~ ...d ent r,,A t~fbll~ 1n~i
~.~i3lcc.ic.1, Mat-40 :.ac cv cc vv,a 6i ctG cc c:~ : .,v~ of July ]d: by and between
the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon hereinafter
called 'CITY' and DIES ASSOCIATES, 921 SW Washington Street; Si,itA 612, Portland,
Oregon 97205-2824, hereinafter called 'CONSULTANT', duly authorized to perform
such services in Oregon.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City requires services which Consultant is capable of providing,
under terms and conditions hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, Consultant is able and prepared to provide such services as City does
hereinafter require, under those terms and conditions set forth; now, therefore,
IN CONSIDERATION of those mutual promises and the terms and conditions set
forth hereafter, the parties agree as follows:
1. Protect Description
Consultant's services under this contract shall consist of the foliowing:
A. Consultant shall perform personal services, as outlined in the
Consultant's scope of work dated June 7, 1994, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. This reference includes the schedule and budget
estimate attachments to the Scope of Work. The project for
which services are to be provided is known as the Tigard
Transportation Systems Study.
B. The project shall be completed in general conformance with
the schedule contained in the above referenced attachment.
C. The time of completion shall be as outlined in the attached
scope of work.
CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES JULY 7, IM
DKS/nGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STUDY PAGE 1 OF 7
2. Compensation
A. The City agrees to pay Consultant a maximum fee of
$75,000.00 for performance of those basic services provided
herein, as set forth under the attached fee schedule.
Payments are due upon receipt of Consultant's monthly
invoices.
B. Payment by the City shall reieose the City from any further
obligation for payment to Consultant for service or services
performed or expenses Incurred as of the date of the
statement of services. Payment shall not be considered
acceptance or approval of any work or waiver of any defects
therein.
C. There shall be no additional payment to Consultant beyond
the maximum fee identified in paragraph 2A for additions to
the scope of work identified in 'Task O: Mck Off Meeting' or
during performance of the scope of work by Contractor
without prior written approval from the City.
3. Consultant Identification
Consultant shall furnish to the City the Consultant's employer
identification number, as designated by the Internal Revenue Service,
or Consultant's Social Security number, as City deems applicable.
4. City's Representative
For purposes hereof, the City's authorized representative will be the
Long Range Senior Planner, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
97223-8199, (503) 639-4171.
5. Consultant's Representative
For purposes hereof, the Consultant's authorized representative will
be Ransford S. McCourt, P.E./Principal of DKS Associates, 921 SW
Washington Street, Suite 612, Portland, Oregon 97205-2824;
(503) 243-3500.
CONTRACT FOR POWNAL SERVICES JULY 7.1994
DKS/MGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STUDY PACE 2 OF 7
EM
6. Consultant Is Independent Contractor
A. Consultant's services shall be provided under the general
supervision of City's project director or his or her designee, but
Consultant shall be an independent contractor for all purposes
and shall be entitled to no compensation other than the
compensation provided for under Section 2A.
B. In the event Consultant is to perform the services described in
this Contract without the assistance of others, Consultant
hereby agrees to file a joint declaration with City to the effect
that Consultant's services are those of an independent
contractor, as provided under Chapter 864 Oregon Laws, 1979.
C. Consultant acknowledges that for all purposes related to this
agreement, Consultant is and shall be deemed to be an
independent contractor and not an employee of City, shall
not be entitled to benefits of any kind to which an employee
of the City is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all
payments and taxes required by law; and furthermore in the
event that Consultant is found by a court of law or an
administrative agency to be an employee of the City for any
purpose, City shall be entitled to offset compensation due and
to demand repayment of any amounts paid to Consultant
under the terms of the agreement, to the full extent of any
benefits or other remuneration Consultant receives (from City
or third party) as a result of said finding and to the full extent
of any payments that City is required to make (to Consultant
or to a third party) as a result of said finding.
D. The undersigned Consultant hereby represents that no
employee of the City of Tigard, or any partnership or
corporation in which a City employee has an interest, has or
will receive any remuneration of any description from the
Consultant, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the
letting or performance of this contract, except as specifically
declared in writing.
7. Subcontracts - Assignment & Delegation
A. Consultant shall submit a list of subcontractors for approval by the
City, and Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts or
omissions of any subcontractors and of all persons employed by
them, and neither the approval by City of any subcontractor nor
anything contained herein shall be deemed to create any
contractual relation between the subcontractor and City.
CONIRACr POR PSWNAL SERVICES JULY 7.1994
DKS/nGARD MANSPORMION SYSIIMS SIVDY PAGE 3 OF 7
S. This agreement, and all of the covenants and conditions
hereof, shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the
City and the Consultant respectively and their legal
representatives. Consultant shall not assign any rights nor
delegate any duties Incurred by this contract, or any part
hereof without the wriften consent of City, and any assignment
or delegation In violation hereof shall be void.
0. Cva wa.ana.anr a Employees > .
The Consultant agrees to pay promptly as due, to any person,
copartnership, association or corporation furnishing medical, surgical, and
hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to sickness or
injury to the Consultant's employees all sums which the Consultant agreed
to pay for such services and all monies and sums which the Consultant
collected or deducted from employee wages pursuant to any law,
contract or agreement for providing or paying for such service.
9. Early Termination
A. This agreement may be terminated without cause prior to the
expiration of the agreed upon term by mutual written consent
of the parties and for the following reasons authorized by ORS
279.32.
1. If work under the Contract is suspended by an order of
a public agency for any reason considered to be in the
public interest other than by a labor dispute or by
reason of any third party judicial proceeding relating to
the work other than a suit or action filed in regard to a
labor dispute; or
2. If the circumstances or conditions are such that it is
impracticable within a reasonable time to proceed with
a substantial portion of the Contract.
B. Payment of Consultant shall be as provided by ORS 279.330
and shall be prorated to and include the day of termination
and shall be in full satisfaction of all claims by Consultant
against City under this Agreement.
C. Termination under any provision of this paragraph shall not
affect any right, obligation, or liability of Consultant or City
which accrued prior to -such termination.
CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES JULY 7, 1994
D"ITEGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SnMY PAGE 4 OF 7
10. Cancellation for Cause
City may cancel all or any part of this Contract if Consultant
breaches any of the terms hereof or in the event of any of the
following: insolvency of Consultant; voluntary or involuntary petition
in bankruptcy by or against Consultant; appointment of a receiver
or trustee for Consultant, or an assignment for benefit of creditors of
Consultant. Damages for breach shall be those allowed by Oregon
Law, reasonable and necessary attorney's fees, and other costs of
litigation at trial and upon appeal.
11. Access to Records: Ownership of Work Product
A. City shall have access to such books, documents,
papers and records of Consultant as are directly
pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making
audits, examinations, excerpts and transcripts.
B. City shall be the owner of all work product produced as a
result of Contractor's performance of this contract.
12. Force Maieure
Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default because
of any delays in completion of responsibilities hereunder due to
causes beyond the control and without fault or negligence on the
part of the party so disenabled, including, but not restricted to, an
act of God or of a public enemy, volcano, earthquake, fire, flood,
epidemic, quarantine, restriction, area-wide strike, freight embargo,
unusually severe weather or delay of subcontractor or suppliers due
to such cause; provided that the party so disenabled shall within ten
(10) days from the beginning of such delay notify the other party in
writing of the causes of delay and its probable extent. Such
notification shall not be the basis for a claim for additional
compensation.
13. Nonwalver
The failure of the City to insist upon or enforce strict performance by
Consultant of any of the terms of this contract or to exercise any
rights hereunder shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment
to any extent of its right to assert or rely upon such terms or rights on
any future occasion.
CONTRACT MR PERSONAL SERVICES JULY 7,1994
OKS/1IGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STMY PAGE 5 OF 7
LIEN
14. A tomey's Fees
In case suit or action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this
contract, the parties agree that the losing party shall pay such sum
as the Court may adjudge reasonable attorney's fees and court
costs including attorney's fees and court costs on appeal to
appellate courts.
15. Applicable Law,
This contract will be _governed by the laws of the State of Oregon.
16. Conflict Between Terms
it is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that
should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and
the proposal of the contractor, this instrument shall control and
nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said
terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.
17. MA,n..u....u:_Ci~.7T~ti
My~ ~ 01 IIIY0n
Consultant agrees to indemnify and to hold harmless the Cq, its Officer's,
Employees and Agents against and from any and all loss, claims, actions, suits,
including costs and attorney fees, for or on account of injury, bodily or otherwise,
to, or death of persons, damage to or destruction of property belonging to City,
Consultant or others, to the extent resulting from, arising out of, or in any way
connected with Consultant's negligence.
18. Insurance
Prior to starting work hereunder, Consultant, at Consultant's cost, shall
secure and continue to carry during the term of this Contract, with
an insurance company acceptable to City, the following insurance:
A. Workers Compensation Insurance for the State of Oregon. ,
B. General Liability Insurance for bodily injury c:nd property
damage having a limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence and in
the annual aggregate.
C. Automobile Liability Insurance having limits of $1,000,000 per
occurrence and in the annual aggregate.
ash
CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES JULY 7, 1994
D"/TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STUDY PAGE 6 OF 7
i
Aft
19. Complete Agreement
This contract and any referenced attachments constitute the
complete agreement between the City and Consultant and
supersedes all prior written or oral discussions or agreements.
CITY OF TIGARD
BY: (A- W 1
ohn Schwartz Date
Mayor
® CONS4JLYA
BY: 2 3vr~E 9~-
Ra McCourt Date
Princ al
h:\ login\ pally\contract.tw
June 22. 1994
CONTRACT. FOR PERSONAL SERVICES - PAGE 7
RIM!
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Task 0: Kick Off Meeting
A series of issues with the work program require, quantification and agreement as to roles and
responsibilities. The kick off meeting will be used to clarify this scope of work and the particular
roles that the City of Tigard, DKS Associates and other agencies can best fit into. To be effective this
meeting should include City staff for the majority of the meeting with small side meetings with Metro,
Washington County and ODOT staff members to gain other agency information and coordination.
We have assumed this to be one person day for meeting(s).
Product: Confirmation of contract Work Scope.
Task b: Data Collection/Reconnaissance
There are seven elements of the reconnaissance phase of the Tigard Transportation Systems Study.
Each of these elements requires specific field work, data collection anal assembly of past and historical
transportation references.
Traffic Volumes. Traffic counting will be organized into two groups: 1)intersection turn movements;
2) 24 hour machine counts. While several intersection counts have been conducted in past studies,
a, current, consistent set of information will be necessary for the decision making process of the
System Study. The City will conduct or contract separately for all traffic counting. As a starting
point this could include weekday AM and PM counts along with a weekend counts at 20 to 30
intersections. These counts would include counts of trucks and buses. Machine traffic counts showing
24 hour volumes will be needed over two key screen lines within Tigard and at key gateway locations.
This data will be used to verify Metro modeling information and provide a monitoring mechanism in
the future for measuring system performance. This would include some weekend monitoring. This
could include about 20 count locations, plus any available recent counts from other studies or projects.
Average Vehicle Occupancy. The average vehicle occupancy will be measured at two locations
within Tigard as a system performance measure. These will be two hour counts in the AM, PM and
midday weekday and midday on a Saturday at: Pacific Highway south of Hall, Hall Boulevard south
of Pacific Highway.
Travel Time Surveys. Floating car travel time rules will be made on key Tigard arterials to
benchmark system performance. Three runs will be made in the AM, midday and PM weekday peaks
and on a Saturday afternoon for each corridor. The corridors will include Pacific Highway from the
Tualatin River to I-5, Main/Greenberg from Pacific Highway (south) to Hall Boulevard, Durham Road
from Boones Ferry Road to Pacific Highway Hall Boulevard from 85th Avenue to Scholls Ferry Road,
and 72nd Avenue from Pacific Highway south to Lower Boones. These travel time runs will
document the presence of queuing (both extent and duration - where possible).
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Page 1
Work Plan June 7, 1994
MINE=
er
J'
Access Issues. Hall Boulevard represents a key route in Tigard where some form of access
management may be applied. An inventory of driveway conditions will be provided in sections with
%or number of driveways.
Past Documents. All historical transportation documents for the City of Tigard will be reviewed and
an annotated bibliography of key references will be prepared.
Land Use Data. The City of Tigard land uses will be reviewed and a logical Traffic Analysis Zone
system will be developed working within the Metro zone system (the TAZ's will be subsets of Metro
TAZ's). Land use categories will match material presented in the Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan.
It is assumed that the City staff will provide data for this task, with DIES summarizing
information. TATS IS A CRITICAL TASK TO THE, PROJECT. rLe ;:lure laa, use data will
build off two sources: 1) Metro 2010 base forecasts, 2) City Planning records of project under
construction, approved or under planning consideration (using City GIS data). A separate City Build
out scenario will be developed by city staff (working with DKS and potentially building off the 2040
information from Metro).
Network Inventory of Signals, Stop Signs, Lanes. A mar showing the locations of existing (on
the ground) signals, stops signs, number of lanes, street classification for the Tigard street network
will be prepared (for arterials and collectors. It is assumed that available information will be
provided by the City staff for this task. This information will be summarized into graphics for the
project report.
Transit Use. Available transit use information will be collected from Tri-Met for key routes in
Tigard. Daily and peak boarding data (as available) will be documented.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Activity. Working with City staff, key pedestrian and bicycle activity areas will
be identified within Tigard. The focus of this effort will be to determine where this activity is most
prevalent today and where key activity center are present in town that would have the potential to
generate pedestrian and/or bicycle activity, as it relates to the street network.
Product: The existing conditions will be summarized in a report chapter of the project report. This
' chapter will be submitted for initial review prior to assessment of future conditions.
Task 2: Public Meeting.
DKS would attend an open house meeting through the city organized public involvement program.
This meeting would have material about the existing conditions available and be an open forum for
people to casually discuss current issues, problems and the future with city staff and DKS (assumed
three people from DKS). The intent would be to document issues raised by the community.
Task 3: Review Street Classification System.
The current adopted system will be reviewed and recommendations will be identified to incorporate
modifications. The street classification review would occur in a four step process. First, DKS would
prepare a summary of current "state-of-the-art" in street classification systems. This would include
a summary of adjacent jurisdictions classifications and how they match at city limits, comparison of
City of Tigard T;mnspoitation Systems Study Page 2
Work Plan June 7, 1994
MEMO !I
L NEROMMEM, i 1 11 ! M 1,
various categories and outline of recent regional work in classification. Second, the city would collect
all comments and issues raised regarding street classification over the past several years from citizens,
a AM, staff, community groups, planning commissioners and city council member,;. This list would provide
a statement of concerns from the community. Third, a workshop between DKS and city staff would
be conducted to review information collected and discuss the objectives and requirements of the street
classification system. Cases where roadway function does not match classification will be outlined.
Conversely, opportunities will be identified to encourage consistent use of streets, eg. keeping local
trips on local streets. Fourth, a recommended street classification system will be developed with a
map and summary table of characteristics for each classification based on criteria which may include
and s •rt.uc , t s n •a L.-,&. c._
mode, t t _a
ode, land use arau aai?aCaivn. a CaaaSiaiCativia -will Coiasiucr uvui auaaCi10 Cu Use and aauu uSe in
developing guidelines for each classification. Design, cross section, spacing, traffic control, speed,
speed control, volume and access guidelines for each classification will be developed. The current
City of Tigard code will be reviewed to identify conflicts. Specific classifications which clarify details
of local streets will be identified (for example, various applications for local streets). Level of service
standards will be defined as suits the needs of Tigard.
Product: A chapter of the project report will be prepared regarding functional classification of Tigard
streets. This memo can be used by City staff in community meetings for review of concepts.
Task 4: Street System Analysis
The street system analysis task will be conducted identifying needs in four primary areas: vehicle
traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, transit. Identifying links to/from Tigard activity centers will be the
primary assessment. City staff will assist in the definition of activity centers (ie. Washington Square,
schools, civic center, etc...).
The vehicle traffic analysis will focus on two scenarios: 1) 2010 future Metro forecast and 2) full
Tigard buildout on top of either the regional 2010 or 2040 base. Land use from task 1 will be an
input. A vacant lands assessment will be performed to assess where if land use changes can in these
areas could influence traffic requirements (use Tigard GIS data). This will be documented in a memo
prior to the traffic analysis. Scope modifications may be necessary if further alternatives analysis is
requested to test various land use combinations.
Traffic Forecast: The traffic analysis will build off the Regional 2010 modeling framework. Two
tiers of analysis will be performed: 1) link analysis to determine general circulation deficiencies, 2)
intersection analysis to determine more specific arterial streets needs. To get to collector or some
local streets level of analysis will require working with Metro to do a focus area model of the Tigard
area. The model can address all arterials and collectors and a few local streets may be added.
Circulation analysis will focus on any local street which may be acting in a general capacity as more
than a local street (DKS and City staff will identify these potential locations in a working meeting
associated with data collection in Task 1). It is assumed that Metro will perform the EMME/2
modeling tasks with assistance from DKS. DKS will provide Metro assistance on TAZs, land use,
r etuvork (accuracy of existing model, links and centroid connectors). Metro will produce the existing
area model (calibrated to ground count screenlines produced by DKS), provide plots of traffic
volumes, provide mode split data, some select zone/link assignments, and node to node data. DKS
will take the information and produce link and local intersection level analysis. The City will need
to coordinate their planning assistance funds with Metro and Washington County for this task.
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Page 3
Work Plan June 7, 1994
Study of Link Connections: Evaluate up to three circulation connee-tion alternatives in the 2010 and
buildout scenarios. These link connections may include past proposals which the city has discussed
but not formally adopted. Evaluation will focus of traffic projections and analysis of the connections
and potential improvements over base conditions.
Focus Issues. Based upon input from City staff, focused assessments will be performed to discuss
and review issues which will need resolution working with staff and community groups. Many of
these issues have remained topics of discussion for some time. The intent of DKS work will be to
collect information regarding the issues and relate them to the City circulation and how they fit (or
do not t) into th a circ:lation plan for the city. These issues may be documented in a question znd
answer format with some analysis to support documentation. One area of study includes the
identification of where transportation/land use conflicts exist within Tigard. More specific issues
include (there were eight issues identified for budgeting): 1) ORE 217 split diamond,. 2) Gaarde Street
Extension, 3) Linking Ash to Walnut, 4) Loop Ramp from ORE 99W to Tigard Street, 5) Link
between Hunziker and Hail, 6) Hall Extension to the south, 7) Bull Mountain Plan area, 8) Metzger
area.
Mitigation. Three analysis scenarios (existing, 2010, buildout) will include assessment of traf is
without improvements and conditions following mitigation (added lanes, turn lanes, connections).
Mitigation measures will be reviewed with City staff and alternatives will be discussed. For analytical
purposes, intersections will be mitigated to 1985 Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service D,
demand-to-capacity ratio 0.90 conditions. Some decisions to recommend improvements may be based
upon other service standards, as defined in this project. Analysis will focus on arterials and collectors
on the basis that if these facilities operate at acceptable service standards, the potential for
neighborhood intrusion will be significantly reduced.
QP The outcome of this task will be a chapter in the project report which defines the traffic needs and
mitigation of each of the three scenarios. This work will be packaged into the task on the draft project
report.
Task 5: Sensitivity Test of Alternative Mode Mitigation.
DKS will identify, based upon the model data, a sensitivity test for alternative modes. This may
include transit or TDM measures for testing in the network. The Metro model would be re-run to test
the 2010 scenario under a single plan where vehicle trip generation is adjusted downward in Tigard
by the maximum likely condition based upon a series assumptions regarding alternative modes. The
network load plots will be used to measure variations in travel demand. Locations where street
oriented mitigation can be reduced will be identified.
Task 6: Refine Classification System
Adjustments to the street classification system will be made following Task 5. Any technical findings
which would alter the classification system or reed for key linkages will be outlined. Consideration
willl be given to land use, mode and function base upon both existing information and findings of task
3 and the analysis findings of task 4 and 5. Recommendations which refine the classification system,
guidelines and maps will be made.
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Page 4
Work Plan June 7, 1994
E511 1 lag
Task 7: Improvement Costs
40 Cost estimates for arterial and high level collector streets will be made for each of the recommended
improvements for the existing, 2010 and buildout scenarios. Costs will be order of magnitude level
estimates for comparison purposes in 1994 dollars (referenced to an Engineering News Record Index).
Product: A report chapter on cost estimate methodology, assumptions and approach will be prepared
outlining project costs. Local street cost will not be included in this task. Costs will focus on capital
projects. Operating and maintenance costs will be noted but not estimated, unless City staff has
available information.
Task S: Develop Draft Street System Plan
DKS will prepare a draft street system plan incorporating the findings of Tasks 1-7. This document
will have chapters on existing conditions, street classification, future land uses, travel forecast,
sensitivity testing, street system needs and mitigation, costs, suggested guidelines for streets and key
questions to be addressed. The product will be a draft report incorporating staff, citizen and
consultant input. This document will go through a limited staff review (project manager) prior to
being submitted.
Product: A project report will be prepared.
Task 9: response to Comments and Final Technical Document
DKS will respond to comments on the draft report in preparing the final project report. DKS will
c _ ~ r
rCSpUIIU W Vl/e UlllLlCld JCl Vl - 11-U11--CUlI _'_-ViUty " __r 1:VUarner`w s v use ' a u►""aa~ p►vv,uC` rovidew1- the -;tv nrniart
'UiILLIU00or. u
manager. Based upon information received, the report will be modified and reissued.
Task 10: Coordination
Meetings: DKS will attend up to three public meetings, two meetings with city policy boards and up
to 10 other working meetings with staff or interested parries (authorized by city) over the course of
the study. If additional meetings become necessary, they will be addressed separately from this scope.
Product Review: Chapters of the project report will be prepared as interim technical memoranda.
These memos will be submitted to the City for review (two bound copies and one reproducible
original). DKS will respond to one set of unified, non-contradictory comments provided by the city
project manager in submitting the final memo for city use (two bound copies and a reproducible
original). All other comments will be collected by the city and forwarded to DKS for incorporation
into the project report. The project report will be prepared in draft format with the same review
process and number of copies as the technical memoranda. Disk copies of the text (WP5.1) and
AutoCAD maps will be provided, if requested.
City of Tigard Transportation Systems Study Page 5
Work Plan June 7, 1994
Tigard Transportation Systems Study 07-Jun-94
DKS Associates
Budget Estimate
Staff Hours
Project Engineer/ TOTAL TASK
Tasks Manager Planner Graphics Support HOURS Expenses BUDGET
0-Meeting 4 4 8 $50 $670
1-Volumes 1 4 5 $0, $305
1-AVO 1 4 5 $480 $785
1-TT Surveys 2 80 2 16 100 $300 $5,090
1-Access 1 8 2 11 $50 $655
1-Land Use 12 80 8 16 116 $150 $6,290
1-Network 2 24 4 30 $50 $1,660
1-Other Data 1 16 17 $20 $925
2-Meeting 4 4 2 10 $30 $750
3-Classification 30 100 8 8 146 •$5,500 $14,290
4-Analysis 40 160 4 16 220 $2,500 $15,360
5-Sensitivity 4 20 2 26 $500 $1,900
6-Refinement 20 40 4 4 68 $50 $4,470
7-Costs 24 32 4 60 $250 $4,490
8-Draft Plan 20 60 16 40 136 $250 $7,350
9-Response 8 20 6 8 42 $20 $2,400
10-Coordination 40 30 24 12 106 $250 $7,510
ITOTAL 214 686 80 126 1106 $10,450 $75,000
Tigard Transportation System Plan
Schedule
DKS Associates
Task July AoCw September October November December JaA=ry February March
d ~ <
I-Data I' V s':
Collection
2-Meeting
3-Classification
' TYf~k5{..,'T.. v...{. 'c'6EY'{+{ii!~J~v: :'A~f.:•Y.~~'rf`•'2
4-Analysis
'aye.. »:~'~,.^~av
: ~fA:.F:.a.'{{cf
6-Refinement
7-Costs r<.s 2a^g:
8-Draft Plan :>.s?
9-Response
PLAN <>f <";
amre:ueenlt;gaed/tspJochedule
' i
AGENDA ITEM # 3, 4
For Agenda of July 12, 1994 _
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorize completion of ra ert transactions for Gaarde
Street project. _
PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Completion of property transactions for the Gaarde Street project.
STAFF RECOIL r-l' =TIv"y
Authorize the City Administrator to sign documents necessary to transfer
ownership of the property described on the attached documents to the owners
of the adjoining property.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In 1991 agreements were negotiated for the purchase of right of way for the
realignment of Gaarde Street at Pacific Highway. As part of those
negotiations, it was agreed that a small portion of the property purchased
from the Elmer's Restaurant property would be deeded to the small retail
center to the north of the new street. This arrangement helped to reduce the
,costs to the project and provided some additional parking area for the retail
center. Construction of the new street separated this small parcel from the
restaurant site. The parcel is not needed for the street nor for any other
City purpose.
Based on this arrangement, agreements were signed and funds were placed in
escrow with a title company to complete this and other necessary property
transactions for the project. Due to other complications, the title company
is just now completing the work. In order to complete the process, it is
necessary for the Council to formally authorize the disposal of the property.
This is "special-case property" per TMC 3.44.020, having been acquired for a
capital improvement and subject to an agreement for the manner in.which any
surplus would be disposed. Hence, no public hearing is required for this
disposal of property.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL NOTES
All associated costs have previously been paid from road bond funds.
Orw/gaarde
11111110 111 Ili III
After recording return document and send tax statement to:
Harry E. Jeffery and Judith A Jeffery
13975-A S.W. Pacific Highway
Tigard, Oregon 97223
WARRANTY DEED - STATUTORY FORM
The City of Tigard, grantor, conveys and warrants to Harry E. Jeffery and Judith A. Jeffery,
Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set
forth herein, situated in Washington County, Oregon, to-wit:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township ,2 South, Range
1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of
Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the westerly line of the Pacific Highway with the south
line of said Section 3 as platted on, County Survey number 18247, a duly recorded
survey with Washington County, thence North 89°56'00" West a distance of 70.0 feet
to a point; thence North 51 °07'29" West a distance 133.85 feet to the Gaarde Park
Subdivision. a duly recorded plat with Washington County and being the true point of
beginning; thence along said line South 38°52'29" West, 43.47 feet to a point; thence
South 79°03'19" East, 76.00 feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve 15.95 feet
with radius of 320 feet, through an included angle of 2°51'20" (chord bearing South
80°41'48" East, 15.95 feet) to a point of non-non-tangency; thence North 51 °07'29"
West, 81.02 feet to the point of beginning, consisting of 1776 square feet more or less.
Reserving, however, unto the Grantor, its successors and assigns, the following: NONE
THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS
INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON
ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED
USES.
The said property is free from encumbrances except Conditions, Restrictions, Restrictive
Covenants and Easements of Record, if any.
The true consideration for this conveyance is $ NONE, however, the actual consideration
consists of or includes other property. or value given or promised which is the whole
consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged (As specified per the requirements of ORS
93.030.)
rZ:
lam=
Done by order of the grantor's board of directors with its corporate seal affixed on
199'y
The City of Tigard, Oregon
b -
ame a~pfttle
~J
Name and Title
State of Oregon )
)ss
Count<.1 of Washington )
On this - day og ^ 1994, before me, the undersigned, a rotary Public
in and for said County and State, personally appeared the within named
A-& ~ - f2gLi-& aa~ who 'ae known to be the
- ^f the above
nam City of Tigard, and acknowledged that executed the same freely and voluntarily for
the purposes therein contained.
IN VMNE,SS WIMEOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year last above written.
OFFICIAL S :AL
M. JOANN SAYES
\y ' r: NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION 00.006513 Notary blic for Oregon
MY COMMIGSION EXPIPts MAY 5. 1995 My Commission Expires: S
PLEASE NOTE
I
It is necessary that this document be signed and
acknowledged before a Notary Public.
Please sign your name exactly as it is typewritten.
WARRANTY DEED / Jeff
901 CHICAGO TITLE
F.6594
goo
Samos
ypp,,:~
• SE $ Sect. 3 and NE $ Sect.. 101 T2 S., W-NG
FJ► DESCRIBED IN Do-+ A `
M cD CAN ALD STREET
IT
Ml I
[Al kill Nam- Ifflum- all IN
IN i, 1,10115
JIM 11
Chicago Title Insurance Co. July 1, 1994
9900 SW GREENBURG RD.
PORTLAND, OR 97223 Escrow No. 320008309 NL
Phone 684-8954
Fax Nancy LaFontaine
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd. 199
1U~
Tigard, OR 97223
Attn: Dianne or Gary CON►~ON1~ OEyELOPN►ENZ
RE: Seller: CITY OF TIGARD
Borrower: HARRY E. JEFFER'Y
Property: 2S1 10AA 02801
Washington Cty
amaagassaaaaaaaaaaaaxaaaaaooaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.aaaa..o aaaaaaaaaaaaaacaaaaaaaaaaa.
Enclosed are the following documents for your review and signature on the sale and
purchase of Washington County Property:
(1) Closing Statements
(2) Escrow Instructions
(3) Warranty Deed - MUST BE SIGNED BY AUTHORIZED REPRSENTATIVE IN THE PRESENCE
OF A NOTARY PUBLIC
(4) ALTA Affidavit - please date and SIGN IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC.
(5) Title Reports for reference
Your prompt attention to this signing is appreciated. Please call our office when
documents are signed in order for us to arrange for special pick up
and don't hesitate to call me should you have any questions. Thank you.
Warm Regards,
CHICAGO TITLE INS
Nancy LaFontaine, Escrow Officer
NL:nl
Encs.
i
I
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
SELLERS ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT STATEMENT
Seller: CITY OF TIGARD Escrow No.: 320008309 NL
Order No.: 112546
Buyer: HARRY E. JEFFERY
JUDITH A. JEFFERY
Property 2S1 10AA 02801
H.7A.-nea . Wa a}+'~ ne~rt nn ('1-v
Escrow Officer: Nancy LaFontaine Date: 06/30/94
Charges Credits
Recording of Deed 53.00
Recording of Reconveyance 68.00
Title Insurance to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO 200.00
scrow/Closing Fee to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO 275.00
Service Fee to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE 15.00
Deposit by City
Chicago Title Ins 957.00
Refund
City of Tigard 346.00
iNU ADJUSTMENTS FOR PROPERTY TAXES THRU CLOSING.
Sub-totals 957.00 957.00
Balance due to Seller 0.00
Estimated Totals 957.00 957.00
The above figures are estima ed and subject to adjustments prior to the disbursement of
f-tands.
CITY O TIGARD
litigg
LIEN AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF OREGON D Chicago Title Insurance Co.
)as
County of LJ rh;- ) POLICY NO. 112546
"he ennP
I/.c, rt75.yTxed, uaxucs v$tix, otE.t2:
1. I/We have no knowledge of any liens, judgments, taxes, or other
monetary encumbrances which are liens on the subject property
with the exception of those listed in the above mentioned title
report dated 11/10/93;
2. I/we have not been notified of any intent to assess the subject
property by any city, county or state agency.
Subject property is described as:
(Continued)
v
CITY F TT
Subscribed and sworn to before me IS, 1gg4
i Date
IL s.ra
Vi AA Notary lic for Oregon
My commission expires: T 11g
PLEASE NOTE
OFFICIALSE necessary that this document be signed and
M.JOANNH it is NOTARY PUBLIC-0 Public.
iedged before a Notary rewritten.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES M. acknoW
please sign year name exactly as it is typewritten.
rtIICAGO TITLF- F.6594
54
Order No: 112546
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1
West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon,
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of the Pacific Highway with the South
line- of said Section 3 as platted on County Survey number 18247, a duly recorded survey wit
Washington County, thence North 89°56'00" West a distance of 70.0 feet to a point; thence
a,
North 51007129" West a distance of 133.85 feet to the GAARDE PARK Subdivision, a duly
recorded plat with Washington County and being the true point of beginning; thence along
said line South 38052129" West, 43.47 feet to a point; thence South 790031191, East, 76.00
feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve 15.95 feet with radius of 320 feet,
through an included angld of 2051120" (chord bearing South 80041148" East, 15.95 feet) to a
point of non-tangency; thence North 51007129" West, 81.02 feet to the true point of
beginning.
ESCROW AGREEMENT
(SELLER)
Chicago Title Insurance Co. ESCROW NO. 320008309 NL
00 SW GREENEURG RD. ESCROW OFFICER Nancy LaFontaine
RTLAND, OR 97223 DATE: June 30, 1994
A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
TO: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, ('Escrow Agent").
Property Description: (as shown in Preliminary Title Report issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
CO. under Order No. 112546 dated 11/10/93, a copy of which has been received and approved
by the undersigned.)
SELLER deposits with you under these instructions the following:
an executed ?warranty Deed and Affidavit
and authorizes delivery, release and recording thereof when you hold for the account of Seller
the sum of $ plus and minus credits and deductions authorized herein.
8. PAYMENTS: Seller agrees to pay and authorizes payment and deduction from and credit to
the gross sum above specified in accordance with the Seller's Tentative Escrow Statement
attached hereto and made a part hereof. Items shown on the Tentative Escrow Statement may be
adjusted to accommodate exact amounts required at the time of disbursement.
C. PRORATE: It is understood that water, sewer, waste collection, electricity and other
utility charges and inventory for fuel will be adjusted between Seller and Purchaser outside
Qis escrow. Escrow Agent shall prorate as of July 1, 1994
e following items: There are no prorations thru this escrow
and charge or credit Seller's account accordingly. Assume a 365-day year in any prorate
herein provided and unless the parties otherwise instruct, use the amount contained in the
last available tax statement (which may include reductions based on any deferral or exemption),
rental statement as provided by the seller, lender's statement, and fire insurance policies
delivered into escrow for the prorate provided above. In the event any lender's statement
reveals a deposit, account or funds for a future payment obligation of the loan, adjust
accordingly.
D. RECORDING: Escrow Agent will record/file the necessary legal instruments and then pay off
such encumbrances of record as may exist at time of recording/filir_g such instruments, and
shall not be responsible for liens attaching after said date. Escrow Agent may utilize the
procedure authorized by ORS 86.720 for reconveyance of any trust deed(s) to be paid and hereby
waives any right to notice pursuant to the provisions of said statute. Seller hereby
acknowledges that they have and shall have continuing obligations to cooperate with Escrow Agen
in good faith to enable Escrow Agent to fulfill its responsibilities under this agreement.
Such obligations of Seller shall survive the closing of the transaction described herein and
shall include, without limitation, the obligation to (i) disclose to Escrow Agent any liens,
encumbrances or any other rights, claims or matters known to Seller which affect or relate to
the property and transactions referred to in this agreement, and (ii) return to Escrow Agent
for proper disposition of any funds, documents or other property which are for any reason
improperly or mistakenly released to Escrow Agent or to Seller.
AM~ accordance with the lender's instructions, Escrow Agent is authorized to place on the public
Word any documents required by such lender to secure its lien on the subject premises.
Escrow Agent is further authorized to comply with its instructions to record such documents
prior to receiving the funds required to be disbursed by the lender pursuant to the loan
agreement.
RECITALS
E. ELECTRONIC TRANSFER: Escrow Agent may, in its discretion, receive and/or disburse any
funds in connection with this escrow by electronic (wire) transfer.
F. COPIES: When requested to do so, copies of the Escrow Instructions and Closing Statement
showing disbursements, in accordance with these instructions, may be delivered to the Real
Estate Agent who consummated the transaction, the mortgagee or its agent or to my attorney.
i
A. DBPOSITS: All Checks, money orders or drafts will be processed for collection in the
normal course of business. Escrow Agent may co-mingle funds received by it in escrow with
escrow funds of others, and may, without limitation, deposit such funds it its custodial or
A9kcrow accounts with any reputable trust company, bank, savings bank, savings association, or
Mflher financial services entity, including any affiliate of Escrow Agent. it is understooe
that Escrow Agent shall be under no obligation to invest the funds deposited with it on behalf
of any depositor, nor shall it be accountable for any earnings or incidental benefit
attributable to the funds which may be received by Escrow Agent while it holds such funds.
Seller is hereby informed that Escrow Agent deposits all funds inco a non-interest bearing
account and receives or may receive certain credits and benefits including, but not limited to
checks, deposit slips, data processing and account services from or through various banks as a
result of the banking relationships maintained in the regular course of its escrow and title
insurance business. Seller waives any and all rights or claims with respect to such credits
and benefits received by the Escrow Agent or any affiliates thereof.
A good faith estimate of the benefits received (based on 1991 activity) is $32.65 per escrow
transaction. This disclosure is made in compliance with Or won Administ ive Rule 863-50-065.
I (We) acknowledge receipt of the above disclosure. /
8. CLOSING: For purposes of this agreement, Escrow Agents 11 have mpleted the closing
at such time as documents necessary to transfer title and/cr create the security interest
required for.funding have been accomplished.
Immediately following closing, as defined herein, Escrow Agent shall be entitled to payment of
all fees charged for services provided. Any funds held for satisfactions/release of liens and
encumbrances which have been paid through this escrow may be transferred from the account
rein to the appropriate department for processing.
,U I MIM
IRV ACCOUNTING: Title Accounting Services Corp., an Oregon corporation (TASC), will retain
any excess funds after disbursement of the closing escrow and will make all reasonable effort
to forward those funds to person(a) entitled thereto. TASC will charge an accounting fee of
$10.00 and will charge an additional fee oc $10.00 for each additional month the funds are
held in the event person(s) entitled to such funds cannot, after reasonable and diligent effort
be located.
J. TZ&M: These instructions shall be binding on Escrow Agent until the close of business on
30 days from date hereon and be performed within said period unless written demand by the
Seiler is made upon Escrow Agent for the revocation hereof; any such written notice shall be
effective upon receipt of such notice. If these instructions have not been revoked prior to
expiration of such 30-day period, Escrow Agent shall have the option of performing in
accordance with these instructions.
K. ARBITRATION: Except as noted in paragraph (2) below, if any dispute or claim arises out
of or relates to this agreement, or to the interpretation or breach, thereof, Escrow Agent may
at its election, (i) hold all matters in its existing status pending resolution of such dispute
or (ii) it shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the then effective arbitration
rules of Arbitration Service of Portland, Inc. or the American Arbitration Association,
whichever organization is selected by the party which first initiates arbitration by filing a
claim in accordance with the filing rules of the org~nization selected, and any judgment upon
the award rendered pursuant to such arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
AMkthe event suit or action is brought, or an arbitration proceeding is initiated, to enforce
interpret any of the provisions of this agreement, or which is based thereon, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in connection therewith. The
determination of who is the prevailing party and the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to
be paid to the prevailing party shall be decided by the arbitrator(s) (with respect to
attorney's fees incurred prior to and during the arbitration proceedings) and by the court or
courts, including the court which bears any exceptions made to an arbitration award submitted
to it for confirmation as a judgment (with respect to attorney's fees incurred in such
confirmation proceedings).
(2) In the event of any dispute over the disposition of an earnest money deposit held by
Escrow Agent less than $2,500.00, Escrow Agent shall have the option of interpleading said
fund in the District Court or Small Claims Division of the same.
r'
EXCLUSIONS
L. VARIOUS: Escrow Agent has no liability or responsibility with respect to any matters
connected with the following (unless expressly au:;horized herein) ; (1) Compliance with
quirements of the Consumer Credit Protoction Act or. Inter-State Land Sales Act, or similar
OWS; (a) compliance with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes 537.330 (related to
water rights) and any similar laws; (3) Compliance with the requirements of Oregon Revised
Statutes 448.271 (Related to Well Testing) and any similar laws; (4) Title to any personal
property, or encumbrances thereon, including, but not limited to, personal property taxes,
sales tax, instruments filed under the Uniform Commercial Code, water rights, or leased
equipment on premises; (5) Forgerieg or false personation of any parson or party in connection
with these instructions or this escrow.
M. FIRPTA: Escrow Agent assumes no liability or responsibility for the collection, withholding
reporting or payment of any amounts due under Section 1445 and 6839C of the Internal Revenue
Code, as amended, and regulations adopted thereunder (commonly called FIRPTA). Escrow Agent
is not the agent of the parties for purposes of law and/or regulation and Escrow Agent has made
no representation concerning the effect of such law and/or regulation on any party to escrow.
Any determination of whether the withholding or payment of any tax is due pursuant to such law
and/or regulation shall be made by the parties outside of escrow and Escrow Agent hereby advise
each party to contact his or her attorney or tax advisors regarding any questions on the
applicability of such law and/or regulation to this transaction. Notwithstanding the fact that
Escrow Agent assumes no liability or responsibility to the parties for compliance with Section
1445 and 6039C of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations adopted thereunder (commonly called
FIRPTA), Escrow Agent reserves the right to take any action required of it said law and/or
regulation without further instruction by the parties to this escrow.
N. PRACTICE OF LAW: Seller has been specifically informed that Escrow Agent is not licensed
to practice law and no legal advice has been offered by Escrow Agent or any of its employees.
ller has been further informed that Escrow Agent is acting only as an escrow holder and is
bidden by law to offer any advice to any party respecting the merits of this transaction or
nature of the instruments utilized, and that is has not done so.
.1
0. ADVICE: Seller has not been referred by Escrow Agent to any named attorney or attorneys or
discouraged from seeking advice cf an attorney but has been requested to seek legal counsel of
its own choosing at its own expense, if Seller has doubts concerning any aspect of this
transaction.
P. DOCUBONTS: Seller further declares all inst~ rna.. s which it ie a party,. if prepared
by Escrow Agent, have been prepared under the direction of its attorney or itself and
particularly declares that copying legal descriptions from title reports into forms of deeds,
etc. or refo:anina of legal descriptions or agreements is, or will be solely at its direction
and request.
Q. REl'IEW: Seller has been afforded adequate time and opportunity to read and understand the
escrow instructions and all other documents referred to therein.
R. TAXPAYER M.D.: Seller is required by law to provide Escrow Agent with a correct taxpayer
identification number. If it is not provided, Seller ma• be subject to civil or criminal
penalties imposed by law.
Under penalty of perjury, seller(s) certify that the number shown on this statement is
his/her/their correct taxpayer identification number.
r DISBURSEHENT: Proceeds of this escrow will be disbursed by check payable to the parties
as their names are signed hereon, and checks and documents shall be mailed to the addresses
set forth in these instructions.
Disbursement of any funds due Seller is to be done as follows:
MAIL TO SELLER: DEPOSIT TO ACCOUNT # HOLD FOR PICKUP:
Forwarding Address:
T. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONSx ( ? See attached ( None
U. Seller acknowledges that all terms and conditions of the earnest money agreement, amendment
ddenda thereto, have been complied with to the satisfaction of Seller or will be complied
outside of escrow.
V. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES SIGNING THE ABOVM ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS OR THOSE ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE ATTACHED HERETO THAT SUCH INSTRUCTIONS CONSTXTUTM TIM WHOLE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THIS FIRM AS AN ESCROW AGENT AND YOU A PRINCIPAL TO THE ESCROW TRANSACTION-. THESE
.+rr.rvna aTS, THE 7^PRRF~g OF 77M $ A[~3R88M8NT W$xCH IS THE 3UE3J8CT OF THIS ESCROW
Iaw.......-..
1@IST .
IRUCTIOi S MAY 'N Oa I^
READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULY, AND DO NOT SIGN TLEM UNLESS THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU.
~.eal
Executed on this i° may or. e -
u ~
CITY O TIGARD
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
Aft BUYERS ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT STATEMENT
W
Buyer: CITY OF TIGARD Escrow No.: 320008309NL
Order No.: W84714
Seller: HARRY E.JEFFERY
JUDITH A. JEFFERY
Property 2S1 3DD 01100
Address: Washington County
Escrow Officer: Nancy LaFontaine Date: 06/30/94
Charges Credits
F tle Insurance to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO 200.00
crow Fee to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO 275.00
Service Fee to CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE 15.00
Recording of Deed 53.00
Deposit by City of Tigard
Chicago Title ins 543.00
NO ADJUSTMENTS FOR PROPERTY TAXES THRU CLOSING
Sub-totals 543.00 543.00
Balance due from Buyer 0.00
Estimated Totals 543.00 543.00
The above figures are estimated and subject to adjustments prior to the disbursement of
funds.
CITY OF qfrGARD,
PIPE
ESCROW AGREEMENT
(PURCHASER)
icago Title Insurance Co. ESCROW NO. 320008309NL
900 SW GREENBURG RD. ESCROW OFFICER Nancy LaFontaine
PORTLAND, OR 97223 DATE: June 30, 1994
A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
TO: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, (18acrow Agent').
Property Descriptions (as shown in Preliminary Title Report issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
CO. under Order No. W84714 dated 11/15/93, a copy of which has been received and approved
by the undersigned.)
PURCHASER deposits with Escrow Agent under these instructions sales price in the sum of
$ as follows:
funds to close
and will deposit with you such other sums and items as may be required to enable you to comply
with these instructions, which sums and items you are authorized to deliver, release or pay
over when you hold for the account of the Purchaser the following:
1. Warranty Deed
in form acceptable to Purchaser showing Purchaser's interest;
2. An ALTA (1992) form of Owner's Title Insurance Policy providing Standard Coverage
in the sum of $ insuring Purchaser's interest subject to printed
conditions, stipulations, exclusions and exceptions to ceverage in the usual
form, matters attaching by, through, or under the Purchaser, and the following
paragraphs of the preliminary title report referenced above:
1994/95 taxes due but not payable;, 8-13,16
B. PAYMENTS: Purchaser agrees to pay and authorizes payment and deduction from and credit to
the gross sum above specified in accordance with the Purchaser's Tentative Escrow Statement
attached hereto and made a part hereof. Items shown on the Tentative Escrow Statement may be
adjusted to accommodate exact amounts required at the time of disbursement.
C. PRORATE: It is understood that water, sewer, waste collection, electricity and other
utility charges and inventory for fuel will be adjusted between Seller, and Purchaser outside
this escrow. Escrow Agent shall prorate as of July 1, 1994
the following items: There are no prorations thru this closing
and charge or credit Purchaser's account accordingly. Assume a 365-day year in any prorate
herein provided and unless the parties otherwise instruct, use the amount contained in the
last available tax statement (which may include reductions based on any deferral or exemption),
rental statement as provided by the seller, lender's statement, and fire insurance policies
ivered into escrow for the prorate provided above. In the event any lender's statement
eals a deposit, account or funds for a future payment obligation of the loan, adjust
accordingly.
D. RECORDINUt Escrow Agent will record/file the necessary legal instruments and then pay off
such encumbrances of record as may exist at time of recording/filing such instruments, and
shall not be responsible for liens attaching after said date. Purchaser hereby acknowledges
eiukt.they have and shall have continuing obligations to cooperate with Escrow Agent in good
faith to enable Escrow Agent to tulZ111 its responsibilities under this agreement. Such
obligations of Purchaser shall survive the closing of the transaction described herein and
shall include, without limitation, the obligation to (i) disclose to Escrow Agent any liens,
encumbrances or any.other rights, claims or matters known to Purchaser which affect or relate
to the property and transactions referred to in this agreement, and (ii) return to Escrow Agent
for proper disposition of any funds, documents or other property which are for any reason
roperly or mistakenly released.to Escrow Agent or to Purchaser.
.Ln
accordance with the lender's instructions, Escrow Agent is authorized to place on the public
record any documents required by such lender to secure its lien on the subject premises.
Escrow Agent is further authorized to comply with its instructions to record such documents
prior to receiving the funds required to be disbursed by the lender pursuant to the loan
agreement.
:I111 A
in R: 1
RECITALS
8. ELBCTRONIC TRANSFER: Escrow Agent may, in its discretion, receive and/or disburse any
funds in connection with this escrow by electronic (wire) transfer.
COPIES: When requested to do so, copies of the Escrow Instructiona and Closing Statement
showing disbursements, in accordance with these instructions, may be delivered to the Real
Estate Agent who consummated the transaction, the mortgagee or its agent or to my attorney.
G. DEPOSITS: All Checks, money orders or drafts will be processed for collection in the
normal course of business. Escrow Agent may co-mingle funds received by it in escrow with
escrow funds of others, and may, without limitation, deposit such funds it its custodial or
escrow accounts with any reputable trust company, bank, savings bank, savings association, or
other financial services entity, including any affiliate of Escrow Agent. It is understood
that Escrow Agent shall be under no obligation to invest the funds deposited with it on behalf
of .sy depositor, nor =h_-11 it be accountable for any earnir_gs or incidental benefit
attributable to the funds which may be received by Escrow Agent while it holds such funds.
Purchaser is hereby informed that Escrow Agent deposits all funds into a non-interest bearing
account and receives or may receive certain credits and benefits including, but not limited to
checks, deposit slips, data processing and account services from or through various banks as a
result of the banking relationships maintained in the regular course of its escrow and title
insurance business. Seller waives any and all rights or claims with respect to such credits
and benefits received by the Escrow Agent or any affiliates thereof.
A good faith estimate of the benefits received (based on 1991 activity) is $32.65 per escrow
transaction. This disclosure is made in compliance with Or~gon inis trativ Rule 863-50=065.
I (We) acknowledge receipt of the above disclosure.
CLOSING: For purposes of this agreement, Escrow Agent shall ve completed the closing
Aft VZM
'qWt such time as documents necessary to transfer title and/or create the security interest
required for funding have been accomplished.
Immediately following closing, as defined herein, Escrow Agent shall be entitled to payment of
all fens charged for services prow?.ded. Any funds held for satisfactions/release of liens and
encumbrances which have been paid through this escrow may be transferred from the account
herein to the appropriate department for processing.
1. ACCOUNTING: Title Accounting Services Corp., an Oregon corporation (TASC), will retain
any excess funds after disbursement of the closing escrow and will make all reasonable effort
to forward those funds to person(s) entitled thereto. TASC will charge an accounting fee of
$10.00 and will charge an additional fee of $10.00 for each additional month the funds are
held in the event person(s) entitled to such funds cannot, after reasonable and diligent effort
be located.
J. TIME: These instructions shall be binding on Escrow Agent until the close of business on
30 days from date hereon and be performed within said period unless written demand by the
Purchaser is made upon Escrow Agent for the revocation hereof; any such writ= notice shall be
effective upon receipt of such notice. If these instructions have not been revoked prior to
expiration of such 30-day period, Escrow Agent shall have the option of performing in
accordance with these instructions.
R. ARBITRATION: Except as noted in paragraph (2) below, if any dispute or claim arises out
of or relates to this agreement, or to the interpretation or breach, thereof, Escrow Agent may
its election, (i) hold all matters in its existing status pending resolution of such dispute
(ii) it shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the then effective arbitration
rules of Arbitration Service of Portland, Inc. or the American Arbitration Association,
whichever organization is selected by the party which first initiates arbitration by filing a
claim in accordance with the filing rules of the organization selected, and any judgment upon
the award rendered pursuant to such arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
In the event suit or action is brought, or an arbitration proceeding is initiated, to enforce
or interpret any of the provisions of this agreement, or which is based thereon, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in connection therewith. The
determination of who is the prevailing party and the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to
be paid to the prevailing party shall be decided by the arbitrator(s) (with respect to
attorney's fees incurred prior to and during the arbitration proceedings) and by the court or
OEntirmation tsincluding the court which bears any exceptions made to an arbitration award submitted
or confirmation as a judgment (with respect to attorney's fees incurred in such
proceedings).
(2) In the event of any dispute over the disposition of an earnest money deposit held by
Escrow Agent less than $2,500.00, ,^Escrow Agent shall have the option of interpleading said
fund in the District Court or Small Claims Division of the same.
2
EXCLUSIONS
L. VARIOUS: Escrow Agent has no liability or responsibility with respect to any matters
connected with the following (unless expressly authorized herein) ; (1) Compliance with
quirements of the Consumer Credit Protection Act or Inter-State Land Sales Act, or similar
aws; (2) Compliance with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes 537.330 (related to
water rights) and any similar laws; (3) Compliance with the requirements of Oregon Revised
Statutes 448.271 (Related to Well Testing) and any similar laws; (4) Title to any personal
property, or encumbrances thereon, including, but not limited to, personal property taxes,
sales tax, instruments filed under the Uniform Commercial Code, water rights, or leased
equipment on premises; (5) Forgeries or false personations of any person or party in connection
with these instructions or this escrow.
M. FIRPTA: Escrow Agent assumes no liability or responsibility for the collection, with-
holding reporting or payment of any amounts due under Section 1445 and 68390 of the Internal
a.6i'cZlllc^z Code, as amEl"tucCi, and :2yu 't o Qa...s... (co......°.aly :arnnrnx,) . Escrow
Agent is not the agent of the parties for purposes of law and/or regulation and Escrow Agent
has made no representation concerning the effect of such law and/or regulation on any party to
escrow. Any determination of whether the withholding or payment of any tax is due pursuant to
law and/or regulation shall be made by the parties outside of escrow and Escrow Agent hereby
advises each party to contact his or her attorney or tax advisors regarding any questions on th
applicability of such law and/or regulation to this transaction. Notwithstanding the fact that
Escrow Agent assumes ro liability or responsibility to the parties for compliance with Section
1445 and 6039C of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations adopted thereunder (commonly called
FIRPTA), Escrow Agent reserves the right to take any action required of it said law and/or
regulation without further instruction by the parties to this escrow.
N. PRACTICE OF LAW: Purchaser has been specifically informed that Escrow Agent is not license
to practice law and no legal advice has been offered by Escrow Agent or any of its employees,
Albgrchaser has been further informed that Escrow Agent is acting only as an escrow holder and is
rbidden by law to offer any advice to any party respecting the merits of this transaction or
the nature of the instruments utilized, and that is has not done so.
0. ADVICE: Purchaser has not been referred by Escrow Agent to any named attorney or attorneys
discouraged from seeking advice of an attorney but has been requested to seek legal counsel of
its own choosing at its own expense, if Purchaser has doubts concerning any aspect of this
transaction.
P. DOCUBMTS: Purchaser further declares all instruments to which it is a party, if prepared
by Escrow Agent, have been prepared under the direction of its attorney or itself and
particularly declares that copying legal descriptions from title reports into forms of deeds,
etc, or reforming of legal descriptions or agreements is, or will be solely at its direction
and request.
Q. REVIEW: Purchaser has been afforded adequate time and opportunity to read and understand
the escrow instructions and all other documents referred to therein.
R. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: ( j See attached (x) None
S. Purchaser acknowledges that all terms and conditions of the earnest money agreement,
amendments or addenda thereto, have been complied with to the satisfaction of Purchaser or
will be complied with outside of escrow.
T. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES SIGNING THE ABOVE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS OR THOSE ESCROW
3ALSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE ATTACH,RD HERETO THAT SUCH INSTRUCTIONS CONSTITUTE THE WHOLE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRM AS AN ESCROW AGENT AND YOU AS A PRINCIPAL TO THR ESCROW TRANSACTION. THESE
TRUCTIONS MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL THE TARMS OF THE AGREEN39NT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ESCROW
READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, AND DO NOT SIGN THEM UNLESS THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU.
Executed on this -1-11k day of ~..Qr a 44
CITY TIGARD
FORWARDING ADDRESS:
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 10001 SE SUNNYSIDE ROAD
OF OREGON CLACKAMAS, OR 97015
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT Telephone: (503) 653-7300
July 1., 1994
er
To: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO. Order No. 112546
9900 SW CREENBURG RD. Escrow No. 320008309 NL
POP.mr.nM, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD / JEF
Attention: Nancy LaFontaine
Standard Coverage Owners $ 25,000.00 Premium $ 200.00
Extended Lenders Coverage $ 0.00 Premium $ 0.00
$ 0.00
Government Service Fee $ 15.00
We are prepared to issue a title insurance policy in the form and amount shown above
insuring the title to the property described herein. This report is preliminary to
the issuance of a policy of title insurance and shall become null and void unless a
policy is issued, and the full premium therefore paid.
Vestee: CITY OF TIGARD, a Municipal Corporation
Dated as of: November 10, 1993 at 6:00 a.m.
Subject to the exceptions, exclusions, conditions and stipulations which are part of said
policy, and to exceptions as shown herein.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
By:
Marianne Lyles
Title Officer
Any questions concerning the closing of this transaction should be directed to
Nancy LaFontaine your escrow officer at 684-8954.
IN 11
NORM,
CMZI;
Order No. 112546
DESCRIPTION
(Continued)
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (Standard Coverage Policies only)
1. a. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any
taxing authority that Bevies taxes or assessments on real property or by the
public records.
b. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or
notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency
or by the public records.
2. a. Easements, liens, encumbrances, interests or claims thereof which are not
shown by any public records.
b. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public
records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by
making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or
any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown
by the public records.
4. a. Unpatented mining claims;
b. Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance
thereof;
c. Water rights, claims or title to water;
whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the public
records.
5. Any lien or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter
furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
Bois=
Order No. 112546
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
6. City liens, if any, of the City of Tigard, (An inquiry has been directed to the
City Clerk concerning the status of said liens and a report will follow if such
liens are found.)
7. The premises herein described are within and subject to the statutory powers
including the power of assessment of the unified sewerage Agency of Washington
County.
8. Taxes, including the current fiscal year, not assessed because of Municipal
property Exemption. If the exempt status is terminated under the statute prior
to the date on which the assessment roll becomee the tax roll in the year in
which said taxes were assessed, an additional tax may be levied.
Code: 023-74
Account: R 2028753
Map No,: 2S1 10AA 02801
9. Reciprocal Easement Agreement, including the terms and provisions thereof,
Dated: FEBRUARY 15, 1982
Recorded: FEBRUARY 17, 1982
Recorder's Fee No.: 82003922
By and Between: Ted L. Millar, Gerald S. Danna and Joseph T.
Dann
Ask Affects: The Northeasterly portion of the herein described
property
Amended by instrument,
Recorded: AUGUST 17, 1983
Recorder's Fee No.: 83029963
10. Terms and provisions, including obligationv for maintenance of easement as
established by Oregon law.
11. Unrecorded Lease, including the terms and provisions thereof, and such other
exceptions as may appear necessary upon the recording thereof;
Dated: MARCH 1, 1988
Lessor: DANNA BROTHERS PROPERTIES
Lessee: DANNA BROTHERS, LTD.
Disclosed by: instrument
Dated: AUGUST 18, 1988
Recorded: AUGUST 19, 1988
Recorder's Fee No.: 88-36738
(Covers other property also)
(Continued)
Order No: 112546
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South,
Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and
State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of the Pacific Highway with the
South line of said Section 3 as platted on County Survey number 18247, a duly recorded
survey with Washington County, thence North 89056100" West a distance of 70.0 feet to
a point; thence North 51007129" West a distance of 133.85 feet to the GAARDE PARK
Subdivision, a duly recorded plat with Washington County and being the true point of
beginning; thence along said line South 3805212911 West, 43.47 feet to a point; thence
South 79003119" East, 76.00 feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve 15.95
feet with radius of 320 feet, through an included angle of 2051,20" (chord bearing
South 60041148" East, 15.95 feet) to a point of non-tangency; thence North 51107129"
West, 81.02 feet to the true point of beginning.
f
Order No: 112546
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (Continued)
12. Financing Statement
Recorded: DECEMBER 14, 1990
Recorder's Fee No.: 90-687SS
Debtor: DANNA BROTHERS, LTD.
Secured Party: UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON,
COMMERCIAL BANKING DIVISION
(Covers other property also)
NOTE: We find no judgments or United States Internal Revenue liens against:
Harry E. Jeffery or Judith A. Jeffery
End of Report
cc: NONE
ML/td
November 29, 1993
r
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 10001 SE SUtN'NYSIDE ROAD
OF OREGON CLACKAMAS, OR 97015
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT Telephone: (503) 653-7300
July 1, 1994
To: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO. Order No. W84714
9900 SW GREENBURG RD. Escrow No. 320008309NL
PORTLAND, OR 97223 JEFFERY/CITY OF TIGA
Attention: Nancy LaFontaine
Standard Coverage Owners $ 25,000.00 Premium $ 200.00
Extended Lenders Coverage $ 0.00 Premium $ 0.00
$ 0.00
Government Service Fee $ 15.00
we are prepared to issue a title insurance policy in the form and amount shown above
insuring the title to the property described herein. This report is preliminary to
the issuance of a policy of title insurance and shall become null and void unless a
policy is issued, and the full premium therefore paid.
Vestee: HARRY E. JEFFERY and JUDITH A. 3EFFERY, as tenants by the entirety
Dated as of: November 15, 1993 at 8:00 a.m.
Subject to the exceptions, exclusions, conditions and stipulations which are part of said
policy, and to exceptions as shown herein.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
By:
Norman H. Lee
Title Officer
Any questions concerning the closing of this transaction should be directed to
Nancy LaFontaine your escrow officer at 684-8954.
Or MMM
Alm
rder No. W84714
DESCRIPTION
(Continued)
GENERAL ?.XCEPTIONS (Standard Coverage Policies only)
1, a. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any
taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on reel property or by the
public records.
b. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or
notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency
or by the public records.
i. a. Easements, liens, encumbrances, interests or claims thereof which are not
shown by any public records.
b. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public
records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by
making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or
any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown
by the public records.
4. a. Unpatented mining claims;
b. Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance
thereof;
c. Water rights, claims or title to water;
whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the public
records.
5. Any lien or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter
furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
Order No. W84714
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
6. Taxes for the fiscal year 1993-94, unpaid
Amount: $4,127.60
Code: 023-74
Account No.: R 478842
Map No.: 2S1 3DD 01100
(Covert other property also)
7. City liens, if any, of the City of Tigard.
8. The premises herein described are within and subject to the statutory powers
including the"power of assessment of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington
County.
9. Limited access provisions contained in Deed to the State of Oregon, by and
through its State Highway Commission, which provides that no right or easement of
right of access to, from or across the State Highway other than expressly therein
provided for shall attach ro the abutting property.
Recorded: JULY 3, 1954
Book: 357
Page: 691
10. Limited access provisions contained in Deed to the State of Oregon, by and
through its State Highway Commission, which provides that no right- or easement of
right of access to, from or across the State Highway other than expressly therein
provided for shall attach to the abutting property.
Recorded: SEPTEMBER 5, 1956
Book: 385
Page: 598
Amended by instrument,
Recorded: NOVEMBER 26, 1956
Book: 388
Page: 397
11. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, but omitting restrictions if any, based
on race, color, religion or national origin, imposed by instrument, including the
terms and provisions thereof,
Recorded: SEPTEMBER 5, 1956
Book.: 385
Page: 598
(Continued)
Order No: W84714
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (Continued)
12. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof,
Dated: SEPTEMBER 26, 1978
Recorded: NOVEMBER 8, 1978
Recorder's Fee No.: 78049403
In Favor Of: STATE OF OREGON, by and through its DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, Highway Division
For: Installation of maintenance of traffic signal
vehicle loop detectors
Affects: Exact location not disclosed of record
13. Limited access provisions contained in Deed to the State of Oregon, by and
through its State Highway Commission, which provides that no right or easement
. igh, othor thaan _ r___ely
of right of acc-as' zo, from or acroeie the Stata
therein provided for shall attach to the abutting property.
Recorded: NOVEMBER 8, 1978
Recorder's Fee No.: 78049404
14. Trust Deed, including terms and provisions thereof, given to secure an
indebtedness with interest thereon and such future advances as may be provided
therein;
Dated: JUNE 1, 1979
Recorded: JUNE 8, 1979
Recorder's Fee No.: 79022104
Amount: $300,000.00
Grantor: TED L. MILLAR
Trustee: SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
Beneficiary: OREGON RETAIL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST
(Covers other property also)
The termo of said Trust Deed were modified by instrument
Recorded: AUGUST 31, 1983
Recorder's Fee No.: 83031950
15. Assignment of rents given as additional security to the trust deed shown as
Exception No. 14 above
Recorded: JUNE 8, 1979
Recorder's Fee No.: 79022105
To: OREGON RETAIL EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN
(Covers other property also)
16. Reciprocal Easement Agreement, including the terms and provisions thereof,
Dated: FEBRUARY 15, 1982
Recorded: FEBRUARY 17, 1982
Recorder's Fee No.: 82003922
By and Between: TED L. MILLAR and GERALD S. DANNA and JOSEPH T.
DANNA
Said agreement was amended by instrument,
Recorded: AUGUST 17, 1983
Recorder's Fee No.: 83029963
Agh
(Continued)
Order No: W84714
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (Continued)
17. Assumption Agreement, including the terms and provisions thereof,
Dated: SEPTEMBER 1, 1988
Recorded: SEPTEMBER 9, 1988
Recorder's Fee No.: 88-40443
_ By and Between: OREGON RETAIL EMPLOYEES PENSION TRUST, TED L.
MILLAR, MARILYN L. KING, and HARRY E. JEFFREY and
JUDITH A. JEFFERY
18. Trust Deed, including torms and provisions thereof, given to secure an
indebtedness with interest thereon and such future advances as may be provided
therein;
Dated: SEPTEMBER 1, 1988
Recorded: SEPTEMBER 9, 1988
Recorder's Fee No.: 86-40444
Amount: $295,462.27
Grantor: HARRY E. JEFFERY and JUDITH A. JEFFERY
Trustee: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
Beneficiary: MARILYN L. KING
NOTE: We find no judgments or United States Internal Revenue liens against:
CITY OF TIGARD
Enid of Report
cc: City of Tigard
Gary Alfson
Harry & Judy Jeffery
Right of Way Association, Inc.
David Feinauer
NL/td
December 1, 1993
A=A
Elm
Order No: W84714
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South,
Range 1 West, Willamatte Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and
State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the westerly line of the Pacific Highway with the
r south line of said Section 3 as platted on County Survey Number 23,006, a duly
recorded survey with Washington County, thence North 89" 561 00" West, 70.0 feet to a
point; thence North 51" 071 29" West, 52.83 feet to a no-tangent curve; thence along
the curve 44.81 feet with radius 320.00 feet, through an included angle of 8° 01' 21"
(chord bearing South ..5" 55' 20" Eases 44.77 feet) to a point; thence South 890 56,
0011 East, 36.00 feet to a point; thence South 10 16' 22" East, 1.73 feet to a point;
thence North 880 441 30" East, 48.17 feet to a point; thence North 1" 151 30" West,
1.30 feet to a point, the three previous calls begin one foot parallel and to the
West, South and East of the existing building; thence along a curve 19.26 feet with
radius of 32.00 feet through an included angle of 34" 29, 001, (chord bearing of North
61" 001 00" East and distance of 18.97 feet) to a point on the westerly line of
Pacific Highway; thence along said right of way South 37" 011 36" West, 42.41 feet;
theme continuing along the right of way North 890 561 00" West, 4.22 feet to a point;
thence along a curve of radius 5689.58 feet an arc length of 7.44 feet through an
included angle of 00 041 30" (chord bearing of South 360 171 46" West, 7.44 feet) to
the point of beginning.
C AGENDA ITEM #
r' rA
For Agenda of
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004 (Tree Remova
PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OX
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City revise the Community Development Code by adopting a revised Code
Section 18.150 regarding tree removal?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Community Development Code.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Planning Division drafted a new Community Development Code Section 18.150
(Tree Removal). Original drafts included relatively minor amendments to the
existing code. Because of significant interest in tree remov-l, the scope of
changes has increased. The new code sections are an attempt to make the tree
removal code section more clear and easier to administer as well as address some
of the new issues heard by the Planning Commission. The ordinance section was
also reorganized and reworked by the City Attorney's office.
The proposed changes include: 1) defining terms including 'developed residential
property'; 2) specifying situations where trees shall be exempted from the tree
removal permit process (hazardous trees, pruning, etc..); 3) permitting the
Director to require justification for tree removal; 4) providing for the
mitigation of adverse impacts by requiring the planting of additional trees; 5)
specifying that tree removal permits may be extended for up to one additional
year; 6) providing for replacement -trees if conditions have not been satisfied
or tree are removed illegally; 7) adding a $500 per tree penalty for violation
of chapter standards; 8) allowing for setback adjustments to preserve trees
(suggested by the Some Builders Association); and 9) establishing standards for
tree removal on sensitive lands, significant natural areas and greenways.
A key provision in the "Planning Commission recommendation is that developed
residential land would be defined as any lot that cannot be partitioned or
subdivided. Therefore, a tree removal permit would be required for any
residential property that could be partitioned. No permits would be required for
trees within 50 feet of a residence.
The NPOe reviewed the original proposal. The new code section reflects some of
the public input since the NPO review.
Attachments: 1) Discussion paper and comparison of tree removal fees; 2)
Planning Commission minutes (Oct. 4, 1993, Jan. 17, 1994 & Feb. 7, 1994); 3)
Draft ordinance
-
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Revise the attached ordinance with other provisions.
2. Leave the code as is and denying the proposed draft.
121111
Jig
ME I
mmammaaaaaaaaaaacac_caoecocv.a..oo.c.ocaaca.caaaaaaaocaaaaaaasamaaaaaaaaaaaaa
FISCAL NOTES
The Commission has recommended charging a fee of $75, plus $10 per tree for
removal of any tree requiring a permit. The Commission also recommended
utilizing 50% of the permit money and all penalty money for a tree planting fund.
In addition, the Commission suggested that the Council consider providing overall
policy direction on trees and a program compensating people for mzUntaining trees
(such as tax incentives) that are considered as part of the public good.
The City issued 45 tree removal permits in 1993, 58 in 1992 and 31 in 1991. If
the new code provisions are adopted, the number of permits could increase
significantly. The number of violations, field checking, review time would
increase accordingly. Tree removal permits usually require from two to eight
hours of staff time per permit depending on the issues involved.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON.
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A
REVISED CODE SECTION 18.150 REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (ZOA 92-0004).
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code
periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for revising Section
18.150 at public hearings on January 4, 1993, October 4, 1993, and January 17, 1994 and
at work sessions September 20, 1993, October 18, 1993, December 28, 1993 and February
7, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Section
18.150 as shown in Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 12, 1994 to consider the
proposed amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below:
The relevant criteria is this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5, City of
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 3.4.2.b. and
Implementation Strategy 4 of Policy 3.4 and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30.
The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the
following findings:
1. Goal 1, citizen involvement, is met because the City has followed its
adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by neighborhood
planning organizations and public hearings.
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all
relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and
Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal.
3. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, is
met because Appendix I, the City LCDC Goal 5 ESEE analysis addresses
significant wooded areas and distinctive trees; and tree removal code
provisions prohibiting removal of tree six inches or greater at four feet
above ground level without a permit under defined circumstances is
compatible with this goal which does not specifically address tree
cutting; and that these provisions assist in protecting tree resources.
The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based
on the following findings:
1. Policies 1.1.1 a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes
are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the
changes help to keep the development code current with local needs.
2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been
reviewed at multiple public hearings, work sessions and neighborhood
groups beginning in January, 1993 through the present.
3. Policy 3.4.2.b and Implementation Strategy 4 of Policy 3.4 are satisfied
in that they are directed at timbered and large or unique stands of trees
and major vegetation and are the only plan policies directed toward tree
protection. Appendix I, the LCDC Goal 5 ESEE analysis identifies
significant wooded areas while the proposed ordinance revisions relate to
tree cutting in general including large stands of tree and is therefore
ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 1
r
r
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
4. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for
legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings.
SECTICN 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as indicated in
revised Section 18.150 as shown in Exhibit "A".
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days- after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this day of
1994.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of 1994.
John Schwartz, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
z ORDINANCE NO. 94-
Page 2
D R A F T
EXHIBIT "A"
CHAPTER 18.150
Sections:
18.150.010 Purpose
18.150.020 Definitions
18.150.030 Permit Requirement
18.150.040 Permit Criteria-Reconsideration
18.150.045 Setback Adjustment to Preserve Trees
18.150.050 Expiration of Approval-Extension of Time-Revocation
18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements
18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal-Violation-Replacement of Trees
18.150.080 Penalty
18.150.010 Purpose.
A. After years of both natural growth and planting by
residents, the City now benefits from a large number of
trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic
beauty of the community, help clear the air, and provide
noise barriers.
B. The purposes of this Chapter are to:
1. Regulate the removal of trees on developed
commercial land, developed industrial land, and all
undeveloped land in the City;
i 2. Limit the unnecessary removal of trees;
3. Protect significant natural areas and sensitive
lands.
The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these programs,
at the time of development it may be necessary to remove
certain trees in order to accommodate structures,
streets, utilities, and other needed or required
improvements within the development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
83-52)
18.150.020 Definitions
A. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, as
used in this Chapter:
Page 1 - Tree Ordinance
FIRE!
: S RMEMMEM
--DR A F T
"Developed commercial land" shall mean either:
a. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of
such under the same ownership, in a commercial
zone which has an approved site development
plan, conditional use plan, landscaping plan,
or other approved development plan; or
b. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of
such under the same ownership, which contains
an established, existing principal use which
is either a permitted or a conditional use in
a cormne-:cial zone.
2. "Developed industrial land" shall mean either:
a. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of
such under the same ownership, in an
industrial zone which has an approved site
development plan, conditional use plan,
landscaping plan, or other approved
development plan; or
b. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of
such 1)nder the same ownership, which contains
an established, existing principal use which
is either a permitted or a conditional use in
an industrial zone.
3. "Developed residential land" shall mean a lot or
parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the
same ownership, in a residential zone, which cannot
be further partitioned or subdivided, and which
contains an established e--which--us
4. "Director" shall mean the City's Planning Director
or his or her designee.
5. "Greenway" shall mean those areas so designated in
the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
6. "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree which by reason
of disease, infestation, age, or other condition
presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or
to public or private property due to danger of the
tree falling or spreading disease or infestation.
Page 2 - Tree Ordinance
111 11,141311
21
D R A F T
7. "Pruning" shall mean the cutting or trimming of a
tree in a mannerµ•;"hich is consistent with
recognized tree maintenance practices.
8. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or removing of 50
percent or more of a crown, trunk or root system of
a tree, resulting in the loss of aesthetic or
physiological viability, or any activity causing
the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of
falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning.
9. "Tree(s)" shall mean a standing woody plant, or
group of such, having a trunk six inches or more in
caliper size when measured four feet from 'ground
level.
10. "Undeveloped land" shall mean either:
a. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of
such under the same ownership, which contains
no established existing use.
b. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of
such under the same ownership, in a
residential zone which can be further
partitioned or subdivided, and which contains
an established ex r" s7hj-ch-is---a-IlowQd
-i- z o
11. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described
at section 18.84.010(A) of the code.
12. "Significant natural areas" shall mean those areas
defined as such in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
as amended.
18.150.030 Permit Requirement,
A. Except as set out in Subsection B of this section, the
removal of any tree(s) on the following types of land
shall take place only pursuant to a tree removal permit,
as provided for in Section 18.150.040 below:
1. Developed commercial land; or
2. Developed industrial land; or
3. Undeveloped land; or
4. Sensitive lands; or
Page 3 - Tree Ordinance
1211
DRAF T
5. Significant natural areas; or
6. Greenways.
B. Notwithstanding Subsection A above, a tree removal permit
shall not be required for the removal of'any tree(s):
1. Where removal is necessary to either prevent or
eliminate interference with, or allow safe access
to, underground or overhead utility lines; or
2. Where removal is necessary to prevent obstruction
of visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.102 of
the Code; or
3. Where removal is necessary to eliminate a hazardous
tree; or
4. Where removal is necessary to prevent or eliminate
a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in
Chapter 7.40 of the Code; or
5. Which are used for Christmas tree production, but
do not stand in either sensitive lands, significant
natural areas, or greenways; or
6. Which stand:
a. Within 50 feet of a residence; and
b. On a lot or parcel, contiguous combination of
such under the same ownership, that cannot be
subdivided or partitioned; and
c. Outside of sensitive lands, significant
natural areas, or greenways.
18.150.040 Permit Criteria-Reconsideration.
A. Except as provided in Subsection C of this section, the
Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny
a tree removal permit based upon evidence that:
1. Removal of the tree(s) is necessary in order to
construct an approved improvement, to use the
property in accordance with an allowed use, to
allow use of passive or active solar devices, or to
prevent interference with existing improvements;
Page 4 - Tree.Ordinance
--DR A F T
2. No alternative to removal of the tree (s) exists
which would:
a. Reduce the overall net amount of the tree
removal;
b. Advance the applicant's objective in removing
the tree(s); and
c. Not place an unreasonable economic hardship
upon the applicant.
3. Removal of the tree(s) will not have a significant
negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, water quality, wildlife, noise
pollution, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing wind breaks.
B. Where the Director finds that one or more of the criteria
contained in Subsection A of this section has not been
met, the applicant may submit the application for
reconsideration, along with a proposal to mitigate the
adverse impacts of the proposed tree removal. Such _a
mitigation proposal should address the planting of
additional trees, specifying the size, location, and
number of trees to be planted, and any other improvements
which would serve the purposes of this Chapter. The
Director shall act upon the application and mitigation
proposal as otherwise called for under Subsection A.
C. Notwithstanding Subsection A above, where an application
seeks removal of a tree(s) on sensitive lands,
significant natural areas, or greenways, the Director
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree
removal permit based upon evidence that:
1. The tree constitutes a hazardous or diseased tree;
or
2. For allowed development all of the following
criteria are met:
a. Removal of the tree(s) is necessary in order
to use the property in accordance with a use
which is allowed in the zone;
b. Removal of the tree(s) will not have a
significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection
of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks;
Page 5 - Tree Ordinance
1
D R A F T C. The impact of the tree removal can be
mitigated by tree replacement and tree
maintenance; or
3. For residential landscaping purposes all of the
following criteria are met:
a. The tree (s) stand on a lot or parcel, or
contiguous combination of such under the same
ownership, which contains an existing
residential use, and is in a residential zone;
b. The tree(s) are to be removed strictly for
landscaping purposes;
C. Removal of the tree(s) will not have a
significant negative impact on erosion-, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection
of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks.
18.150.045 Setback Adlustment to Preserve Trees.
A. The Director may grant a modification from applicable
setback requirements of this Code for the purposes of
preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed
development. Such modification may reduce the required
setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more than is
necessary for the preservation of trees on the site.
B. A modification granted under this section shall not
conflict with any other restriction on the use of the
property, including but not limited. to easements and
conditions of development approval.
C. The setback modification described in this section shall
supersede or override any special setback requirements or
exceptions set out elsewhere in this code, including but
not limited to those of Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and
18:148, except 18.96.020.
18.150.050 Expiration of Approval-Extension of Time-Revocation.
A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-
half years from the date of approval.
B. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the
expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit
shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the
Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with
all prior conditions of permit approval and that no
Page 6 - Tree Ordinance
D R A F T
material facts stated in the original application have
changed.
C. Upon written notification, the Director may revoke a tree
removal permit upon finding that any condition of
approval of the permit has not been satisfied. This
revocation may be appealed by the applicant as provided
in Section 18.32.310.
18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements.
A. Application for a tree removal permit shall be on a form
provided by the Director. Completed applications shall
consist of this form, two copies of the supplemental data
and narrative set out in Subsection B or this section,
and the required fee. Applications shall not be accepted
unless completed.
B. The supplemental data and narrative shall include:
1. The specific location of the property by address,
assessor's map number, and tax lot;
2. The number, size, type and location of the tree(s)
to be cut;
3. The time and method of cutting or removing the
tree(s) ;
4. The reason for the removal of the tree(s); and
5. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or
planting of new trees; and
6. A narrative as to how the applicable criteria of
this Chapter are satisfied.
C. The Director may waive any of the requirements in
Subsection B above, or request additional information in
accordance with Section 18.32.080.
18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal-Violation-Replacement of Trees.
A. If the Director has reason to believe that the removal of
a tree(s) occurred contrary to the purposes of this
Chapter, then he or she shall do any or all of the
following:
1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was
located to submit sufficient documentation, which
Page 7 - Tree Ordinance
I
may include a written statement from a qualified
arborist or forester, showing that tree removal was
permitted by this Chapter.
2. Take any enforcement action permitted by law.
B. The removal of a tree(s) under the following conditions
shall be a violation of this Code:
1. Without a valid tree removal permit;
2. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of
a tree removal permit;
3. In noncompliance with any other section of the
Code.
C. The Director may require the replacement of any tree(s)
removed in violation of the Code. Replacement of trees
shall take place according to the following guidelines:
1. Replacement trees shall be a substantially similar
species considering site characteristics.
2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree
cut is not reasonably available, the Director may
allow replacement with a different species of
equivalent natural resource value.
3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not
reasonably available on the local market or would
not be viable, the Director shall require
replacement with more than one tree.
4. The number of replacement trees required shall be
determined by dividing the estimated caliper of the
tree cut by the caliper of the largest reasonably
available replacement trees. If this number of
trees cannot be viably located on the subject
property, the Director may require one or more
replacement trees to be planted on other property
within the City, either public property or, with
the consent of the owner, private property.
Page 8 - Tree Ordinance
%
--DR A F T
18.150.080 Penalty.
A. Any person who removes or causes the removal of a tree in
violation of this Chapter shall be subject to a fine of
$500. Removal of each individual tree shall be a
separate offense. Failure to comply with a condition of
permit approval shall be a separate offense for each day
of non-compliance.
B. Removal of a tree in violation of this Chapter is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by
appropriate proceedings.
TMC1915o.DRA
login\dick
Page 9 - Tree Ordinance
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes - October 4, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Castile called the meeting to
order at 7:40 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic
Center - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Boone, Castile,
Holland, Moore, Saporta, Saxton,
Schwab, Schweitz.
Absent: President Fyre.
Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff;
Senior Planner Carol Landsman,
Associate Planner, Duane Roberts,
Planning Commission Secretary
Lorraine Campbell.
3. APPROVE MINUTES
® Commissioner Moore.moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to
approve minutes of September 20, 1993. Motion carried by
commissioners. Commissioners Boone, Castile, Holland, Saporta
abstained.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOP_92-0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION:
Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to amend Chapter
18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code
pertaining to tree removal to provide definitions for the
fc!'-.owing terms: developed commercial and industrial land,
developed residential land, hazardous tree, pruning, removal,
tree and undeveloped land. In addition, the proposed
amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit
exemptions; 2) Add a section explaining code enforcement
} actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for the
issuance of permits; 4) Simplify the sections pertaining to
expiration of approval, extension of time, and revocation of
approval; 5) Add significant natural areas and sensitive lands
to land requiring tree removal permits; and 6) Add provisions
for replacement of illegally removed trees. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a, 1.1.2, 2.1.1,
2.1.3, 3.4.2, and 4.1.1 a 'and Community Development Code
Chapter 18.150.
Page 1 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993
o Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, reviewed the staff report.
He said the Planning Commission held a public hearing in
January 1993 on trees. Dick Bewersdorff went over the major
issues and summarized the proposed changes pertaining to tree
removal.
o Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, discussed the newly created
section for tree removal on sensitive land. Carol discussed
the three categories for tree removal. She said the city is
currently working with an arborist who will assess the forests
in Tigard and distinguish significant natural forests from
those areas with a lot of trees or woods. Subsequently, the
city will propose comprehensive plan amendments to protect the
significant natural areas.
o Commissioner Saporta referred to the recent Hart decision and
said he thought the court had defined "developed residential
property."
o Senior Planner, Dick'Bewersdorff, said that the court had not
defined what is a developed property. Discussion followed.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Doug Smithey, 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said
that the City of Beaverton uses 1 acre as its definition for
developed property anything under an acre or above is
undeveloped and most cities use the smaller size. He raised
concern about the lack of specificity regarding dead trees.
o Carl Meininger, 16545 SW 93rd,.Tigard, Oregon 97224, stated
his concerns about the loss of trees and the unsatisfactory
tree ordinance in Tigard. He described two instances in which
developers had randomly felled trees. He stated his
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
o Christy Herr, 11386 Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, came
to the first work session in August and said that insufficient
notice was given to the public about tonight's meeting to
allow for more public input. She did not favor changing the
definition of developed residential property to 3 acres and
thinks it should be an average lot size within the City of
Tigard. She said that the problem of slash removal should
also be addressed.
o Sue Kasson, 16570 SW 93rd, Tigard, Oregon 97223, spoke as a
property owner and former NPO 6 member, which is now CIT 4.
She believes an arborist could give guidelines regarding the
root system of trees that are left on a property.
Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993
o Commissioner Saxton asked how the city finds out when trees
are going to be taken down before it is too late?
o Commissioner Moore asked if a developer is required to bring
in a tree removal plan when he comes in for a tree removal
permit.
o Dick Bewersdorff said the developer shows a plan with
approximate location of the trees. Discussion ensued.
o Brian Mohr, 13923 SW Hindon Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
described an instance wherein, a developer took out two very
large cottonwood trees that were close to his property. In
their place, the developer put in one and a quarter inch
maples, 60 feet apart. Mr. Mohr said the developer did not
have a permit to take out the cottonwood trees.
o Dan Mitchell, 16585 SW 92nd, Tigard, Oregon 97223, contractor,
gave an overview of the property he developed called Creekside
6, located in Beaverton. Mr. Mitchell described the efforts
that were made in order to save many trees and preserve the
natural habitat of the wildlife.
o Commissioner Moore asked if Mr. Mitchell's bid sheet outlined
all the things he was required to do.
o Mr. Mitchell responded that it did. Discussion followed on
erosion control.
o Emmett Whitaker, 16530 SW 93rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
said for the last 18 years he has attended many city council
meetings and the problem of cutting down and clear-cutting of
trees keeps coming up. Mr. Whitaker said stiffer fines should
be enforced on developers who cut down trees without a permit.
o Mary Meininger, 16545 SW 93rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
represented Friends of Cook Park. Her concern was about the
trees in the Cook Park area and she agrees with above
statements.
o Ms. Ginny Deck, 8010 SW Churchill Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
She said she recommends having an ordinance that affects
homeowners as well. She said a permit should be obtained
before a tree is taken down and that fines should be enforced
for unlawful tree removal. She recommends voice mail. be made
available or have someone in the City who can take a call on
weekends should an emergency arise regarding trees.
o Ms. Dorothy Gage, 8000 SW 54th, Portland, Oregon 97219, said
three acres is not an appropriate cut-off point for developed
Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993
Igi
s
property and thinks it should be on a lot by lot basis. She
would like to see the public become more involved as to what
areas are going to be developed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Schwab said in defining developed residential
property, one lot is too restrictive and he would support
something less than 3 acres. He said he favors stiff
penalties or fines for unlawful tree removal and said if a
tree is within 200 feet of his house he should have the right
to cut it down.
o Commissioner Saxton favored-defining undeveloped land as any
area equal to two times the size of the smallest 'ot in the
area of zoning and if someone is found in violation they
should pay the cost of enforcement. He said hiring a
certified arborist should be required in the instance of
taking out a "hazardous tree,' and whoever taxes down a tree
should clean up the slash.
o Commissioner Saporta said the definition of developed
residential property should be somewhere around one half acre
and that there should be a fine if a tree is taken down
without a permit. He would like to see an arborist hired and
a plan submitted to the city for tree removal like as is
required in other jurisdictions. He said trees should be
replaced according to an established standard.
o Commissioner Boone said many problems would be solved if
developers would design a residence according to the slope of
the land.
o Commissioner Moore said he is in agreement with the other
Commissioners and that tree removal permits should be required
with fines enforced for unlawful tree removal. He favors
hiring an arborist regarding tree removal.
o Commissioner Holland said he has cut down a lot of filbert
trees. He says he prunes them all the time and doesn't want
to have to get a permit every time he wants to prune. He said
,this would be a hardship on people with orchards.
o Dick Bewersdorff clarified that a permit would not be required
for pruning.
Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1993
Y
0 Commissioner Schweitz said he thought one acre was a good
definition for defining developed residential property. He
said cutting down 'a tree within 100 feet of one's residence
without a permit is reasonable but there needs to be a little
more control with arborists taking a look at each situation
when a development goes in. He said he did not feel he had
enough information to make a decision tonight.
0, Commissioner Castile said a homeowner should get a permit for
every tree he takes down. He said one area that has not been
addressed is the situation where a tree has become too big for
a homeowner's property. Regarding a development, Commissioner
Castile said a developer should only be allowed to take down
a maximum of 50% of the trees on the property.
0 Commissioner Schwab said he would like the hearing continued
and recommended that staff come back with examples from other
jurisdictions' requirements for a permit specifically for
development.
Dick Bewersdorff said the Commissioners could come together in
a work session.
a Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded
to table Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004 Tree Removal and
schedule a workshop in approximately three weeks. Motion
carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 PM - 9:30 PM.
o Commissioner Boone left the meeting at 9:20 PM.
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0005 WETLAND AREAS
LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to amend
Policy 3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, Findings, Policies, and
Implementation Strategies, Volume II to adopt a new Policy
pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 5 rule requirements for
the identification and protection of wetlands. Once adequate
information on the quality, quantity, and location of wetlands
is obtained, the City will complete the Goal 5 administrative
rule process. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning
Goals 1 and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1 and 3.4.
o Duane Roberts reviewed the staff report requesting that
Section 3.4, Natural Areas, of Volume Two, Findings, Policies
and Implementation Strategies, of the Tigard Comprehensive
Plan be amended.
Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993
o Commissioner Castile asked if there were any areas that the
City has set aside in terms of mitigation sites that are in
flood plane areas.
o Mr. Roberts said one area in particular is Dartmouth extension
which lias a small area of wetlands that needed to be
mitigated. He said it is not something that is required as
part of Goal 5. Discussion ensued.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Mr. Doug Smithey, 11396 Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
said he was not completely clear on the issue. He said he
objected to the city closing the periodic review in June 1991
with a letter of July 1991 and the State of Oregon upheld his
objection in June 1992. He was concerned that he has not
heard any answers from the city to the particulars of his
objection.
o Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, reviewed the issue and also
discussed "significance."
o Ms. Christy Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon
97223, said she is overwhelmed by Goal 5. She said Tigard is
the last city in the region, Northwestern Oregon, to comply
with Goal 5.
o Carol Landsman clarified the issue which she said basically
amends the plan to say that Tigard is not in compliance and
has not completed the ESCE process. Therefore, Tigard is
committed to complete the process, do the inventory, undertake
a public participation process and determine significance.
Discussion followed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
® Commissioner Schwab moved and Commissioner Holland seconded to
forward a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0005 Wetland Areas.
Motion passed unanimously by Commissioners present.
Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993
n
.
i
6. OTHER BUSINESS
-o Carol Landsman asked what the Commissioners ;could like at the
next Transportation Planning Rule meeting on October 18. The
commissioners decided on'a one hour work session and will
invite Mr. Jerry Foy and Ms. ki. Blizzard back to give a
presentation.
7. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM.
Lorraine Campbell
Planning.Commission Secretary
ATTEST:
Commissioner James Castile
lc/FC10-4.min
Page 7 _ Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993
ENE=
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
January 17, 1994
TRIANGLE WORKSHOP
1. Meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM.
2: Present: President Fyre, Co m issioners De Frang, Holland,
Moore, Saporta, Saxton, Schweitz, Wilson.
Also Present: Community Dev. Director, Ed Murphy
Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff
Senior Planner, Carol Landsman
Associate Planner, John Acker
Consultant, Ralph Kerrin; OTAK
Lorraine Campbell, Planning Commission
Secretary
3. John Acker reviewed the background of the Tigard Triangle. He
said the Triangle is viewed as an area of opportunity due to
its location, the large areas of undeveloped land and areas of
redevelopable land. He stated that it is surrounded by major
transportation 'corridors. John Acker showed a map of the
Triangle to the Commissioners as well as a map showing the
different land uses.
Consultant, Ralph Kerrin, gave a brief history of the Triangle
and discussed how the 340 acres of the Triangle encompasses
almost every type -of land use. Land Uses, Open Spaces,
Design, and Transportation, the main elements of the plan,
were discussed. Further discussion ensued on multi-family
projects, pedestrian orientation and single family areas, as
well as improvement along 99W. There was further discussion
regarding the. Atlanta extension, design standards' and the
zoning changes'that will take place in the Triangle.
• Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, said in an effort to get more
input from:the general public on the Triangle, the City will
have an open house. as well as displays. The City will
subsequently hold a series of public hearings on the Triangle.
Then, along with the Planning Commission's comments and the
general public's input, staff will come up with a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Y
Page 1 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994
Jill
pli
U Q
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes - January 17, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: President Fyre called the meeting to order at
7:35 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center -
Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Tyre, Commissioners De
Frang, Holland, Moore, Saporta,
Saxton, Schweitz, Wilson.
Absent: Commissioner Boone.
Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff,
Senior. Planner Carol Landsman,
Associate Planner Mark Roberts,
Michael Anderson, Engineering Dept.
Planning Commission Secretary
Lorraine Campbell.
3. APPROVE MINUTES
• Minutes from January 10, 1994, were not available for
approval.
4.- PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
• There were no Planning Commission communications.
- 5.1 SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0011/ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0004/VAR 93-0014
RENAT.SSANCE/LAW LOCATION: 15400 SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1
10DA, tax lots 600, 700, 800, & 900) The applicant requests
approval for the following development applications: 1)
Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 9.74 acre
parcel into 33 lots ranging in size from approximately 7,500
to 23,557 square feet; 2) A zoning map amendment is requested
from the existing R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 acres/unit) zoning
district to R-3.5 with a planned development overlay for the
9.74 acre site; 3) A request for a variance from the maximum
cul-de-sac length of 400 to a length of 1,000 feet and/or a
variance from the 12 percent maximum street slope requirement.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.108,
18.102, 18.106, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan
Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1,
-7.7.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 9.1.1, and 9.1.3. Subdivision Variance:
Community Development Code Section 18.160.120. Zone Change: _
Community Development Code Sections 18.22.040 and 18.80;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, and 12.1.1.
Page 2 - Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1994
ZONE.: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zoning
designation allows single-family residential units, public
support facilities, residential treatment domes, farming,
manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations,
temporary uses., and accessory structures among other uses.
• Associate Planner, Mark Roberts, reviewed the staff report,
wherein the applicant, Renaissance Development Company, is
proposing a 33-lot subdivision which is generally located
-towards the base of Little Bull Mountain. Along with the
subdivision application is a planned development overlay zone
as well as a variance request to exceed the street slope
criteria set forth in the development code. Mr. Roberts said
staff recommends approval.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
• Bill McMonagle, Harris McMonagle Engineering, 12555 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said he represents Randy
Sebastian,. Renaissance Development. Mr. McMonagle said the
applicant agrees with staff's report except for items 8, 14
15, and 17, and explained the reasons why.
• Commissioner Saporta raised a question about solar access and
why lot 14 doesn't comply with the standards for solar access.
• Mr. McMonagle said it was because Lot 14 had a 90' dimension
in a north-south attitude.
• Commissioner Holland raised a question on curb outlets and
asked if there was a problem with dry wells.
• Mr. McMonagle explained that dry wells work well depending on
how well the water is distributed from the hard surfaces.
Discussion ensued.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
• Bob Parsons, 10040 SW Century Oak Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97224,
lives in. Summerfield and wondered about the collective
mechanism that possibly might be on the back lots to handle
any excessive run off.
• President Fyre said it was a requirement to have a collective
mechanism on the back lots.
• Terry Smith, 10470 SW Kable, Tigard, Oregon 97224, raised a
question about a jog that goes to his property and raised
concerns about drainage. He is in favor of the subdivision.
Page 3 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994
gliliVilillulin 111i
_ Al Erickson, 15200 SW 109th Street, Tigard, Oregon 97224,
lives directly above the Laws' property. He is in favor of
the subdivision.
• Beverly Swink, 15875 SW Greens Way, Tigard, Oregon 97224,
President of Summerfield Tigard Civic Association, said they
have mat with the city staff and the developers and are in
favor of the subdivision.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
• Commissioner Saxton asked if there were any significant trees
in the roadway and, if so, could the street be built around
the trees? He cited Summerfieid Drive as an example.
• Associate Planner, Mark Roberts, said the code doesn't provide
for a phased tree removal process.
• Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, sometimes there are ways to
alter.sidewalks but if the trees are right in the middle then
they come out.
• President Fyre addressed item 8.
• Michael Anderson, Engineering Department, responded that it is
a standard requirement.
• Commissioner Saporta said he would like to discuss item 14 at _
the next agenda item.
• Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, said the city can work on a
tree removal permit if the tree removal and the tree
information is submitted at the time the construction drawings
are submitted to the City. Discussion followed.
• Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Holland seconded
to approve Subdivision Sub 93-0011/Zone Change Zon 93-0004/Var
93-0014 Renaissance/Law according to staff's recommendations
_ except for the following modifications: Item no. 8 be modified
in that the garage and entry finished floor elevations be
included on the grading plan; Item 15 be modified to permit
curb outlets for the purpose of draining roofs and footings.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION:
Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter
18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with
new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide
definitions for the following terms: developed commercial and
industrial land, developed residential land, hazardous tree,
Page 4 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994
MEN,! 111.
Zlii!
il=miii,llll~ I 1 1!! 1
lit F, 1 1
L Imm, 1111 M=
11i IN 11 R1111CA! 1: !1~j:~:!~
pruning, removal, tree and undeveloped land. In additon, the
proposed amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit
dab exemptions; 2) Add a section explaining code enforcements
actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for the
issuance of permits; 4) Simplify the sections pertaining to
• expiration of approval, extension of tim,:~, and revocation of
approval; 5) Add significant natural areas and sensitive lands
to land requiring tree removal permits; and 6) Add provisions
for replacement of illegally removed trees.
• Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, reviewed proposed changes to
the tree protection ordinance which was previously submitted
to the Commissioners at the Planning Commission's bctcber 18
meeting.
• Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, discussed a letter from David
B. Smith, dated. January 17, IR94, attorney for Rita M. Hart,
which was sent to the Planning Commission on January 17, 1994
regarding tree removal.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
• John L--Cavalier spoke on behalf of Fans of Famio Creek, P.O.
Box 25835, Portland, Oregon 97225. He said Fans of Fanno
Creek support the proposed ordinance changes, but also would
like to have language included regarding the value of trees
for water quality and for habitat.
• President Fyre asked what criteria the City should give a
person to cut down a tree.
• John LeCavalier said the City would need to take a look at the
location-of the tree as well as ascertain whether the tree is
dead or alive. Also, a tree should be replaced with a native
species, and public input should be sought.
• Doug Smithey, 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
addressed his view of lot size. He spoke of how people can
get around the ordinance. He made the following suggestions
to the ordinance: Page 3 - The definition of trees, remove
the word •livi,ng;a and, commercial logging should not be
exempted.
• Commissioner Schweitz asked if a person has to replant if they
commercially log off a piece of property.
• President Fyre. said a piece of land can be commercially logged
off and a person is not required to replant.
• Doug Smithey referred to Permit Criteria - and would like to
Page 5 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994
INNE
add the language "wildlife, habit, water quality, and noise
pollution" as things to be considered and use it as stock
language. Under Penalty he wants to have a fine or the price
of the timber. If more than X trees are to be cut then he
suggests public notice be given and the public be able to
attend a public hearing.
• Curtis Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
18.150.030, B.5., on Commercial Logging, suggested that
commercial logging somehow be regulated by the City. He would
like to have stiff penalties for illegal tree removal.
• Malcolm Kirsop, 11323 SW Basswood Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
is in favor of the tree ordinance. He addressed the subject
of a City Director having the authority when it comes to the
removal of a tree. He is in favor of an ordinance strong
enough to ensure the proection of wildlife.
: Mary Meininger, 16545 SW 93rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
represented Friends of Cook Park. She read Friends of Cook
Park's Recommendation for Tigard Tree ordinance and agrees
with the $500 penalty fee for illegal tree removal.
• Dorothy Gage, 8000 SW 54th Avenge, Portland, Oregon, owns land
in the city of Tigard and, referring to the ordinance, said
houses should be aligned to fit the land in an effort to
preserve the trees. She said: along with the $500 penalty fee,
there should be a fine of three times the price of the timber.
• Al Erickson, 15200 SW 109th Street, Tigard, Oregon 97224,
- grows Christmas trees on his property and talked about the
timber on his property.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
• Commissioner Saxton referred to 150.010 and favored streets
being designed around trees in areas where possible. On
150.010, B2, he would like the statement removed, "At the time
of development.' He thinks that the lot size should stay the
same, and on Page 3, said delete the word "living." Fie would
like to address commercial logging further.
• Commissioner Holland said in order to do any commercial
R logging, a permit should be required, except for Christmas
tree logging.
• Commissioner Saxton wanted to have more information about the
State Forestry Practices Act. Discussion followed on
commercial logging. -
Page 6 - Planning Commission Meeting - Januarl► 17, 1994
• Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, asked the Commissioners in
what instances they would like to see commercial logging
permits denied.
• Commissioner Holland favored putting up A public notice of
intent of commercial logging with a public hearing.
• Commissioner Saxton favored taking out paragraph 4 on page 5
and having language inserted to the effect, °Commercial
logging is subject to the same regulations as the State
Forestry Practices Act.• -
• Commissioner Saxton said that if someone is commercially
logging, they should be required to get a permit.
• President byre. favored including, •Any tree, whether it's
commercial or not, needs a tree-.cutting permit.• Discussion
ensued on when a tree-cutting permit would be denied; those
instances would be in cases where it would be damaging to the
environment or the wildlife.
• Commissioner Saxton raised concern that it is too easy for
appeals to.be made.
• Commissioner Wilson raised concern that the ordinance will
become too complicated and restrictive. He supports the
protection of trees, with the minimum amount of inconvenience
to ..property owners. Discussion followed.
• Commissioner Saporta said the ordinance needs to be
restrictive in order to protect the trees.
• Commissioner Schweitz agrees with the direction from the
Director.
• Commissioner Saxton said the illegal tree removal fine should
be $500.00 per tree, plus three times the stumpage value.
Commissioner Holland agreed.
• Senior Planner, Carol Landsman; said that a process of
identification of significant trees in Tigard wil-I take place
next year and that, presently, they are doing a study of
significant forest areas in Tigard.
• Commissioner Holland recommended having a work session prior
to the next meeting and then making a decision.
• Commissioner Moore said he was in agreement with having a work
session and looking at things item by item. -
Page 7 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994
Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded
that the Planning Commission have a work session on re-working
the Community Development Code pertaining to tree removal at
a date to be determined. Motion carried unanimously by
Commissioners present.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:20.
Lorraine Campbell
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST:
President lore
lc/PC2-17.vin
Page 8 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994
Emmons=
[.l.T\t
laAK8J PLE'Livivilr4 aA-11vrarataolva~
T1"
ReguJlar Meeting Minutes - February 7, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: President Fyre called the meeting to order at
7:00 PSI. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center -
Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre, Commissioners
Holland,. Moore, Saxton, Schweitz,
Wilson.
Absent: Commissioner Boone, De Frang,
Saporta.
Staff: City Engineer Randy Wooley,
S e n i o r P l a n n e r D i c k
Bewersdorff, Associate Planner John
Acker, Planning Commission Secretary
Lorraine Campbell.
3. APPROVE MINUTES
s Commissioner Moore moved-and Commissioner Saxton seconded to
approve minutes of January 10, 1994. Motion carried
unanimously by Commissioners present.
• - Commiss-;_.iner Moore moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded to
approve minutes of January 17, 1994. Motion carried
unanimously by Commissioner present.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
o Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, said due to February 21st
being a holiday, the next Planning Commission Meeting will be
on February 28. He also stated that the Planning commission
meeting with counsel was scheduled for 7:30 p.m at the Tigard
Civic Center on March 15 and will be addressing the Metro
20/40 Plan. A staff member from Metre will be attending.
Prior to that, there will be a invitation from Mayor Edwards
to'the Planning Commission to a reception from 5:30 p.m. to
7:30 which will be held in the Water District auditorium.
o City Engineer, Randy Wooley, discussed the process for
Developing a Long-Term Capital Improvement Program (1994-2001)
which will take place February through July 1994. Discussion
followed.
5. PUBLIC COMMISSION WORKSHOP
Roil!
S.1 TIGARD TRIANGLE
o Associate Planner, John Acker, reviewed the draft plan, map
and a matrix showing the changes in land use that will be key
to the Triangle plan. Sohn said on March 1st from 5-7 p.m.
the City will hold an open house which will have exhibits and
information about the Triangle for property owners in the
Triangle area.
o President Fyre clarified that the main focus for the
Commissioners regarding the Triangle is that some of the
property of a higher economic value is being down-zoned to a
lower economic value. Discussion followed.
o Associate Planner, John Acker, reviewed the Tigard Triangle
Specific Plan Design Standards.
o Commissi-ner Wilson raised a question about why fences and
Mansard roofs were being prohibited in the Triangle.
o Commissioner Holland explained that homeowners can apply for
a variance and staff is trying to set general standards in the
Triangle.
o Commissioner Saxton had a question about two of the terms:
site coverage, and floor area ratio.
O Associate Planner, John'Acker said, site coverage is the area
covered by a building and-floor area ratio is square footage
and the footprint.
o John Acker asked the Commissioners what they wanted to see in
the Triangle.
o Commissioner Schweitz said that the Commission needs to
consider the Transportation Rule and be aware of possible
traffic congestion.
o Commissioner Holland said he would like to see a good mix of
commercial retail with the residential above it, similar to
Portland.
5.2 TRANSPORTATION
o The Commissioners reviewed the Proposed Transportation
Ordinance Changes and made the following recommendations:
1
Page 2 - Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1994
Page 1. 4. Local
Local street networks shall be designed to provide
inter-connectedness of neighborhoods, access to
commercial or institutional uses serving those
neighborhoods, safety, street and utility
maintenance efficiency and maintain residential
quality. Local street(s) networks should
facilitate and provide for pedestrian bike travel.
Page 2. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
9. Schools
Two bicycle spaces per classroom.
Page 3. Director's Authority to Restrict or Require
Coordination.of Access
In order to eliminate the need to use public
streets for movements between commercial or
industrial properties, parking areas shall be
designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent
properties unless not feasible. The Director may
require access easements between ;properties where
necessary to provide for parking area connections.
Page 4. Culs-de-Sac
2. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a
lighted pathway to an adjacent street should be
encouraged to be provided and dedicated to the
city.
ADJOURNMENT : 9:15 p.m. until 9:25 p.m.
5.3 TREES
o Commissioner Wilson said he favored subsidizing those who
maintain trees rather than penalize people for cutting them
down. Discussion ensued regarding the planting of trees.
o The commissioners made the following changes and
recommendations regarding the Draft of the Tree Ordinance:
18.150.010 Purpose.
B. 2. Limit the unnecessary removal of trees. (Delete:
At the time of development. )
Page 3 - Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1994
i Al I, 10i
Page 3, No. 9. "Tree(s)" shall mean a (Delete: "living")
standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk
six inches or more in caliper size when. measured four
feet from ground level.
Page 4, No. 5. Which are used for JDelete: commercial
log harvesting or) Christmas tree production, but do not
stand in either sensitive lands, significant natural
areas, or greenways.
Page 5, No. 3. Removal of the tree(s) will not have a
significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow
of surface waters, protecti^n of adjacent trees, Water
quality, wildlife and noise pollution or existing wind breaks.
Page 8, A. (Continued) Chapter, then he or she shall do any or
all of the following:
• Commissioner Saxton moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded
to adopt Chapter 18.150 as modified by staff's
recommendations, for approval to the City Council...
Commissioners voted 3-2 with one abstention.
• Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to
charge a fee for cutting down a tree if its beyond 50' of a
residence or on undeveloped land, in the amount of $75.00 per
application plus $10.00 per tree. Commissioners voted 3-2
with one abstention.
• Commissioner Saxton moved and Commissioner Wilson seconded to
forward to City Council that the City Council develop a pro-
active program with financial incentives for the retention of
trees for the public good. Motion carried by majority of
Commissioners present. Commissioner Holland voted no.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Lorraine \..f11UrlL ....-~bJE1 , ,1
.
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST:
President Fyre
lc/PC2-07.min
Page 4 - Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1994
INES
• ` . DISCUSSION PAPER: TREE PROTECTION
This paper provides background information for your discussion about how and when to
protect trees in Tigard and recommends that we clarify and expand our tree preservation
strategies or) undeveloped and developing property and in significant natural areas while
maintaining as much freedom from regulation for the homeowner as possible. Recently the
removal, of a tree from a 14 acre residential parcel sparked concern about the fact that no
permit was necessary because of the lack of a clear definition of 'developed.' As Tigard
grows, concerns for green: paces, natural areas and trees increase. Yet that must be
balanced with the rights of the Individual property owner. Staff believes that for the most part
the tree ordinance coupled with the plan development review process works well to regulate
tree removal on property zoned commercial, industrial and mufti-family residential; it does not
work as well on single family property. An examination of neighboring community codes
indicates Tigard's ordinance Is similar although other communities seem to give more
protection to significant trees or trees in natural areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
® Require a tree removal permit for a parcel of greater than one acre with a house on
it, but exempt the area within 200 feet of the house. '
• Allow residei t homeow iers vi parcels of greater than one acre to cut a small number
of trees on their property for personal use with a permit.
® Require a tree removal perm# in significant natural areas and sensitive lands.
® Determine significant natural forest areas and develop criteria to protect them.
Strengthen language for criteria on tree removal during development to prevent
unnecessary removal of trees.
o Consider conducting a significant tree inventory in the future whin, and if, resources
become available.
GOALS, POLICIES AND VALUES
Following is a compilation of goals and polices taken from our comprehensive plan and code
and values gleaned from the Tigard Talks community survey and inferred from City Council
and Planning Commission discussions.
Comprehensive Plan Policy
The City shall require that deveiopment proposals in designated timbered or treed
areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the
number of trees removed.
Comprehensive Plan Implementation Strategy
When there exists large or unique stands of trees ...within the planning area on
undeveloped land the City shall insure, through the planned development
process and the tree cutting section of the community development code, that
development proposals do not substantially after the character of the vegetation
area.
_-~e~
Tree Removal Ordinance Purpose Statement
The City of Tigard now benefits from a large number of trees, both natural growth
and those which have been planted throughout the years by Tigard's residents.
These varied wooded trees add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help
clean the air and provide noise barriers.
The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the unnecessary removal of trees both
on developed commercial and Industrial land lots in the city, and to limit the
unnecessary removal of trees at the time of development. At the time of
development, the City recognizes that it may be necessary to remove certain
trees In order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities and other needed or
required Improvements within the development.
Tigard Talks: 'Summary Rer>ort'
The summary report noted 'the feeling that growth is destroying the beauty of the area was
a common response'. Responses included, `Not enough priority is being given to preserving
the natural setting in Tigard' 'More trees should be planted' 'Clear cutting has happened
without a permit'.
On the other hand, one response to what is the biggest threat to quality of life was, 'Too much
government legislation'.
Informal Values And Policies Inferred From City Council And Plannina Commission Meetinas
® Importance of property rights and minimizing government regulation for the
homeowner.
® Keeping assessed value of property within the City high.
a Attracting and keeping quality development and businesses.
o Maintaining high quality of life for residents.
6 Maintaining public safety.
JUST NOW IMPORTANT ARE TREES?
As our tree removal ordinance states, trees act as noise barriers, help clean the air and add
to the aesthetic beauty of the city. And on these hot days who doesn't look for that parking
space shaded by a tree. Our remaining forests provide habitat for animals and plants and
educational sites for learning about nature.
But trees also maintain high property values. A recent edition of BUILDER MAGAZINE nosed a
treed residential lot usually goes for an additional $5,000. Treed office sites attract a higher
premium as well as the potential for high quality businesses. Look at Kruse Way.
Page2
Tigard is fortunate to have many 'Jeautiful trees and wooded areas but its forest land is '
diminishing. As It continues to develop, it will lose more trees and more of its remaining
wooded areas. There are good reasons to remove trees including the personal preferences
of homeowners and appropriate development. Yet, tt-;:s must be balanced with quality of life
for the entire community now, and in the future.
COMPARISON OF OTHER TREE REMOVAL =ORDINANCES
A revierw of surrounding communities reveals that all have tree preservation ordinances. As
the attached chart, 'How, When, And Where Trees are Removed' shows, many of these are
comparable to Tigard's preservation ordinance. AlI allow the removal of diseased trees or
trees that pose a safety hazard. They also allow removal to facilitate passive or active solar
heati►ng, as does Tigard's draft 1992 ordinance, and to accommodate the placement of a
structure and associated uses.
The ordinances of all the communities surveyed require tree removal permits or approvals in
conjunction with the development of property. Examples of these are the Beaverton code
which allows the removal of significant/historic trees if their protection would result in a density
reduction of more than 15% or an increase of cost of 15% and the Forest Grove code which
allows a 50% reduction in setback requirements to retain significant/historic trees.
Differences with Tigard's existing code are also found. As indicated in Table I, Tigard appears
to be the only community that does not regulate tree removal on partially developed
residential land, or land that could be divided into two or more parcels. Washington County
and two communities, Beaverton and Tualatin do, however, allow the removal of a small
number of trees each year for personal use without a permit.
Beaverton, Lake Oswego and Forest Grove protect trees located in identified natural resource
areas. Tigard's code contains no such protection for trees in these areas. They also protect
significant or historic trees identified in comprehensive city-wide inventories. Tigard's
ordinance, on the other hand, does not list significant or historic trees as a protected category.
Tigard has not conducted an inventory that would allow the establishment of provisions aimed
at the protection of particular trees or groves.
WHEN DO WE REQUIRE A TREE PERMIT?
In Tigard we currently require a tree removal permit in almost all instances except for
developed residential property. Developed residential property is presently undefined. Staff
interprets it as any size property zoned residential with a dwelling on it. This lack of clarity is a
weakness in our tree protection strategy because large parts of such a parcel could be
developed in the future, or could include significant natural areas or sensitive lands. Today,
there is no code provision to regulate tree removal under these circumstances.
This shortcoming should be remedied. A new definition could be based on the ability of a
parcel to be divided, its size or the amount of existing development as a percentage of the
size of the parcel, called a floor area ratio. (See attached memo on `Additional Definitions
for Developed Residential) Parcel size is easier to administer than floor area ratio and more
equitable than potential division because it affects parcels in all zones equally. Staff
recommends the definition of developed residential property be defined as any parcel, one
Page3
ll:!::IililiIii MAR
acre or less, with at least one dwelling unit. For undeveloped residential parcels, a permit
would not be necessary within 200 feet of the dwelling unit. With a permit, the resident owner
of property defined as undeveloped would be permitted to cut a small number of trees each
yea at his own discretion. We recommend a one acre parcel size limit because it is the
logest parcel of residential land allowed for new single family development within the urban
growth boundary.
Further, we recommend a permit be required for all significant natural areas and sensitive
lands, as defined by the comprehensive plan and the community development code. This
would afford protection to trees in natural areas or wetlands on developed land not presently
covered.
While this does create new regulation for the homeowner on a large lot, it offers flexibility in
t hc, the owner may cut trees on the acre around his house without getting a permit in much
the same way as the owner of a smaller parcel may do. Further, it allows the owner discretion
in cutting few trees anywhere on his properry as long as they are not in a significant natural
or sensitive land area.
HOB! ISO WE REGULATE TREE REMOVAL?
PresentN<, we allow tree removal if the tree is diseased, imposes a safety threat, or if it is
necessary for development, and there is not a need to retain the tree or if there is a mitigation
program in place. These criteria are generally good, and for the most part, conform with
other communities' requirements.: Which trees can be removed during development is
determined in large part, through the planned development process. Since we are relying
less and less on this process, we recommend that we strengthen the language regarding
development to insure that trees are not removed unnecessarily. Forest Grove allows flexibility
in setback and other zoning requirements in exchange for significant/historic tree preservation.
Tigard might explore this option, especially for any forest areas designated significant.
NATURAL AREAS: FORESTS
The comprehensive plan identifies the northeast slope of Bull Mountain and the summit of little
Bull Mountain as special forest areas. Other areas have been identified as natural forest areas
as well. During this fiscal year we hope to assess these forest areas to determine their value
to the City and their need for protection. Staff recommends that when these areas are
identified, they should be protected as much as possible from development through specific
criteria relating to their preservation.
SIGNIFICANT/HISTORIC TREES
Of the five jurisdictions compared, three protect significant or historic trees. Beaverton, Lake
Oswego, and Forest Grove have co ducted 1 ivei'iv^ vur Cr% r%rchon¢,iycr P.
reouires
protection for large or unique stands of trees. While staff believes identifying and protecting
significant trees has merit, we believe it is a costly process both in terms of money and time
and that With implementation of the recommendations mentioned above, we will have a high
level of protection for trees. We believe we should consider inventorying trees in the future if
and when resources become available.
Plt/treerpt.ci
August 6. 1993
Page4
Fmw~ Table l
DEFINITION OF DEVELOPED/UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY
Beaverton
Undeveloped: any unimproved or partially improved parcel of 1 acre or more
Lake Oswego
Developed: located in a residential zone, occupied by a single family dwelling, used
fx as such, cannot be divided into three or more lots
Tualatin
Ordinance does not distinguish between developed and undeveloped property
Forest Grove
Undeveloped: land subject to development review, meaning any developable land
Tigard
Existing Ordinance: no definition of undeveloped
Dram Ordinance (1992): lots without an established existing use or which may
be further partitioned
Washington County
Ordinance does not specify
10, 1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Carol Landsman
FROX: Ron Pomeroy
DATE:July 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Additional definitions for "Developed Residential"
The Community Development Code does not currently provide a
definition for the term "Developed Residential Land". Below are
three definitions which provide a range of parameters.
1) Developed residential land is that land which includes a
habitable structure and i.s not large enough to be further
partitioned or subdivided.
2) Developed residential land is that land which is within 100
feet of the perimeter of a habitable structure.
3) Developed residential land is that land which is one acre in
size or less and includes at least one habitable structure.
4) Developed residential land is that land which possesses a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:5 or greater. (i.e. A 7,500
square foot lot which contains a residence which is at least
1,500 square feet in size; a 15,000 square foot lot which
contains a residence which is at least 30.000 square feet in
size; etc...)
5) Developed residential land is that land which possesses a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:10 or greater. (i.e. A 15,000
square foot lot which contains a residence which is at least
1,500 square feet in size; a 30,000 square foot lot which
contains a residence which is at least 3,000 square feet in
size; etc...)
I contend that definition number one best meets the intent of the
purpose statement of Community Development Code Section 18.150
which states:
The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the unnecessary
removal of trees on undeveloped lots in the City prior to the
development of those-lots. At the time of development it may
be necessary to remove certain trees to accommodate
structures, streets, utilities and other needed or required
improvements within the development.
The more liberal the definition of Developed Residential Land, the
more "at risk" the remaining trees are which are located on
Tigard's remaining developable residential land.
4
't -I t x r - t t a -i to -r m
C-
o C eN m
0 8 g m 2 0
I 8 I m M
9 et 3 ~ e g '4
a
x Unbalanced & Lacking Full Crown
x x x x x x Safety Hazard
x x x x x 'x x x x x Diseased or Weakened
x x x Good Arboriculture Practice,
Thinning
x Access to She or Structure
x Essential Grade Change
x x x I x x x Public Utility Easement
x x x x x IX x x Accommodate Structure or
Driveway
Compliance with Other C
Ordinances/Codes 6
x x x x x Solar Access < m
m
x x x x x x x Replacement or Mitigation/Tree n m
Improvement Program
m
State or Federal Approval
X Loss 5/15% of allowed units;
5/15% Increase In utility
Installation costa
x Nuisance/Damago to Property or r:1
Improvements
x Lose of Slgniftance
x Wooded Areas Along Property
Lines Retained
x Wooded Areas Along Drainageway
Water Area Retained
x x x x Area & Density Adequate to
Prevent Windthrow
Trees Retained to Greatest Extent
x x x No Erosion, Soil Stability, Water
Flow, Windbreaks
SDR Process
x x x x x Limited Personal Use
x x x No Adverse Impact on Character,
Aesthetics, Prop Values, or Use
L
g fe g• 3n 2 9; o O
mg5~ o
r
X Unbalanced & Lacking Full Crown
x x x x X X Safety Hazard
x x x x x x x x x x Diseased or Weakened =
x x x Good Arboriculture Practice, 0
Thinning
x Access to She or Structure
x Essential Grade Change m
x X x x x X Public Utility Easement Z
x x x x x x x x Accommodate Structure or
Driveway
Compliance with Other C
Ordinances/Codes M C
C
x x x x x Solar Access 0 M P
E
X x x X x x x Replacement or Mitigation/Tree n m
Improvement Program
State or Federal Approval 2) M
M
x Lose 515% of allowed units; M
I` 5/15% Increase in utility
Installation costs
M
X NuleancerDamagG to Property or M
Improvements M
x Lass of Significance M
X Wooded Areas Along Property 0
Lines Retained M
X Wooded Areas Along Drainageway
Water Area Retained
X x x x Area & Density Adequate to
Prevent Windthrow
Trees Retained to Greatest Extent
x x X No Erosloo, Soil Stability, Water
Flow, Windbreaks
SDR Process
x X X x x Limited Personal Use
I
ix Ix x No Adverse Impact on Charactor,
Aesthetics, Prop Values, or Use
somi
a- 9 rn at -t -t 0 O -4 C
m ~ m ~E' m a m ~ C
~m7 0 7 0 v1 N
a li ~j ® C m 0 d
S C CL a N O y
Q `g $ m IM N
g s iu °
CL w
Unbalanced & Loddng Full Crown
3
9 X X X X X X Safety Hazard
x x x X X X Diseased or Weakened
N x x Good Arboriculture Practice,
Thinning ay.
X Access to Site or Structure
X Essential Grade Change
i x x x Public Utility Easement
X X X Accommodate Structure or
Driveway
x Compliance with Other G
Ordinances/Codes m
s4 x Solar Access C
x Replacement or Mitigation/Tree 0 m
Improvement Program
State or Federal Approval
x Loss 5/15% of allowed units;
5/15% Increase In utility
installation costs
X X x x Nuisance/Damage to Property or
Improvements
x x Loss of Significance
x Wooded Areas Along Property
Lines Retained m
x Wooded Areas Along Drainageway
Water Area Retained
x x Area & Density Adequate to
Prevent Windthrow
Trees Aatained to Greatest Extent
X No Erosion, Soil Stability, Water
i
y Flow, Windbreaks
SDR Proi
Limhed Personal Use
a
No Adverse Impact on Character,
Aesthat€cs, Prop Values, or Use
S
ra'
a -i Pi Ul -1 -9 -1 0O c a
p~ ~ •o ~Zi' m m m ~t
a ® N 1 4~1 N N S rll
0 5.
g W m O
S ° m
10
v
Unbalanced & Lacking Full Crown
3
3 X X X x x x Safety Hazard
x x x x x x Diseased or Weakened
T
x x' Good Arboriculture Practice,
Thinning
X Access to Site or Structure
x Essential Grade Change
x x x Public Utility Easement
x x x Accommodate Structure or
Driveway g
x Compliance with Other
Ordinances/Codes
x x Solar Access
d ~
x Replacement or Mitigation/l'ree 0
Improvement Program
90
m ~
State or Federal Approval
x Loss 5115% of allowed units; N
5/15M Increase In utility
Installation costs
x x x x Nuisance/Damage to Property or
Improvements
x x Loss of Significance
x Wooded Areas Along Property
Lines Retained m
x Wooded Areas Along Drainageway
Water Area Retained
x x Area & Density Adequate to
Prevent Windlhrow
Trees Retained to Greatest Extent
X No Erosion, Soil Stability, Water
Flow, Windbreaks
SDR Process
Limited Parsonal Use
a
No Adverse impact on Character,
° Aesthetics, Prop Values, or Use
ni
i
TIM R=OVAL FM SCIMOULM
FM CM C0N
Tigmd
no charge for removal permit
Forest Grove
no charge for removal permit
Beaverton
previous fee of $53 for removal of tree on own property has been repealed
$53 fee in effect for removal of tree located in planter strip
1 Tualatin
$30 per. tree, plus $10 for each additional tree up to maximum of $150
jAe Oswego
flat $6 for removal of one or more trees on developed residential property
$75, plus $10 per tree for removal of trees from all undeveloped land
DRIAm
20. LCM
IMPROPER TREE REMOVAL PENALTMS
Crrf COMPARISONS
Txga&
fine not exceeding $250 per tree
Portland:
replacement with two trees from the approved tree list for every one tree
removed without permission. The new trees must be at least 2 inches in
diameter.
Tualatin:
fine not exceeding $5,00 per tree, with fifty per cent to be designated for the
planting of trees on city-owned property.
Beaverton-
1. a fine based on the arborcultural value of the tree, with such assessment
to be deposited in the City's Tree Preservation fund for future tree
preservation efforts;
2. as an alternative to paying the fine, trees may be replaced with like trees
which equal the replacement value of the lost trees. The trees must be of the
same variety as those lost.
Lake Osweeo:
four options, applied singularly or in combination:
1. fine of $500 per tree;
2. holders of city business license subject to revocation of the license;
3. replacement of the cut tree with a substantially similar tree. The number
of replacement trees is determined by dividing the caliper of the tree cut by the
caliper of the largest reasonably available replacement tree;
4. a replacement plan providing for the replanting and maintenance of the
replacement tree or trees. The plan provides that if any replacement tree dies
within three years of planting, the property owner is required to replace the
tree.
lei IMASSM SE Effm am=
Forest Grove:
four options, applied singulafiy or in combination:
1. fine not exceeding $1,000 per tree;
2. the replacement value of the removed tree to be paid to the City. Such
funds are to be used by the City to plant new trees on public rights-of-way,
3. replant with one or mmore trees having the same or higher value as the
removed tree or trees;
4. one or more trees of a species acceptable to the City in which the caliper
size cumulative square inches of the replacement trees equal the caliper size
cumulative square inches of the removed trees
Octebw W. MW
a~r~aP
t
%1,111 11!% asli 1101$1
Sam
600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE I PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 2736
TEL 503 7 9 7 1700 FAX 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 9 7
!1
i
M ETRO
July 12, 1994
John Schwartz, Mayor
Members of the Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mayor Schwartz and Council Members:
I am pleased by the proposal before you tonight to amend your City Code to create
the framework for preservation of the trees of Tigard. I encourge you to adopt the
revisions to Code Section 18.150 as they are included in the draft that has been put
forth for public review.
Your adoption of a method r`or the protection of the dity'S green "1-i1rc5tfIAL U1c' will
assure Tigard's place in the forefront of the region's attempts to preserve the unique
characteristics of our area that are such an economic draw and the basis of
projections of continued regional growth and prosperity. Surveys done by Metro
and others over the past several years show again and again that the existence of
open space, natural areas, and mature landscaping of developed lands are very
important to the people who make this home. They expect their part of Oregon to be
green, love it because it is, and want to keep it that way forever.
Your efforts in making Tigard a more livable community are certainly appreciated
and applauded. Please make this letter part of your record in the matter of the
proposed Ordinance amending Code Section 18.150 regarding the removal of trees.
Very sincerely yours,
Terry Moor Councilori District 13 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE
PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 2736
TEL 503 797 1544 FAX 503 797 1793
it"Y'lyd P.P-
`FERRY MOORE
a
METRO COUNCILOR
Recycled raper
Ar x judy esisIer
11130 SW Fonnar
Tigard, OR 97223
July 12, 1994
To: Mayor & Council
Re: Tigard Tree Ordiance
I am elated that this Tree Ordiance is before all of us tonight.
I feel that large kudos Shoul" go to the Staff, Planning
Commission, Home Builders Association and of course just plain
citizens who have taken the time to help create a tree ordiance
with trees, people and the environment in mind. .
I have a few comments to the proposed Tree Ordiance before you
tonight. I realize that all of our planning decisions come from
the Tigard Director- position persay, but in approplate places in
the code one suggestion would to also add "certified arborist", or
designee.
Addition of wording to:
18.150.080 - PENALTY pge # 9
PARAGRAPH- A "fine of $ 500.00" ADD or 3 times the stump.value.
is grcci a.ter.
M WLL.LV LL =V=.I.
Adding the stump value, in my opinion gives another incentive to
preserve the larger trees where that market drives the price.
I would also like to support the Planning Commission's
recommendations for utilizing the permit money and penalty money
for a tree planting fund and that the council not only adopt that
1 policy by considering to provide an overall policy of incentatives
(tax, grant, etc) to residents to keep maintaining the good health
of their existing trees.
PERMIT FEES
I would also like to address the Planning Commission reference to
fees for permits and tree removal of.$ 75.00 for permit and 10.00
for each tree.
I believe we should look at fees with the intent of this ordiance
and I think we all agree that the intent is to ;seep trees where we
can. If we make the fees too high will the average home owner who
may have a "undeveloped" definition of land maybe will say I'll not
apply and hope I don't get caught. But the reality is the tree is
gone. I believe if we make the fee affordable to the above
situation and charge less for the permit and a little mere per
tree(s) we have met the purpose of saving the quantity of trees.
4
1TIME
I have heard comments that the staff time might not be justified
if the permit fee was not set possibly the above rate but I would
like to share with you excerpts from a memorandum from City of L.0
on their fees for Tree Permit vs Staff time costs. I would also
like to add the LO fees on the trees themselves are much lower than
what has been proposed and they have 1 staff person who is an
Arborist, Attorney and Natural Resources person all in one. LO
maintains this position with fees and permit charges for trees.
Based on memorandum from LO I would like to suggest for TIGARD
35.00 per residential( undeveloped) plus 10.00 per tree
35.00 comrtarcial/industrial plus 10.00 per tree
Lake Oswego's Permits
50.00 permit( undeveloped) plus 5.00/tree
12.00 permit for any plan -that goes through hearing, plan review,
etc. plus 2.00/tree
As you will see by the memo, staff time of LO ranges from 15
minutes to 1.5 hours which falls into the undeveloped without a
® development plan, etc.
law You will notice they also charge a permit fee of $6.00 of exempt
property, I do not feel that this is necessary but I would hope
that we as a city can have material available for tree preservation
and tips for the homeowner on trimming, grading, etc they may do
on their own private property in regard to preserving a healthy
tree.
I would urge the council to approve this proposed Tree Ordiance
tonight with the provision of adopting fee schedules at a later
time if more information.needed on procedures, etc
Thank you
Jud Fess r
11150 SW Fonner
Tigard OR 97223
r
ClIrrent Tree. Cutdng Permit Fees.
The current fees for Lr , ~ cutting permits were establishers itt 1971 and have never been changed.
The fees are as follows:
hTcrnber of Frees 1=
0-3 -U-
4+ on less than
20,000 sq. ft. $12.00
4+ on greater than
20,000 sq, ft. $50.00
This fee structure bears no relationship to the costs of reviewing and issuing permits. For
example, the cutting of 3 trees on a particular site could require as much time as 10 trees on a
larger site and the removal of 30 trees on a site of over 20,000 square feet will require more time
to review than the proposed removal of 4 trees from a similar site. Enforcement of permits once
issued, while not always required, is another cost factor that is not reflected in current fee
structures.
Costs Amciated With itecent. ®rdirtance Amendments
The amendments to the tree cutting ordinance create three situations in which review of tree
cutting is required.
1) Trees on Developed parcels - On parcels which are in a residential zone, are occupied by a
single family dwelling and cannot be divided into three or more lots, trees may be cut
provided they are issued a permit which verifies that the property is exempt from the tree
cutting criteria.
2) Trees on Undeveloped Parcels -e On, all other parcels prior m their development in
conjunction with a Minor or Major Development application, trees may only be cut after
the issuance of a permit which verifies the cutting will comply with the applicable criteria
and after the trees have been marked and a 14 day appeal period has expired without an
anneal being filed.
3) Trees in Conjunction with Major or Minor Development Applications --Trees on these
properties may only be cut in conformance with the approval of the development
application.
For the purpose of this memorandum, the staff costs assoclated with each situation described
above have been analyzed and are summarized below:
Situation L. Even though tree cutting permits in this case are exempt from the criteria, the
requirement for a permit involves a staff interaction with the applicant, a review of the
application and a determination of the exempt status as well as a related record peeping.
On the average, this activity requires approximately .25 hours of an associate planner's
time. The time required is not related to the number of trees because the only
determination is whether the property is exempt, The current hourly rate plus benefits for
an associate planner is $23.00. Therefore, the average cost of processing a tree cutting
permit for a developed property is $5.75.
Page 2 of 4
i
x
s^»
` n
Situation 2: In this situation, each tree proposed to be cut is evaluated against the criteria,
which typically involves a site visit. In addition, the ordinance amendment now requires
the appllc;mt to post the property and mark the trees proposed for cutting. Staff anticipa?As
that these additional requirements will consume additional staff time in explaining
procedures, monitoring complianco, responding to citizen inquiries and maintnining
records. The cost in this situation will increase to a certain point with the number of trees
because each tree is reviewed.,
It is estimated that this situation will require 1.5 to 2.0 !sours of an associate planner's time
and approximately .5 hours of a sdcrctary tune. At the current hourly rates plus benefits,
the basic average cost per permit is estimated to be $42.501 to $54.00. An additional charge
of $5.00 per tree up to a maximum would reflect the increase in costs associated with the
number of trees-
Therefore, the average cost of processing a tree cutting permit for an undeveloped
property is $42.50 to $54.00 plus $5.00 per tree up to an appropriate maximum.
Situation 3 - In this situation, trees that are proposed for cutting will be reviewed with all
the other site planning considerations through the public hearing process. Therefore, the
costs for the review will be partially recovered through the fees associated with the
development application. Once the project is approved only those trees on the approved
tree removal plan may be cut.
To ensure compliance with the approved plan, staff will be required to administratively
verify through the building permit process that only those trees on the approved plan will
be cut. This activity is unlike either Situation 1, where only the exempt status must be
determined, or Situation 2 where notice and individual tree review procedures are required.
In Situation 3, staff will be required to review the approved plan, compare it to the trees to
e cut and issue the permits. Total time will vary with the number of trees and complexity
of site issues, Minimum time involved can be expected to be .50 hours with longer times
required in relation to the number of trees. Using the hour! ra from above, the
average costs of verifying tree euttin with o o~ ent S12.00 plus
2.00 er tree up to an appropriate maximum.
In a few cases in Situation 3, particularly single family subdivisions where the building
location may not be known, an approved tree removal plan will not have been approved by
the hearing authority. Where no tree removal plan is part of the development approval
staff will be required to review tree cutting permits for compliance with the tree cutting
criteria at the time building permits are issued. The time associated with this review would
be comparable to the review for compliance with an approved plan. 't'herefore, the fee
should also be $12.00 plus $2.00 per tree.
D 'M B. SBel 7//
' Attorney At T1^aw
Ra Box 230x'3.7
Tigard, OR 972341637 RECEIVED PLANNING
(503) 6204258 Fax: 639-Q91
JUL 1 2 1,994
July 12, 1994
Mr. Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004: Draft Chapter 18.150,
Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Bewersdorff:
Enclosed for submission to the City Council at its meeting at
.7:30 tonight, please find the comments of my client, Rita M.
Hart, in opposition to the Council's adoption of the referenced
ordinance amendment. Please insure these comments are entered
into the record of the proceedings.
Very truly yours,
David B. Smith
Attorney for Rita M. Dart
encl
cc: Ty K. Wyman, Esq. (by FAX)
Rita M. Hart
MISIM
DAM B. S RECEIVED PLANNING
Attorney At Law
Z' OL Pox 230637
Ti d, OR 977281-0637 JUL 12 1994
(503) 620-0258 Fax: 6394891
July 11, 1994
City Council
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004: Draft Chapter 18.150.
Tree Removal
Dear Mayor and Council:
The purpose of this letter is to provide written testimony on the
referenced amendments to the city's Code, and the advice tendered
to the City by the City Attorney's Office on March 1, 1994,on
behalf of my client, Rita M. Bart.
The referenced ordinance expands the city's prohibition on
removal of trees by changing the definition "developed
residential lots," thus expanding the restrictions on the removal
of trees to properties (and trees) that previously had not been
subject to tree removal restrictions.
At the outset it should be noted that adoption of this amended
ordinance requires compliance with statewide land use Goal 5.
The City, in its public notice, clearly identifies, under
"Applicable Review Criteria," "Statewide Planning Goals * * * 5."
It also should be noted the section of the plan under which tree
removal is-addressed is a Goal 5 section, entitled "Natural
Areas".
The City Attorney is mistaken when he indicates the City's
acknowledged plan relieves fiha City of the requirement for "a
full scale-Goal 5 analysis." There is no question but the
ordinance applies to trees and.lots and parcels that were
previously not covered in any plan Goal 5 inventory (Volume I of
the Comprehensive Plan at Appendix I does not address undeveloped
lots and parcels, as they are defined in the amended ordinance).
As I noted in my letter of January 17, 1994, to amend that
inventory, the City must first inventory the location, quality
and quantity of the additional trees it wants to protect. The
determination of the location of these resource must include a
description or map of the location of each tree and of the area
affected by each tree. The City's determination of the quality
of each identified tree must consider the relative value of the
tree, as compared with other examples of the tree, at least
within the city.
It then must determine whether any conflicting uses exist for
each particular tree deemed significant and listed on the
r
inventory. The City then must analyze the ESEE consequences of
allowing the conflicting uses. Both the impacts upon tree sites
Alk and the impacts upon conflicting uses must be analyzed.
Finally, after determining the ESEE consequences of uses that
conflict with trees identified by the city as significant, the
City may develop a program to achieve the purpose of the goal.
The referenced ordinance is that program. It cannot be adopted
until the City has first completed the inventory, conflicting use
identification, and ESEE analysis for each additional tree, or
resource site to be protected on "undeveloped" parcels.
r,
Until the City complies with the specific requirements of Goal 5
and its implementing administrative rules, the City may not
expand its protection to include trees not currently protected.
The extension of protection to new Goal 5 resource sites requires
the City to amend its comprehensive plan. Plan amendments must
comply with tht: goals, including the detailed mandates of Goal 5.
The City may not add new resource sites to its protection program
merely by making findings based on the City's comprehensive plan.
In 1992, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed the specific
question of whether a city's plan policy, adopted under Goal 5,
relieved the city of the independent obligation to comply with
Goal 5 and its implementing rules in providing protection to
resource sites through an ordinance.
The role that the [comprehensive] plan policy plays in
the ordinance is nothing more than an attempted
duplication of the Goal 5 implementing rule, and it
cannot purport to serve as an independent "basis for
the rerntlation" is it operates in a way that the
implementing rule would not operate and would not
permit.
Ramsey v. City of Portland, 115 Or App 20, 24, 836 P2d
772 (1992).
Thus, the Court of Appeals has made clear that,'even if the
City's plait policies are a ":lone°° of Goal 5 and its rules,
adoption of a program to protect new Goal 5 resource sites (trees
on "undeveloped" parcels) must comply with the Goal and its
rules. The City's plan policies cannot serve as an independent
basis for the referenced ordinance amendment.
2
INS
The Council should reject the referenced ordinance amendment and
return it to the Planning Department for proper completion of the
Goal 5 process. Please enter this letter in the record of the
Council's proceedings.
Very truly yours,
David B. Smith
Attorney for Rita M. Hart
cc: Rita M. Hart
Ty K. Wyman, Esq. (by FAX)
5365-005 ATR
3
Illy
K*w mom
goal
J UU - 1 2-1-44 TUE 1 0: 1 X3 CU Iva RUN NEUUS R 1
Mi'V. CrAV-O4. L.ftedpSMAJ
JUL 1
July 12, 1994
Public Hearing
Tigard City Council
Mr. Chair, Members of the City Council:
I am out of town and unable to attend the hearing today but ask
that you carefully consider the following concerns I have with
the proposed ordinance:
1. Purpose. I suggest that the stated purpose is very dry and
does not demonstrate a true.appreciation for the wooded areas
and mature trees of Tigard and for the numerous aesthetic,
environmental and economic benefits they provide. in section
18.150.010 A 2 of the proposed ordinance, I suggest the word
"minimize" be substituted for "limit". For 18.150.010 A 3, I
suggest the words "Preserve wooded areas and mature trees where
possible and" be added to the beginning of the existing phrase.
A purpose.statement similar to that used in the tree ordinances
adopted for the Citys of Durham or Tualatin would be superior to
that proposed for Tigard's ordinance.
2. Citizen Involvement. The proposed ordinance states that the
original proposal was reviewed by NPOs. These organizations,
as the City Council itself admitted in a recent meeting with CIT
facilitators, did not provide a good representation of Tigard
citizens. CITs have been shown to work well, get the word out
better, and involve more citizens in informed discussion. In
addition, the Agenda Item Summary states that the NPOs reviewed
the ORIGINAL tree ordinance, before revisions and that no
citizens have been invited to review or comment on this final
_ version until this hearing. I recommend that this final draft
go before the CITs at their upcoming AugU:st meetings. This
will not cause undue delay and will let their opinions be heard.
3. Definitions.
A. Perhaps the term "non-developable" would be a
good addition.to the definitions for "developed" commercial,
industrial, or residential land. The definitions given were
confusing and it was difficult to tell if it would be possible
for an individual to purchase land and subdivide it, therefore
making themselves exempt from needing a tree cutting permit for
and future activity they may desire to conduct on the property.
I would hope that this ordinance would be written to require a
tree cutting permit for anyone who plans to do any scale of
development on any type of lot.
In addition, on large residential lots (ie. >1 acre), tree
cutting should require a permit to prevent harvesting for profit
at the expense of the community.
E. In my work on the Tigard Citizen's Committee on Natural
Resources Policy over the past 6 months, I had the opportunity
to speak with the arborist who conducted Tigard's "forest
study He told us that many of the singular trees which are
Boom
being left here and there on large development sites are not
surviving because of extensive root damage due to the heavy
-equipment used on these sites. He said that this damage could
be prevented by fencing the rooted perimeter of the trees during constructic
n or
leaving groups of treed rather than individual trees. I propose
that the city actively educate developers about this problem and
encourage designs F h.at leave groups of trees at the time of
permit application. For the ordinance, I propose that "damaged"
be a definition added to this ordinance and incorporated into
the body of the ordinance as a violation - similar to illegal
tree removal and punishable by fine.
4. Permit Criteria.
A. Trees will best be preserved if tha development is designed
around them, not simply designed for a flat lot of certain size
and the lot cleared and leveled to fit the plan. With this in
mind; it seems reasonable that the city should request tree
permits to be submitted in tandem with the building design and
permits approved at that time, not following approval of the
building.
B. I suggest that the word "and" be placed at the end of each
condition listed section 18.150.040 A to make clear that all
three criteria in 18.150.040 A: 1,2, AND 3, must be met for a
permit to be granted. If the word "and" is not included here, I
do not feel the criteria in 18.150.040 A 2 b and c are
sufficient to merit a permit.
C. I suggest the following language be added to condition
18.150.040 C 3 c: "Removal of the tree(s) will not have... a
significant negative impact on THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AESTHETICS,...erosion, soil stability,.." etc.
6. The recently completed natural resource policies (as
recently proposed to the joint City Council and
Planning Commission and going out to CITs in August),
include policies regarding tree preservation which would affect
this ordinance. I suggest that this ordinance be revised at the
time that the City's natural resource policies are finalized to
make this ordinance consistent with City Policy.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the above concerns.
I would be happy to discuss or answer questions about any of
them when Y return from vacation. I hope that you give this
ordinance the time and careful consideration it deserves in
order to create a final ordinance which will truly be protective
of the remaining tree stands in Tigard that so many of us enjoy.
Respectfully.submitted,
Amy Patton
15735 SW 76th. Avenue
Tigard, Oregon
vim
MEN
R
A: 11151:11
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 12, 1994 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bull Mt. Island PREVIOUS ACTION: None
Annexation (7,CA 94-04)
PREPARED BY: John Acker
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OIC REQUESTED BY:
--------------------------------WI,, ISSUE
Should, the City Council initiate annexation of a three parcel island of
unincorporated Washington County that is completely surrounded by the City.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed annexation consists of three parcels totaling 3.54 acres that are
completely surrounded by the City of Tigard. This area is located south of Bull
Mt. Road east of Aspen Ridge Street and is within Tigard's area of interest.
The City received a request to annex the middle property (WCTM 2S1 10BD lot 1400)
in order to partition the property into three parcels and serve each with
sanitary sewer. Annexing this single parcel would create a remainder of two
single parcel islands. Based on the City Council's past direction and to remedy
the existing boundary irregularity in this area rather than exacerbate it, staff
proposes that this area be annexed as a single unit using the island method.
Attached is a resolution to forward the annexation request to the Boundary
Commission and an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County
R-6 to City of Tigard R-4.5 in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Also attached is a vicinity map, site map and staff report.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1- Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to
the Boundary Commission and to assign a zone designation to the property
in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Deny the proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT
Since the proposal is City initiated, the Boundary Commission fee of $545 will
be paid by the city.
The current land assessment is $348,380, which will be added to the current tax
base. No significant fiscal impact is expected until development occurs. When
development of this parcel occurs there will be attendant demands for service.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the
Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
0
4
~ RO
~ - fE y
b~° AY6D '8
s4'
p
Nq
2
P C
P
~O
ca `w ,11
t 9'
~ G
J a
$T
Z I DABOT t
4REE g o
ac
o ~
d°
1
! 4.~ HV~tUhEq ,
° s.~aur r ar 1
a~a
r
Y'rp ~b~ ~ 7
J
J
s
g b
BD
BDE $T BDa A
C~
~pu A
t D e0
a
z
r
w
x
D pD• O
BEEF D£N £
W
b.
t~
y
E
1
i
i ~
.
^.n. p•...-.
.
•
15
c.
' . '
.
.~i
. . .
.
a
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
. . :
PROPERTY
P VVITHIN
THE CITY OF TIGARD
'1 11' W!, ill
NEW
Y
4
AGENDA ITEM # i
For Agenda of 6-21-94
CITY OF "TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA, ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITTLE Cat~it~h„rIm rovement Program Priorities ^
PREPARED BY: R. Woole DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Approval of project priorities for seven-year capital improvement program.
STAFF RECONWE'NDATION
Approve recommendations of the Planning Commission (Attachment #1).
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Earlier this year, the City began the process of developing a seven-year CIP
(capital improvement program). The first step is to identify project
priorities. The second step is to identify funding for the priority projects
and prepare a CIP showing the tentative schedule and funding source for each
of the projects. The Planning Commission is responsible for developing a CIP
to recommend to the Council.
In April and May, the CITs suggested priority projects. On May 9th, the
Planning Commission heard recommendations from the CITs and other citizen
groups. On June 6th, the Commission toured the sites of recommended CIP
projects. After considerable discussion, the Commission adopted the project
priorities shown in Attachment #1. Explanation of the projects and their
rankings is provided in Attachment #2.
The CIP schedule calls for the Council to review the priority list before
w' staff and Planning Commission proceed to the next step. Council could accept
the priorities recommended by the Planning Commission or the Council could
revise the priority list.
No hearing is required at this time. Opportunities for public input have
been provided through the CITs and through the May 9th meeting of the
Planning Commission. After the Commission develops a final CIP
recommendation, that recommendation will be scheduled for Council review with
an opportunity for the public to address the Council prior to final adoption
of the CIP.
Once adopted, the CIP will be reviewed and updated at least once a year.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL NOTES
Att.acbment #1
C . I . P . Priorities Planning Commission Reco endationa (6-6-94)
(Listed in proposed order of priority)
STREET PROJECTS'
1. Major maintenance program
2. Hall/99W
3. 72nd/Bonita signal modifications
4. Grant Avenue bridge
5. Tiedeman Avenue bridge
6. Main Street pavement replacement
7. 79th Avenue (Bonita to Durham)
8. Pedestrian improvements Park/Watkins
9. Burnham/Main intersection
10. North Dakota bridge
11. Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins intersection
12. I-5/217 local street improvements
13. Bonita Road (Fanno Creek to 72nd)
14. Commercial Street--.I. f4
15. 130th/Winterlake Connection
16. Hall/Scholls turn ane
17. Greenburg Rd. right of way
18. Greenburg/Mapleleaf turn lane
19. Tigard Street bridge
20. Grant Avenue sidewalk
PARK PROJECTS
1. Cook Park picnic shelter replacement
2. Property acquisition at 74th near Barbara
f'
3. Property acquisition north of `."'ook Park
4. Fanno Creek pathway between Borth Dakota and Tigard Streets
5. Englewood Park/Fanno Creek connection
6. Woodard Park/Main Street connection
Pay c 1 T
SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS
1. Major maintenance program
2. Gentle Woods sewer protection
3. Easements for future extensions
4. Capacity upgrades from USA study
STORM DRAINAGE PROJECTS
1. Major maintenance program
2. 98th and Scott Drainage
3. Walnut culvert replacement
4. 76th Avenue Drainage
5. Projects from USA study
WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS
1. North Dakota St. pipeline extension
2. Scholls Ferry Rd. pipeline extension
3. Scholls Ferry/Beef Bend reservoir
4. Pleasant View pressure reducing station
5. Highway 217 crossing replacement
6. 121st/Walnut pipeline extension
ilia
A.ttacmm t e. #2
~KEASON'S_ Vk:,Zt PRY®RITY RANKINGS
Major Maintenance Program. For the last several years, the City
has allocated a portion of its CIP funds to major maintenance of
street pavements and bridges. Major maintenance covers items such
as pavement overlays and seal coats. Timely maintenance of
existing pavements protects the City's investment. Failure to
perform maintenance will eventually lead to the need to reconstruct
the pavement, a much more expensive solution and much more
disruptive to traffic.
The routine major maintenance program has generally provided a
street system in good repair. However, as traffic increases,
especially truck and bus traffic, the need for major maintenance
also increases. A review of the City's pavement management system
indicates that at least $300,000 per year should be allocated to
major maintenance to protect the existing pavement system.
I give this program top priority because deferring major
maintenance will increase the City's costs in the long term.
Hall/99W
This project would widen Hall on the approaches to 99W to provide
a separate left-turn lane, through lane and right-turn lane on each
approach. This is expected to increase intersection capacity and
reduce traffic delays at the intersection. This project was a high
priority recommendation of the 99W Task Force. Estimated cost is
approximately $600,000 to $900,000. The City is trying to obtain
State or regional funding for this project.
72nd/Bonita-Signal Modifications.
This intersection experiences long traffic back-ups during some
periods of the day. In preparation for the I-5/217 project, a
traffic engineering review is being performed on several
intersections on 72nd Avenue. The traffic engineer thinks there
may be ways to increase the capacity of the 72nd/Bonita
intersection with some revisions to the traffic signal equipment.
If so, we would like to see the work done as soon as possible, so
that it would be completed before Durham Road is closed for
construction in the summer of 1995. Estimated cost of the signal
work is under $25,000. The traffic engineer's report is expected
by July.
Grant Avenue Bridge
The Grant Avenue bridge over Fanno Creek is in poor condition and
needs to be replaced for structural reasons. In addition, the
existing bridge is a restriction to flood flows on Fanno Creek; it
is common for this bridge to be closed due to flooding during major
ATTACHMENT #2 PAGE 1
IRS
V
MEN=
rain storms. The replacement bridge would meet modern standards
for structural design, flood flows, and width. Total project cost
is estimated to be between $650,000 and $750,000. A. grant is
expected in 1995 that would pay 80% of the costs.
Tiedeman Avenue Bridae
This bridge is also in poor structural condition and an impediment
to flood flows in Fanno Creek and Summer Creek. The bridge is on
a major access route to Fowler Junior High School. The replacement
bridge would have a wider roadway and sidewalks to improve safety
for cars, bikes and pedestrians. The roadway alignment would be
revised somewhat to reduce the sharp curves on the south approach
to the bridge. Total project cost is estimated at between $850,000
and $1.,000,000. A grant is expected in 1996 that would pay 80% of
,s the bridge replacement costs.
Main Street Pavement Replacement
This project would provide reconstruction of the deteriorated
pavement on the entire length of Main Street. Replacement of
portions of the storm drainage system would be done at the same
time. This project received the highest CIT rating. The
Commission also heard public testimony in support of this project.
The deterioration of the pavement on Main Street is too severe for
overlay; total reconstruction is required. Estimated cost is
$500,000 to $800,000. This project includes only the street
pavement, not sidewalks.
79th Avenue (Bonita to Durham)
This project would totally reconstruct the street to improve sight
distance, provide an adequate pavement, and add sidewalks and
street lighting. Substantial development along 79th in recent
years has greatly increased the traffic on a road designed as a
country lane. It has become very difficult to maintain the
pavement and the road has no safe place for pedestrians to walk.
North of Ashford Street, hills and valleys restrict sight distance.
This project was the first priority for the South CIT. I rated the
project ahead of Park/Watkins because of the severe pedestrian
safety problems caused by the restricted sight distance. Estimated
project cost is $800,000 to $1,800,000. A portion of the cost
might be paid by property owners along 79th. Some of the property
owners have previously signed waivers of remonstrance, agreeing not
to object to the formation of a local improvement district to
improve 79th.
Park/Watkins Pedestrian Improvements
a
Pedestrian improvements in general received a high CIT rating,
although most CITs did not propose specific locations for
improvement. The Central CIT identified the Park/Watkins area
pedestrian improvements as its top priority. In addition, the
'a
ATTACHMENT #2 PAGE 2
millid'! 151511 D 112, 11
WA~: 11 l! I 1! 11 !1
I
MESWO mi 0! 11111
Commission heard public testimony in support of this project. The
project would continue shoulder improvements in the area begun in
1994. Estimated cost is approximately $100,000 for Watkins and
$50,000 for Park.
At the request of Council, staff is working on identification of
needs and priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. We
expect to be reviewing this with the CITs during the next few weeks
and to have a recommended list of project priorities this fall.
Projects identified on the priority list will need to be considered
in the next update of the CIP.
In the meantime, after the Park/Watkins project is funded, I
recommend that approximately $50,000 per year be shown in the CIP
for bicycle/pedestrian improvements.
Burnham/Main Intersection
This project includes widening of the intersection to provide turn
lanes on Burnham and installation of traffic signals. It requires
purchase of the existing tavern property. The project is intended
to improve safety for vehicles entering Main from Burnham, to
improve safety for pedestrians crossing Main, and to improve. safety
for pedestrians crossing Burnham. Also, the project is expected to
better accommodate fire vehicles coming from the new fire station
on Burnham. The Commission heard testimony in support of this
project. The Fire District has also requested these improvements.
Estimated cost is $150,000 to $250,000.
North Dakota Street Bridge
This project would replace the existing bridge on North Dakota
Street at Fanno Creek. The existing bridge is an old timber
structure which is not expected to last many more years. The
existing bridge is a restriction to flood flows on Fanno Creek.
More important, the existing bridge is very narrow and has no
sidewalks nor shoulders for pedestrians; so, replacement will also
be a safety improvement. Estimated cost is $600,000 to $700,000.
Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins Intersection
This project would realign Scoffins to form a common intersection
with Hunziker, thereby eliminating the existing jog. Advantages
would be less confusing intersection and some potential reduction
in traffic delays. The revised intersection would also be designed
to better accommodate the significant truck traffic that uses the
intersection.. This intersection was identified as a priority
project by the CITs. Estimated cost is $600,000 to $800,000.
I-5/217 Local Street Improvements
Proposed reconstruction of the I-5/217 interchange (tentatively
scheduled for 1997) will likely necessitate some revisions to the
ATTACHMENT #2 PAGE 3
161
Jr-g- 51" 111 2,3111!J11
IRS
local street system, especially the major intersections on 72nd
Avenue. The City has retained a traffic engineer to recommend the
improvements needed to accommodate the ODOT project, with a report
expected in mid-summer. Precise project improvements will be
identified through the report and subsequent discussions with the
State. No cost estimate is available at this time. The City hax
suggested that ODOT should fund any needed improvements.
Bonita Road (Fanno Creek to 72nd Avenue)
This project would complete full street improvements on Bonita
Road, including sidewalks and street lighting. This was identified
/ as a priority by the CITs. Estimated cost is $800,000 to
$1,000,000. For cost estimating, we assured that right--turn lanes
will be needed at the Bonita/72nd intersection. This project would
not solve the problem of the bump at the railroad crossing, caused
by the difference in grade between the two railroads.
Commercial Street
This project world reconstruct Commercial Street to provide a new
pavement, sidewalks and street lighting to full collector street
standards.' The existing pavement is in very poor condition. `this
project was suggested as a priority by the East CST. Estimated
cost is $300,000 to $500,000. Some of the project costs might be
paid by property owners through a local improvement district, as
some of the owners have previously agreed not to object to the
formation of an improvement district.
130th/Winterlake Connection
This project would complete the street connection across Summer
Creek, connecting 130th Avenue and Winterlake Drive in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. This project was
added to the priority list by the Planning Commission.' It may be
necessary to improve 130th between Scholls Ferry and Hawks Beard
before opening this connection to traffic. Approximate cost is
between $500,000 to $1,000,000.
Hall/Scholls Turn Lane
This project would add a right-turn lane from eastbound Hall
Boulevard onto southbound Scholls Ferry Road. The necessary right
of way is being dedicated as a condition of development on the
adjoining property. This improvement was recommended by the
Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Traffic Study to improve intersection
capacity. Estimated cost is $100,000 to $200,000. The project is
actually in Beaverton. Beaverton has asked Tigard to share in the
cost, since Hall and Scholls are generally on the boundary of both
cities.
ATTACHMENT #2 PAGE 4
Greenburg Road Right of Way
This project would acquire right of way for future widening of
Greenburg Road along the frontage of the cemetery near Washington
Square. The Hall /Greenburg/Scholl s study re ormnends this
acquisition to assure that the land is not used for cemetery
purposes before it is needed for road widening. Estimated cost is
$100,000 to $200,000. Greenburg Road/Mapleleaf Turn Lane
This project, recommended by the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study,
would widen Greenburg Road to provide separate left-turn and
through lanes for northbound traffic at the entrance to Washington
Square. The purpose is to increase intersection capacity.
Estimated cost is $150,000 -Lo $250,000.
Tigard Street Bridge
This project would replace the Tigard Street bridge over Fanno
Creek. The existing timber structure is experiencing some
deterioration, it is a restriction to flood flows, and it is
narrow. Estimated cost is $550,000 to $650,000.
Grant Avenue Sidewalk
This project would add a sidewalk and drainage along one side of
Grant Avenue between Johnson Street and C.F. Tigard Elementary
School. The estimated cost is $100,000. This project is eligible
for a CDBG grant in 1994. The City share would be approximately
$40,000. The Central CIT argued that this project, while a good
project, should receive a lower priority than other pedestrian
improvement projects because Grant Avenue already has shoulder
pathway improvements that are not available on many other streets
in Tigard. If this recommendation is accepted, the City will
either have to fine ether (non-CIP) sources of funding the match or
else not accept the CDBG grant. Other funding sources might be a
local improvement district, contributions, or funding from another
Q agency.
Cook Park Picnic Shelter Replacement
This project would replace the existing shelter, which is
deteriorated. The existing shelter is becoming a major maintenance
expense. The new shelter would be constructed of more durable and
vandal-resistant materials.
Property AccLuisition at 74th near Barbara
This project would acquire vacant parcel of approximately 15 acres
as a natural area. The size is located on both sides of 74th
Avenue along a stream south of Barbara Lane. The site is heavily
wooded, with western red cedar representing the dominant species.
ATTACHMENT #2 PAGE 5
Ilig SRI
MEW=, ME I=
bild
Groves of this species are uncommon in the metropolitan area. A
nine acre portion of the site, containing the highest quality
trees, is registered for commercial log harvesting; as such, there
is a risk that the trees could be cut down. Acquisition of
greenspacP, received a high priority from the CITs. This
particular site was recommended by a recent urban forest inventory
as an important natural area for preservation. The Commission
heard testimony in support of acquiring this site. Improvements:
would be restricted to soft paths. Estimated cost of land
acquisition and trail construction is approximately $100,000 to
$150,000.
Property Acquisition North of Cook Park
This project would acquire a vacant parcel of approximately 8 acres
located north of the Cook Park soccer fields. The parcel includes
a portion of a mixed forest found along the bank of the Tualatin
River. It was classified as a high value forest in a recent city-
wide inventory of forested natural areas. The forested portion of
the parcel covers somewhat more than one-third of the property.
Part of the forest area is developable. Estimated cost is
approximately $50,000.
Fanno Creek Pathway between North Dakota and Tigard Streets
This project would extend the existing pathway along Fanno Creek
south from North Dakota Street to Tigard Street. This project was
added by the Planning Commission. There was concern that the
existing pathway ends at a point where there is no pedestrian
connection to the east. By extending the path to the south, it
would connect with the existing shoulder pathway along Tigard
Street.
Englewood Park/Fanno Creek Connection
This site was identified as a priority by the CITs. Its
acquisition would link the two discontinuous segments of Englewood
Park. A trail would be constructed through the site to connect the
Englewood Park trail system with the Fanno Creek trail. Estimated
cost of land acquisition and trail construction is approximately
$50,000 to $100,000.
Woodard Park/Main Street Connection
This project would acquire the flooclplain portions of multiple tax
lots located between Woodard Park and Pacific Highway. This 14
acre area is a riparian mixed forest. A portion is a rare Oregon
white oak savanna forest remnan-. The area was recommended in a
recent city-wide forest inventorv as an important natural area for
preservation. The project would provide a trail along Fanno Creek
between Woodard Park and Man Street. Portions of the trail
already exist. Estimated cost of land acquisition and trail
construction is $150,000 to $20C,000.
ATTACHMENT #2 PAGE 6
Sever Major Maintenance Program
During routine cleaning and inspection of sewer lines, City
maintenance crews find and repair broken pipes and similar problems
before they cause a sewer blockage. Sometimes outside contractors
are needed to make the repairs; e.g., when the sewer line is too
deep for City equipment.. 1"he major maintenance program provide:
for these repairs. I recommend that $30,000 per year be budgeted
for this program.
Gentle Woods Sewer Line Protection
In the area of Gentle Woods Subdivision, Fanno Creek is gradually
changing its course. Each winter -the stream channel moves closer
to the sewer line that runs next to the creek. This project would
provide protection for the sewer line. Estimated cost is $20,000
to $50,000.
Easements for Future Extensions
This project would acquire easements that will be needed for future
extensions of sewer lines into currently unsewered areas. These
would be in areas where there will be a need to construct a
pipeline across private property in order to connect a neighborhood
to the sewer system. By acquiring the easements, we will be
facilitating the extensions of the sewer system into the
neighborhood, one of the CIT priorities. Estimated cost is
approximately $50,000.
Capacity Upgrades from USA Study
The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) is completing an areawide study
of the sewer trunk lines that will need capacity upgrades as
development continues. In Tigard, they have tentatively identified
$3,000,000 to $4,000,000 of potential project needs over the next
20 years.
Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program
This program for drainage pipelines is the same idea as the sewer
major maintenance program. I recommend $30,000 per year for this
program.
98th and Scott
This project would address existing drainage problems in the area
of 98th and Scott Court. Estimated cost is $15,000 to $25,000.
Walnut Culvert Replacement
This project would replace an existing culvert under Walnut Street
near 123rd. The existing culvert, although currently working
satisfactorily, cannot be accessed for maintenance. Estimated cost
ATTACHMENT rur2 PAGE 7
is $50,000 to $100,000-
7 th Avenue Drainages
This project would address existing drainage problems in the area
of '76th Avenue south of Bonita Road. Estimated cost is $15,000 to
$25,000.
Prolects from USA Study
Part of the role of USA is to develop an areawide master plan for
storm drainage. The plan would identify major pipeline and channel
improvements needed and a plan for water quality treatment. When
the plan is completed, Tigard will be responsible for funding
portions of the plan.
North Dakota Street Water Pipeline Extension
This project would construct a 12" pipeline on North Dakota between
115th and 121st to increase capacity in the area. Estimated cost
is $60,000 to $70,000.
Scholls Ferry Road Water Pipeline Extension
This project will complete a loop by constructing a 12" pipeline on
Scholls Ferry Road between Walnut and Pebble Creek Subdivision.
Estimated cost is approximately $40,000.
Scholls Ferry/Beef Bend Reservoir
A new reservoir (2.5 million gallons) is needed. to accommodate
continuing growth in the area near Scholls Ferry Road and Beef Bend
Road. Estimated cost is approximately $1,600,000.
Pleasant View Pressure Reducing Station
This project would allow a direct connection between two areas of
Pleasant View, which are at different elevations. The connection
will provide a greater water supply to the west end of the area.
Estimated cost is approximately $20,000.
Highway 217 Crossing Replacement
This project would replace the water line crossing under Highway
217 at Greenburg Road, to increase the capacity to receive water
supply from the Portland system. Estimated cost is approximately
$220,000.
121st/Walnut water Pipeline Extension
ThiF project would construct a 24" line between 121st/Fonner and
135th/Walnut, to increase capacity in the area. Estimated cost'is
approximately $450,000.
ATTACHMENT #2 PAGE-8
1111,1 110,1111
mom
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator June 27, 1994
b ,
FROM: Randy Wooley, City Enginee
SUBJECT: CIP
At the June 21st meeting, Councilor Hunt asked for information on
the percentage of recommended street projects that would be for
pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
In eight of the recommended street projects and three of the park
projects, improvement of pedestrian facilities was a significant
factor in establishing the project's priority. This is 400 of the
street projects and 50% of the park projects recommended by the
Planning Commission. The projects are shown on the attachment.
Another way to calculate the percentage would be on the basis of
cost. To do this, I made a rough calculation of the project cost
if we were to make pedestrian improvements only. In general, the
cost is based on providing paved shoulders only, with no
improvement to street lighting, drainage, or vehicle facilities.
On this basis, the attached table shows the percentage of the
previous rough project cost estimate that would be needed to fund
pedestrian improvements.
NX;
Rim=
A I.
21
F
Project Pedestrian I_m]2rovements
Streets:
5. Tiedemari BridgFa 15%
7. 79th Avenue 25% 30%
8. Pedestrian Improvements 100%
9.. Burnham/Main Intersection 100%
10. North Dakota Bridge 150
13. Bonita Road 150
3.4. Commercial Street 20%
20. Grant Avenue Sidewalk 100%
Parks:
4. Far_no Creek Pathway 1000
5. Englewood/Fanno Creek Connection 1000
- 6. Woodard Park/Main Street Connection 250 - 50%
rw/CIP-%
r
c b
9. Tour of potential CIA project sites
Meet at City Hall and tour from 6:00 - 7.00 p.m.
2. Commission to discuss and agree on CIS' priorities for
recommendation to City Council - 7:30 p.m.
i
i
MEMORANDUM
C:('~" Y OF T I YARD
TO: Pat,Caro ,Gary,Ed May 23, 1994
FROM: Randy Wooley
SUBJECT: CIP
Here is my first draft of CIP recommendations for the Planning
Commission. I am still working on the utilities section. Also, I
understand that Duane will be providing some additional explanation
for parks projects.
If you see any problems with the draft recommendations, please let
me know by Wednesday.
I~
IIIIII IS 1,10111I III
~Sui
rr 3 ~
woo
owl
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Flanni;t!_I Ccorrmtission May 20, 1994
b
FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program ,
Background:
At the May 9th meeting, the Commission heard a number of
reconunendations on potential CIP (Capital Improvement Program)
projects. The Commission asked staff to prepare the first draft of
a priority list, with explanation of priorities and rough cost
estimates, for Commission review.
The CIP schedule calls for the Commission to identify project
priorities in June and send a recommendation to the Council for
review. After Council review, staff will draft an actual seven-
year CIP for Commission review. In the CIP, cost estimates will be
refined and funding sources will. be identified.
Staff recommendations:
Attachment #1 is the first draft of project priorities, prepared by
staff.
Attachment #2 is an explanation of the reasons for the priority
rankings.
Attachment 03 is an explanation of those projects, that were
suggested by the public but not included in the priority rankings.
Basis for recommendations:
In developing the recommended priorities, we relied heavily on the
public input received through the CITs and the Commission's May 9th
meeting. However, we also relied on personal knowledge, past City
policies, and the relationships between the various projects.
Most of the CITs created a ranking system for the projects they
considered. Some projects were included in the priority list of
more than one CIT. To help us to compare the various CIT lists, we
combined the rankings by adding the figures of the various CITs and < -
creating one list of rankings. This combined list is shown asp'
Attachment #4. Since the ranking systems used by the CITs varied
some, the list in Attachment #4 is not a strictly valid way to
compare projects; however, it does give us some idea of how
important the various projects are on a more city-wide basis. The
Central CIT did not establish a ranking system, instead strongly
supporting one project. So, the Central CIT recommendation is not
reflected in Attachment #4. However, it was considered in
developing the staff recommendation in Attachment #1.
s,
MINE=
The recommended priority projects include only those projects which
appear to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other
adopted master plans. We are recommending that projects that
require revisions to master plans not be included in the CTP until
the plan revisions are adopted.
We also did not include suggestions which are already funded.
These projects will be pursued under existing programs.
June 6th meeting:
As requested by the Commission, the June 6th meeting will begin
with a bus tour of the project sites shown in Attachment #1. Other
sites can also be included if there is time.. An hour and a half is
allowed for the tour.
After the tour, the meeting will resume in a study session format
to discuss any revisions that are desired in Attachment #1.
JC
rw/pc-gen
Elm
Attachment
O.I.P. Pariors.tas dra:ft fS:-7w.`
r~
STREET-PROJECTS:
1. Major maintenance program
2. 72nd/Bonita signal modifications
3. Grant Avenue bridge
4. Tiedeman Avenue bridge
5. Hall/99W
6. Main Street pavement replacement
7. 79th Avenue (Bonita to Durham)
8. Pedestrian improvements Park/Watkins
9. Burnham/Main intersection
10. North Dakota bridge
11. Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins
12. I-5/217 local street improvements
13. Bonita Road (Eanno Creek to 72nd)
14. Commercial Street
15. Hall/Scholls turn lane
16. Greenburg Rd. right of way
17. Greenburg/Mapleleaf turn lane
18. Tigard Street bridge
19. Grant Avenue sidewalk
PARK PROJECTS
1. Cook Park picnic shelter replacement
REM
NEREEN 0-m-
F, j• r p„2. Property acquisition at 74th and Ash Creek
3. Property acquisition north of Cook Park
. '1
4. Englewood-Park/Eanno Creek connection
5. Woodard Park/Main Street connection
SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS
STORM DRAINAGE PROJECTS
WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS
rw/pc-al
11 1:1! Ali
m Elm- Iml, : 11"
Attachment
SONS FOR PRXORTTY R XXNGS
Major Maintenance ?rogram. For the last several years, the City
has allocated a portion of its CIP funds to major maintenance of
street pavements and bridges. Major maintenance covers items such
as pavement overlays and seal coats. Timely maintenance of
existing pavements protects the City's investment. Failure to
perform maintenance will eventually lead to the need to reconstruct
the pavement, a much more expensive solution and much more
disruptive to traffic.
The routine major maintenance program has generally provided a
street system in good .repair. However, as traffic increases,
especially truck and bus traffic, the need for ...-j-- ::gin ten~_:ce
also increases. A review of the City's pavement management system
indicates that at least $300,000 per year should be allocated to
major maintenance to protect the existing pavement system.
I give this program top priority because . deferring major
maintenance will increase the City's costs in the long term.
72nd/Bonita Signal Modifications.
This intersection experiences long traffic back-ups during some.
periods of the day. In preparation for the I-5/217 project, a
traffic engineering review is being performed on several
intersections on 72nd Avenue. The traffic engineer thinks there
may be ways to increase the capacity of the 72nd/Bonita
intersection with some revisions to the traffic signal equipment.
If so, we would like: to see the work done as soon as possible, so
that it would be completed before :Durham Road is closed for
construction in the summer of 1995. Estimated cost of the signal
work is under $25,000. The traffic engineer's report is expected
by July.
Grant Avenue Bridge
The Grant Avenue bridge over Fanno Creek is in poor condition and
needs to be replaced for structural reasons. In addition, the
existing bridge is a restriction to flood flows on Fanno Creek; it
is common for this bridge to be closed due to flooding during major 13
rain storms. The replacement bridge would meet modern standards
for structural design, flood flows, and width. Total project cost
is estimated to be between $ and $ A grant is
expected in 19,95 that would pay 800 of the costs.
Tiedeman Avenue Bridge
This bridge is also in poor structural condition and is also an
impediment to flood flows in Fanno Creek and Summer Creek. The
bridge is on a major access route to Fowler Junior High School.
The replacement bridge would have a wider roadway and sidewalks to
improve safety for cars, bikes and pedestrians. The roadway
alignment would be revised somewhat to reduce the sharp curves on
the south approach to the bridge. Total project cost is estimated -Z
at between $ and $ A grant is expected in 1996
that would pay 80% of the bridge replacement costs.
Halll99W
This project would widen Hall on the approaches to 99W to provide
a separate left-turn lane, through lane and right-turn lane on each
approach. This is expected to increase 4ntersection capacity and
reduce traffic delays at the intersection. This project was a high
priority recommendation of the 99W Task Force. Estimated cost is
approximately $ The City is trying to obtain State or
regional funding for this project.
Main Street Pavement Replacement
This project would provide reconstruction of the deteriorated
pavement on the entire length of Main Street. Replacement of
portions of the storm drainage system would be done at the same
time. This project received the highest CIT rating. The
Commission also heard public testimony in support of this project.
The deterioration of the pavement on Main Street is too severe for
overlay; total reconstruction is required. Estimated cost is $
to $
79th Avenue_ (Bonita to Durham)
This project would totally reconstruct the street to improve sight
distance, provide an adequate pavement, and add sidewalks and
street lighting. Substantial development along 79th in recent
years has greatly increased the traffic on a road designed as a
country lane. It has become very difficult to maintain the
pavement and the road has no safe place for pedestrians to walk.
North of Ashford Street, hills and valleys restrict sight distance.
This project was the first priority for the South CIT. I rated the
project ahead of Park/Watkins because of the severe pedestrian
safety problems caused by the restricted sight distance. Estimated
project cost is $ A portion of the cost might be
paid by property owners along 79th. Some of the property owners
have previously signed waivers of remonstrance, agreeing not to
object to the formation of a local improvement district to improve
79th.
Park/Watkins Pedestrian Improvements
Pedestrian improvements in general received a high CIT rating,
although most CITs did not propose specific locations for
improvement. The Central CIT identified the Park/Watkins area
pede3trian improvements as its top priority. In addition, the
Commission heard public testimony in support of this project. The
project would continue shoulder improvements in the area begun in
1994.
a
mom= 1::~ Ail
At the request of Council, staff is working on identification of
needs and priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. We
.y expect to be reviewing this with the CITs during the next few weeks
and to hzve a recommended list -of project priorities this fall.
Projects Identified on the priority list will reed to be considered
in the next update of the CIP. In the meantime, after the
Park/Watkins project is funded, I recommend that approximately $50, 00.0 per year be shown in the CIP for bicycle /pedestrian A
improvements.
Burnham/Main Intersection
This project includes widening of the intersection to provide turn
lanes on Burnham and installation of traffic signals. It requires
purchase of the existing tavern property. The project is intended
to improve safety for vehicles entering Main from Burnham, to
improve safety for pedestrians crossing Main, and to improve safety
for pedestrians crossing Burnham. Also, the project is expected to
better accommodate fire vehicles coming from the new fire station
on Burnham. The Commission heard testimony in support of this
project. The Fire District has also requested these improvements.
Estimated cost is $
North Dakota Street Bridge
This project would replace the existing bridge on North Dakota
Street at Fanno Creek. The existing bridge is an old timber
structure which is not expected to last many more years. The
existing bridge is a restriction to flood flows on Fanno Creek.
More important, the existing bridge is very narrow and has no
sidewalks nor shoulders for pedestrians; so, replacement will. also
be a safety improvement. Estimated cost is $
Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins Intersection
This project would realign Scoffins to form a common intersection
with Hunziker, thereby eliminating the existing jog. Advantages
would be less confusing intersection and some potential reduction
in traffic delays. The revised intersection would also be designed
to better accommodate the significant truck traffic that uses the
intersection. This intersection was identified as a priority
project by the CITs. Estimated cost is $
I-5/217 Local Street Improvements
Proposed reconstruction of the I-5/217 interchange (tentatively
scheduled for 1997) will likely necessitate some revisions to the
local street system, especially the major intersections on 72nd
Avenue. The City has retained a traffic engineer to recommend the
improvements needed to accommodate the ODOT project, with a report.
expected in mid-summer. Precise project improvements will be
identified through the report and subsequent discussions with the
State. No cost estimate is available at this time. The City has
suggested that ODOT should fund any needed improvements.
Bonita Road (Fanno Creek to 72nd Avenue)
This project would complete full street improvements on Bonita
Read, ir.:.,luding sidewalks and street lighting. This was identified
as a priority by the CITs. Estimated cost is $
This project would not solve the problem of thedump at the
railroad crossing, caused by the difference in grade between the
two railroads.
Commercial Street
This project would reconstruct Commercial Street to provide a new
pavement, sidewalks and street lighting to full collector street
standards. The existing pavement is in very poor condition. This
project was suggested as a priority by the East CIT. Estimated
cost is $ Some of the project costs might be paid
by property owners through a local improvement district, as some of
the owners have previously agreed not to object to the formation of
an improvement district.
Hall/Scholls Turn Lane
This project would add a right-turn lane from eastbound Hall
Boulevard onto southbound Scholls Ferry Road. The necessary right
of way is being dedicated as a condition of development on the
adjoining property. This improvement was recommended by the
Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Traffic Study to improve intersection
capacity. Estimated cost is $ . The project is actually in
Beaverton. Beaverton has asked Tigard to share in the cost, since
Hall and Scholls are generally on the boundary of both cities.
Greenburg Road Right of Way
This project would acquire right of way for future widening of
Greenburg Road along the frontage of the cemetery near Washington
Square. The Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study recommends this
acquisition to assure that the land is not used for cemetery
purposes before it is needed for road widening. Estimated cost is
Greenburg Road/Mapleleaf Turn Lane
This project, recommended by the Hall /Greenburg/Scholl s study,
would widen Greenburg Road to provide separate left-turn and
through lanes for northbound traffic at the entrance to Washington
Square. The purpose is to increase intersection capacity.
Estimated cost is $
Tigard StreetBridge
This project would ;replace the Tigard Street bridge over Fanno
Creek. The existing timber structure is experiencing some
deterioration, it is a restriction to flood flows, and it is
narrow. Estimated cost is
$ _
Grant Avenue Sidewalk
This project would add a sidewalk and drainage along one side of
Grant Avenue between Joh_rison Street and C.F. Tigard Elementary
School. The estimated cost is $ This project is
eligible for a CDBG grant in 1994. The City share would be
The Central CIT argued that this project, while a good project,
should receive a lower priority than other pedestrian improvement
projects because Grant Avenue already has shoulder pathway
improvements that care not available on many other streets in
Tigard. If this recommendation is accepted, the City will either
have to find other (non-CIP) sources of funding the match or else
not accept the CDBG grant. Other funding sources might be a local
improvement district, contributions, or funding from another
agency.
Cook Park Picnic Shelter Re-olacement This project would replace the existing shelter, which is
dete_iorated. The existing shelter is becoming a.major maintenance
expense. The new shelter would be constructed of more durable and
vandal-resistant materials.
Property Acquisition at 74th and Ash Creek
This project would acquire a vacant parcel of approximately _
acres along Ash Creek east of 74th Avenue as a natural area.
Improvements would be restricted to soft paths. Acquisition of
greenspaces received a high priority from the CITs. This
particular site was recommended by a recent urban forest inventory
as an important natural area for preservation. The Commission
heard testimony in support of acquiring this site. Estimated cost
is $
Property Acguisition North of Cook Park v-
This area has also been identified as an important natural area for i
preservation. Most of the site is unsuitable for development. The
site is located north of the Cook Park soccer fields. Estimated
cost is $
Englewood Park/Fanno Creek Connection
This site was identified as a priority by the CITs. It was also
recommnended for preservation in the urban forest inventory report.
A trail would be constructed through the site to connect the
Englewood Park trail system with the Fanno Creek trail. Estimated
cost is $
Woodard Park/Main Street Connection
This project would provide a trail along Fanno Creek between
Woodard Park and Main Street. Portions of the trail already exist.
Estimated cost is $
11 11IN10113 INI'l Ili i ~::ii:ili: III
MORE li 11 1
A"pttArpghaen A
t J3
PROJECTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRIORITY LIST
130th/Winterlake Connection
The FY 1993-94 CIP budget included funding for design of this
project. However, design work has not proceeded pending decisions
on, the neighborhood disagreement over whether the connection should
be constructed. I expect this issue to be argued before the
Council in about two months, after a traffic engineering review is
completed.. If Council decides to proceed with the project,
construction funding will :Feed to be added to the CIP.
Hall Boulevard
Among the priorities for the South CIT was improvement of Hall
Boulevard. The CIT has taken this on as a project and will be
developing recommendations on how the City and ODOT should proceed.
The recommendations that the CIT develops should be considered in
the next update of the CIP.
Katherine Street Connection
This project, suggested at the West CIT meeting, would provide a
direct connection of Katherine Street between 125th and 127th. It
would require removal of two or more houses and construction of a
short section of street. This project is not a part of any current
plan for the neighborhood and has not been previously discussed
with the neighborhood. If there is interest in pursuing this
project, the CIT or other interested group should begin the
discussions to have this project adopted as a part of the
transportation plan for the area. The project could then be added
to the CIP in the next update.
Beef Bend Road
This project would assure that Beef Bend Road improvements planned
by the County would extend to the site of the proposed new
elementary school near 131st. The school bond measure that would
have funded the new school appears to have failed in the May 17th
election. The reason for the project appears to have disappeared
for now.
Hall Blvd. Extension Across the Tualatin River
This project, shown as Note 8 study area on the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map, would provide a connection between Hall Blvd.
in Tigard and Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin. A study is currently
under way to evaluate the benefits and costs of this idea. • After
the study is completed, this project should again be considered for
possible addition to the CIP..,
Hall Blvd. widening at US Bank
Big;
This project, recommended by the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study,
:could widen Hall by the US Sank west of Greenbairg Road, thereby
eliminating an existing constriction and increasing street
capacity, This project does not appear to lie as high a priority as
the other pro 'ects recciatmand d by the Ha I.l/Greenburg/Scholls study.
Therefore, it is not recommended for the CIP list at this time.
Neighborhood Park Program
The existing park master-plan does not include a neighborhood park
program. In fact, previous Co,;ncils have discouraged development
of neighbozhood parks due to high maintenance casts. If there is
interest in a neighborhood park program, sites should be identified
and the types of improvements defined. Projects could then be
added to the CIP during the next update.
Playground Areas
We think that the intent of this suggestion was much the same as
the neighborhood park program. So,.similar comments would apply.
Hill St./Hanno Creek Pathway
This project would develop a pathway in an existing easement.
However, the developers of the new Main Street Apartments are
proposing to construct a pedestrian bridge to connect Ash Avenue to
the ranno Creek pathway system. Since this connection would be
near the Hill Street site, we recommend that the Hill Street site
not be developed at this time.
rw/cip-j-s
N ill
Attachment #4
Rating R .o- ect o.
STREET PROJECTS
16 Main Street pavement reconstruction
9 79th Avenue improvements (Bonita to Durham)
8 Pedestrian improvements throughout the City
8 Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins intersection improvements
8 Bonita Road (Fanno Creek to 72nd)
6 Hall Boulevard
5 Commercial St. (Hall to Main)
4_ Connect Katherine St. between 125th and 127th
4 Extend Beef Bend Rd. improvements to the new school
4 Hall Blvd. extension across the Tualatin River
3 Hall/Greenburg/Scholls area traffic improvements
Note: The 130th/'Winte.rlake project was not included in this list
(although listed by the West CIT) because its fate will need to be
decided throvgh a separate process.
PARKS
11 Acquisition of land for greenspace
6 Develop a neighborhood park program
5 Pathway connection between Englewood Park and Fanno
Creek.
5 Playground areas
3 Pathway connection between Hill. St. and Fanno Creek
UTILITIES
3 Extend sanitary sewer to areas now on septic systems
in a. Elmo=
all
PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
a _(1994-2001)
-
February Discuss proposed process and schedule with Planning
Commission and Council.
March CITs informed of CIP process.
Staff presents lists of known project needs (existing
plus projected 7-year needs) to Planning Commission and
explains projects as necessary. Planning Commission
suggests additional projects to be considered or
additional information needed
9
April CITs and news media notified of schedule for public
input.
Planning Commission receives public input on project
needs, incl=.ading suggestions for priorities.
May Staff develops any additional information requested by
the Planning Commission as a result of public input
received and any information needed by the Commission to
select project priorities.
Planning Commission selects tentative project priorities.
June City Council reviews the recommended project priorities.
Budget Committee and Council approve budget for 1994-95.
Projected capital improvement budgets are developed for
future years.
Staff develops cost estimates for top priority projects.
Staff recommends a Capital Improvement Program based on
tentative priorities and projections of available
funding.
July Planning Commission recommends a Capital Improvement
Program for consideration by the Council. The
recommendation may include alternative funding sources
(bond measure, LID, SDC, etc.), if appropriate.
City Council adopts a Capital Improvement Program.