City Council Packet - 01/24/1995
~ P
E '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
?3.N ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NA14ES OF CERTAIN STREETS TO WALNUT STREET AND
WALNUT LANE.
WHEREAS, a new street has been completed providing an extension of ~
3 Walnut Street west from 135th Avenue to Scholls Ferry Road; and,
.;a WHEREAS, the various plats that dedicated the right of way for the new
. street do not show a consistent name for the street; and,
f WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the new street be
j named Walnut Street and that the name of existing Walnut Street west of
135th Avenue be changed to Walnut Dane; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 227.120, the City Council held a hearing
on the proposed name changes at the regular meeting of January 24, 1995;
j and,
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was given in the Tigard Times within the c
week prior to the week in which the hearing was held; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the renaming of the streets as
recommended by the Planning Commission is in the best interest of the
City in order to reduce confusion and provide uniformity of street
naming. k.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: F
SECTION 1: The name of the street shown as S.W. Murray Blvd. on the
plats of Cotswald Meadows No. 3 as recorded at page 34-36
in Book 62 and Castle Hill as recorded at page 31-36 in
Book 82 of the plat records of Washington County,
Oregon, is hereby changed to S.W. Walnut Street.
SECTION 2: The name of the street shown as S.W. 135th Avenue on the
{ plats of Morning Hill No. 7 as recorded at pages 22 and
23 in Book 69, Morning Hill No.8 as recorded at pages 38-
40 in Book 79, and Castle Hill as recorded at pages 31-36
} in Book 82, of the
plat records of Washington County,
t
Oregon and that portion of S.W. 135th Avenue being along
the east boundary of Castle Hill No. 2' as recorded at
pages 35-39 in Book 91 of the -plat records of Washington
,j County, Oregon, is hereby changed to S.W.Walnut Street.
SECTION 3: The portion of County Road, No. 934 (also called S.W.
135th Avenue) lvina between the wester?v ex4Giip.{. Vtt of ans; on of Il.ra
.-d .ti~.. F
north line of Morning Hill No. 7 as recorded at pages 22
' and 23 in Book 69 and the easterly extension of the south
ORDINANCE No. 95--0(
Page 1
line of Castle Hill as recorded at pages 31-36 in book 82
of the plat records of Washington County, Oregon, is
hereby changed to S.W. Walnut Street.
} `3 F
SECTION 4: The name of the street shown as S.W. Walnut Street on the
plat of OBRS Heights as recorded at page 43 in Book 22 of
the plat records of Washington County, Oregon, is hereby
,j changed to S.W. Walnut Lane. E
`t SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified
copies of this ordinance with the County Clerk, the
- County Assessor, and the County Surveyor of Washington
County.
SECTION G: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its F
passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and
posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By UnC LKk MOLLS vote of all Council members
press after being read by number and title only, this
ezL4 ttl day of , 1995. F
Catherine Wheatley, Cit Recorder
+ APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of
i995.
d
4
4
Jame 18(51i, Mayor
U
Approved as to form:
Ci A torney
.15
Date
f,
r
3
i rviwainu%3
ORDINANCE No. 95-
Page 2
F
f
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
t ,
b
i ,
Pti~31.1C 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
` l or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or
the City Administrator.
Times noted are estimatgj it is recommended that persons Interested In testifying be
present by 7:75 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business a a iters~:>
7 z n rte. F
hPard in anv
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 639-4779, Ect. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TOD - Telecoanmunications Devices
for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
j 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.
639-4977, Ext. 309 (voice) or 634-2772 (T®D - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
l
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 24, 9995 - WAGE i (Ft
Ikkf
t
f
`I'I RD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 24, 1 5
' END
t
5:0 p.m. -~i
STUDY SESSION:
y _ Agenda Review
7:30 p.m.
1. BUSING MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Moll Cal!
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Ikon-Agenda Items
7:35 p.m. E
a 2. VISITO'R'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) (7:35 p.m.)
7:45 p.m.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These Rams are considered to be routine and may be E
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an
item be removed by notion for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
' 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: December 13, and 27, 1994
3.2 Receive and Pile: Memorandum dated January 13, 1995 froi-n the finance
Director to the City Administrator Regarding Mater Rate Analysis
3.3 Approve Request that Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Include Replacement
of Grant Avenue and Tiedeman Avenue Bridges in the Surface 'mater
Management (SWM) Master Plan Ust `
3.4 L l Contract Review board:
a. Authorize the City Engineer to Advertise for Bids can Ruin Street and
Major Maintenance Project as Combined 1994-95 and 1995.98
Projects
7:55 p.m.
4. PUBLIC HEARING- NAMING CP %VALN STREET WEST F 135TH AVENUE
On Janweiry 9, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended street name
changes. The recommendation was to change the names of certain streets to
Walnut Street and Walnut Lane. The Council will now hold a hearing, as provided
by state lame to accept or reject the Planning Commission recommendation.
a. Open Public' Hearing.
b. Staff Resort
C. Public Testimony:
- Proponents
- Opponents
d. Staff Recommendation
e. Council Questions
f. Council Consideration: Ordinance No_ 25-s.. .
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 24, 1995 - P 1GE 2
I
6:10 P.M.
5. Punuc HEARING (=ASwu11ICIAL) vA.cxnoN Oc O STORE
LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS #35 AND #36, AND
' LOTS #27 AND #28 IN WAVERL Y ESTATES SUBDIVISION
The Tigard City Council will mold a public nearing on Tuesday, January 24, 1995 k
at 7:.W p.m. at the Tigard City Hall, Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Mall Boulevard, ~
Tigard, Oregon, to consider the proposed vacation of two storm drainage
easements. The request was initiated by the City Council on December 13, 1994
on behalf of Kenneth Waymire. Any interested person may appear and be beard ~
for or against the proposed vacation of said storm drainage easements. Any
written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by
January 24, 1995, by 7:30 p.m. E
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
A C. Staff Report: Community Development Staff'
d. Public Testimony
^ applicant
• Opponents
• Propone.
Rebuttal k
e. Council Questions
f. Close Public Hearing
g. Staff Recommendation
h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 95
8:30 p.m. (fhls hearing will not start before 8:301 p.m.)
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 94-0002/ZONE CHANGE ZON
94-0002 OGLE ND USE (Quasi-Judicial) LOCATION: Generally eat of
72nd Avenue and west of Avenue, between Atlanta Street and HEunpton
Street in the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Also west of 72nd Avenue south
of Beveland Street. See attached map. This proposal is to amend the
comprehensive plane map and zoning map on 97 parcels totaling approximately 49
acre;. The proposal would redesignate 17.5 acres from low-density residential (11-
3.5) to medium-high density residential (R-25); 20.7 acres from commercial -
professional (C-P) to medium-high density residential (R-25); 2.5 acres from low- C
densitty residential (R-3:5) to commercial professional (C-'P); 6.2 acres from
commercial general (C-G) to commercial professional (C-P); and 1.7 acres from
general commercial (C-G) to medium-high density residential (R-25). Also
proposed is a zone change for two parcels totaling 11.8 acres from C-G to C-P.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: The relevant criteria in this case are
Statewide Planning Coals 1, 2, 9, 16, 12, and 13; Comprehensive Flan Policies
1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 8.1.1, 6.2.2, 8.1.1, 9.1.3, and 12.1.1, Community
Development Cole Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and the change or mistake quasi-
f judicial plan map amendment criteria of both the Comprehensive Plan and
•svr s rr ■ Faa sox' Dc tlodti9k87 Y 8C5'i 91 i„lVd,2~8.
i
_ ' CCBUNCIL. AGENDA - JANUARY 24, 199 5 - PAGE 3
1
Public Hearing - Triangle Lard Use
8:32 p.m. a. Open Public. Hearing
a 5:34 p.m. b. Declarations or Challenges
8:40 p.m. c. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
d, Public Testimony E
9:10 P.M. 9 Proponents (71me Limit: 30 minutes)
9:40 p.m. ° Opponents Crime Limit: 30 minutes)
` 10:10 P.M. 0. Council Questions ~
10:25 p.m. f. Clone Public Hearing f
i 10:26 p.m. g. Staff Recommendation h
10:30 p.m. h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 95-_
'j
3
10:40 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA fl1 ~
SENSITIVE LANDS A proposal to amend Community Development Code Section `
15.84 to bring sensitive land requirements into compliance with Federal Emergency
Management Agency regulations relative to procedures tar administering and r
enforc!ng floodplain regulations and to reorganize and clarify local permit f
procedures for lands involving steep slope, drainageway, wetlands and the 100 ,
year floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1,
2, 5, and 7; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2,
3.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 13.34.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
d. Public Testimony
• Opponents
Proponents
e. Council Questions
f. Close Public Hearing `
' g. Staff Recommendation
h. Council Consideration: Ordiannce No. 95-_
t
j 11 P.M.
8. BUDGET CO P E APPOi UIENT
Staff Report - City Administrator Monahan
° Council Consideration - Resolution No. 957_ _
i
11:10 P.M.
9. COUNCIL LIAISON APPOII ENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND
CO ES
Staff Report - City Administrator Monahan
°
Council Discussion
F_
- JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 4
9ll~iCiD AGENDA
i
i
9
i
k
11:20 p.m. ~
f
? 10. NON-AGENDA ITEWIS
11:30 p.m.
11: EC VE SESSION: The 'ngard City Council will go Into Executive Session r
under the provisions of ORS 192.E (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss lector relations,
i real property transactions, current and pending litigation Issues. F
l '11:45 p.m.
3 12. ADJOURNMENT
a;
0124.95
+r!
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 5
f
I.
i
Council Agenda Items
;j
1 TI APD ITY C0U_N_9jL
MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995
• Meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by May or Nicoli.
QII CALL
1. R
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt,
Bob, Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Jim k ;
Coleman, Legal Counsel; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Liz Newton, ;
s Communk, Involvement Coordinator; Clay Valone, Associate Planner; Catherine
Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
Martin/T i-County Center - Council reviewed the request from the applicant who
{ is proposing a development in the Tigard Triangle (see letter from Michael C. €
Robinson dated January 24, 1996 regarding the application by Gordon Martin,
addressed to Mr. William A. Monahan, City Administrator, City of 'Tigard, which is
on file with the Council packet material). Council was scheduled to approve the
# Final Order on this property on January 31, 19=96 for 342,500 square feet of retail
space. The applicant advises of an issue concerning landscaping which needs to
be resolved before the findings for the Final Order are prepared. After discussion,
Council declined to review the issues on January 31. Instead, the record remains
open relative to the issues specified by Council for the Final Order. This issue is
to be re-noticed to the property owners with appropriate ads. Record will be r
received for Council consideration on February 14, 1995.
• Council discussed liaison appointments (Agenda Item No. 9). For a listing of the
liaison appointments, see minutes as outlined in Agenda Item No. 9.
Mayor Nicoll advised that Metro Councilor Jon Wstad is asking that names be
suggested for a vacancy on the Boundary Commission. Council members
suggested Judy Fessler or John Cook. Council was asked to contact the Mayor
if they think of anyone else they would like to nominate.
• There was discussion on process for Agenda Item No. 6 regarding the Tigard I
'triangle public hearing. It was determined that limitations on testimony would be
acceptable. Councilor Scheckla noted he would not want to "shut anyone off."
Councilor Scheckla advised he had relatives who were listed with regard to issues
CITY COUNCIL. fvlEE-11NG MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 1
c
a - .
in the Tigard Triangle. Legal Counsel Coleman advised this dces not represent a
conflict of interest.
Study Session recessed at 7:25 p.m.
Business meeting reconvened at 7:49 p.m.
BUSINESS MEE llladC~
] 1. Council Liaison Reports
Councilor Hawley advised the Tree Task Farce continues to meet; they are
making progress on the final report to be presented to the City Council.
f>
Mayor Nicoli noted he attended a meeting with Mayors regarding the
Western Bypass. Another meeting will be held in the next week or two for
additional information.
Councilor Hawley reported on a Mayor's Breakfast Meeting she attended,
the maim topic covered was a report from the Arts Commission. She
advised that Tigard is one of the few jurisdictions that has identified funding i
guidelines for arts through its adopted policy on arts.
In response to a question from i Councilor i°.+hsvr ids, v as AArrirno". *e~ir~v -
o
.003 18c. ou 7 ae evaurea
Monahan reported the Tigard Water Building has had an average of 15
individuals per evening when used as a severe weather shelter at night. He
advised that last Friday a meeting of community leaders in Eastern
Washington County was held to consolidate efforts regarding the homeless
situation. About 30 people attended. They will be meeting again in a few
reeks.
e The Chamber of Commerce Leadership Seminar is progressing well, y
advised City Administrator William Monahan. Councilor Hawley added that
she attended the last meeting and noted that Finance Director Mayne Lowry
did an outstanding presentation to the Leadership Seminar attendees. o
Mayor Nicoli noted the Grant Avenue sidewalk issue was discussed With
property owners at a recent meeting. This issue will be placed on the
agenda for February 14, 1995, for Council approval.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: ~
f
Jack Rolana distributed a letter to City Cour zil dated January 24, 1995
concerning his issue that there may be an appearance of conflict of interest a
j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 2 j,
F
a
with regard to legal counsel from O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan and
Bachrach when dealing with wailer issues. lie rioted King City has a
w contract with the City of Tgard for water services.
t • City Administrator advised he used to work for the O'Donnell firm. King City
has in the past been advised to obtain independent counsel when working
on water issues.
f -
• Sterling Marsh, facilitator for the South CIT, advised Council of traffic
concerns at the intersection of Hall and Settler. A letter which was read by t
Mr. Marsh will be sent to the Council as a follow-up.
• Kathleen McDonald, 12930 S Glacier Lily, Tigard, Oregon, presented a
letter for Council dated January 24, 1995 from the Friends &I Summerlake
(Kathleen McDonald, representative). Ms. McDonald advised the Friends
j of Surnmerlake have been pursuing the elimination of the 1WthAlVinterlake
extension. On January 17, 1995, Council approved a ballot title concerning
street design for an 9i a;aaaaaa ifti si L
a..a~a a for vC`f rnGi~sule pfC3pCJs®d by the i°C3e7ifk`a' OT
Summerlake.
?
At this time, the group is not pursuing collection of signatures for the
initiative petition. Instead, they feel the extension project should be switched
i with the Tiedeman-Walnut project (scheduled for 199-2001). The Friends
of Summerlake feel this switch is warranted because of information they
f have received from the Police Department indicates there have been injury
accidents at the Tiedeman-Walnut location. Ms. McDonald advised that "we '
will be at the Council meeting when the issue of the vote for construction
' of the 130th nterlake extension is discussed and voted upon by you; and
as we filled the room before, we will speak again, and with the Fowler ~
parents and neighbors, we will now be speaking of actual injuries that have
actually occurred, and canes we are concerned will occur in the future in
both cases."
Mayor Nic€ li advised Ms. McDonald that Council was not prepared to act
on her letter at this meeting. He asked City Engineer ooley about the
130th/Winterlake connection. Mr. Wooley indicated that a neighborhood
meeting on the preliminary design is anticipated for early March. `i-he
annual update to the Capital Improvement Project will be forwarded to the
CITs for their review in March or April.
s 3. CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr. Jack Polaris requested that item 3.2 be removed from the Consent Agenda for
separate discussion. He noted that no motion had been made by the
CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 3
E' .
9
intergovernmental Water Board with regard to remarks made by Maintenancea F
Services Director Ed Wegner.
} Mayor Nicoll advised that Item 3.2 would be removed from the Consent Agenda
and discussed on the Non-Agenda - Agenda Item No. 10.
r
Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the
.
Consent Agenda, with Item 3.2 removed.
A
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: December 13, and 27, 1994 I
3.3 Approve Requestthat Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Include Replacement w
of Grant Avenue and Tiedeman Avenue Bridges in the Surface Water
Management (SWM) Master Plan List
3.4 Local Contract Review board: ~ , -
a. Authorize the City Engineer to Advertise for Bids on Main Street and
Major Maintenance Projects as Combined 1994-95 and 1995-96
Projects
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and
Councilors Hawley, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes".)
4. PUBLIC HEARING - NAMING OF WALNUT STREET WEST CP 135Th AVENUE
a. Public blearing was opened.
b. Staff Report.
i City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report. A new street connection is
being completed between SW 135th Avenue and Scholls Perry Road. The
new street is being constructed by the developers of Castle Mill subdivision
to comply with the transportation roaster plans of the City and County.
When construction is completed, the street system will be shown on the
map that boas presented in the Council packet. It was proposed the new 4
street connection, including all the area shaded on the map in the Council
packet, be named Walnut Street. The name of existing Walnut Strip west
of 135th Avenue would be changed to Walnut Lane.
i
C. Public Testimony - None.
i
d. Staff Recommended approval of the proposed ordinance.
e. Council Consideration.
CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24., 1995 - PAGE 4
} ORDINANCE NO. 95-01 AN ORDINANCE CI-IAI'.!GING THE NAMES OF
CERTAIN STREETS TO WALNUT STREET AND WALNUT LAME.
f, Motion by Councilor Flunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt
Ordinance No. 95-01.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) VACATION OF TWO STORM DRAINAGE
EASEME~f'I'S LOCATED B EEN LOTS #35 AND #35, AND LOTS 27 AND
y
23 IN WAVERLY ESTATES SUBDIVISION ~
a. Public Hearing was opened.
i b. Declarations or Challenges.
C. Staff Report.
}
Staff report was reviewed by Senior Planner Sewersdorff, The petitioner has ~
stated this vacation is needed due to changers during construction. The
storm line, as built, is located a few feet easterly of the center line of existing
easements. The applicant is creating now drainage easements to serve the E
as-built lines. This vacWdon will remove the existing easements. The net
effect will he to move the easements awroximateiv 2.5 feet east of their `
present location.. Appropriate agencies have been contacted and have
offered no objections to this easement vacation.
d. Public Testimony.
Mr. Kenneth Waymire, 31835 SW Country View Lane,'Arivonville, OR 97070,
{ advised Council he was present in order to answer any questions.
e. Council Questions
f. Public Taring was closed.
g. Staff recommended approval of the vacation as requested.
h. ORDINANCE NO. 95-02 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION
OF DEDICATED STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED BETWEEN
LOT NO. 35 AND LOT NO. 35, AND BETWEEN LOT NO. 27 AND LOT
NO. 28 OF THE PLAT AVERLY ESTATES IN THE CITY OF TIGARD,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.
CITY COUNCIL EE as INC MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PACE 5
:J
1
I
i_ I. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt
Ordinane No. 95-02.
Motion was adopted by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll
. and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") ;
(rhe (nearing for Agenda Item No. 6 was noticed that it would not begin until 8:30 p.m.
Tlaerea'ore, Agenda Items No. 9 and 10 were moved up and reviewed at this point in the
meeting.) -
9
,fCENDA ITEM NO E~UNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS TO VARI US BOARDS ANQ
CMMITTEIiS: Mayor Nicoll advised that five Council liaison appointments had been
discussed during the Study Session portion of the agenda. The result of that discussion ~ . .
is as follom:
Gnncll liaison anoointments:
- Intergovernmental Water Board - Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by
Councilor Scheckla, to appoint Paul Hunt as the primary member on the F
Intergovernmental Dater Board, and Bob Rohlf as the alternate member.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-03 - A RESOLUTION CE THE CITE' COUNCIL, CITY
OF TIG ARD, OREGON, DESIGNATING THE CITY MEMBERS ON THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli
and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
' - Metropolitan Area Communications Commission - Ken Scheckla, primary
representative; Liz Newton, alternate.
Washington County Consolidated Communications Commission - Bob
Rohlf, primary representative; Bill Monahan, alternate.
Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board - Duane Roberts,
primary representative; lean Scheckla, elected official.
Western Bypass Steering Commiltee - Jim Nicoli, primary representative; Bill
Monahan, alternate.
10. Consideration of Consent Agenda Item 3.2, Receive and File Memorandum Dated
January 13, 1,995 ororn the Finance Director to City Administrator Regarding Water
Date Analysis.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MiNU I ES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 6
j
t
T
I
1
City Administrator Monahan reviewed this issue with the City Council. He noted
the intergovernmental Water Board is to be involved with the information
concerning setting of water rates. Any changes in the rates and charges must be
reviewed by the 1WB prior to taking effect. The rates shall be limited to covering
the actual cost of providing the related services. The purpose of the memorandum
is to put the Council and Water Board on notice that a water rate analysis should r
be done. The !dater Board also received this information.
<t
fang City has a representative on the IWB. There will be an IWI3 meeting next r
week. Councilor Hunt noted that he agrees that all that is being done at this time
is notifying the IWB that there will be a water study conducted. In response to a
question from Mayor Nicoli, Councilor Bunt advised he did not think acceptance
of this memo would offend the other three partners on the Water Board. This
issue will be reviewed at the next water meeting.
Mayor Nicoli advised Mr. Polaris he could speak to the issue, but asked him to I`
limit his comments to two minutes. Mr. Polans declined to speak, noting he could
not do so in two minutes.
- Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Agenda Item
No. 3.2 as presented.
i
GMotion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and
Councilors Hawley, Hunt.. Fohlf. and ear a.v rer -40cheun as "alda vote e4• ca- ee\
y ar P m.
Council meeting recessed at 8:20 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 84 2/ZONE CHANGE ZCN 34-
02 TRIANGLE LAND USE (Quasi-Judicial)
a. Public Hearing was opened.
j
b. Declarations or Challenges.
+
~ f
Mayor Nicoli asked the following questions:
Igo any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or
information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits?
Councilor Hunt advised he received a number of phone sails and
letters. His response to them was that this was a quasi-judicial
process and testimony was to be heard at the hearing. Other
Council members advised they had responded similarly.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 7
j
i
- Have all members famillafted themselves with the application? All
Council members indicated they had.
Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the
Council's jurisdiction to near this matter or is there a challenge on '
the participation of any member of the Council?
7 The process was explained by Mayor Nicoll with regard to receipt of letters
from those concerned about this issue. Letters received by Council were
submitted to City staff, who then made copies and redistributed the letters
to all Council members. Mayor Nicoll noted he called some people to let
them knows he would not be able to discuss this issue.
C. Staff Report.
p
Mayor Nicoli made the following statement:
For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise
an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an
opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence -
must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other
criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to
the decision.
Ray Valone, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. See outline of
presentation from Mr. Vaione contained in the Council packet material. He F
reviewed several maps and described the basis for the Triangle Plan. He
advised the Planning Commission voted 8 to 0 to deny the zone change
proposal, noting the testimony at that hearing was overwhelming against the
zone changes. Mr. Valone advised of the required noticing and the
additional Oregonian ads, Cityscape articles and other methods of
notification utilized.
The following letters were received as written testimony after the Council
packet had been delivered to City Council. "these letters were delivered to
the City Council during the January 24, 1995 meeting:
i L.
• January 96, 1995 letter from C. L. and Barbara L. Roberts to the
Tigard Planning Commission regarding a proposal for a zone change
from residential to commercial.
a
January 23, 1995 letter from Roy R. Rogers and Sherman R. Pauly,
Pauly, Rogers and Company, P.C., to Mayor and City Council.
A _
j - ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 9595 - PAGE 8
:
i
a
® January 20, 1995 letter from Molly Gorger, addressed to uDear
Mayor."
• January 20, 1995 letter from Rick Comer, addressed to "dear
Council member."
January 23, 1995 letter from Karen K. Law of Schwabe, Williamson,
and Wyatt addressed to Ms. Kathy Wheatley, Tlgard City Hall,
j regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-1002, zone
change; ZOO 94-OW2 work session, enclosing a copy of the
Pollocks' and Carpenter's recommendation to City Council regarding
the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
A • January 22, 1995 from George 1. Hansen, P.C. to Timothy V. Ramis
regarding City of Tigard's request for Comprehensive Plan
`
Amendment CPA 94 2 f ZON 94-0002.
i_
In addition, two letters were sent to the City Council in their weekly mail and
newsletter dated January 20, 1995. Those two letters were: ~ . ;
• Letter from Ely Wilder dated January 10, 1995.
{ Letter to Mayor Nicoll dated January 10, 1995 from James and
E
lissa Bushier.
Ralph Tahran of OTAK described the evolvement of the plan and how the
zone designations came about.. He reviewed the established guidelines for ,
a substantial residential development where 950 wits could be built. He
referred to evaluation criteria and the Triangle background report.
Mr. Tah- ran advised it was important to develop a ctharacter for the area and
to preserve natural features. He advised that land use regulations for this
area should include design guidelines. Quality development will want strict
design controls on the property next to.
Randy McCort of ®KS Associates, reviewed the transportation analysis.
' The following elements were reviewed:
• Regional approach
• Balanced modes of access - pedestrian and light rail; auto
.Balancing land use and transportation -
• Review of transportation conditions in the. area, including
F
f CITY COUNCIL MEEnNG MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 9
I
i
i ~
_s
intersections and what might occur in the future.
± There will be much traffic in the facture and there is a need to address
mitigation aitematives to reduce trips in and out of the Triangle.
Senior Planner Landsman aerated that a market analysis was done for
commercial and multi-family, and advised there appeared to be a greater
market for multi-family than commercial.
s-
Councilor Scheckla asked questions on the tinning of the transportation
{ shady. Some data was from 1992-1993. Most data was compiled by the
consult-ants for this issue. The consultant responded that they had
documented times and dates they had obtained the data.
Councilor Scheckla inquired as to where the consultants lived. One
consultant advised he lived in the Garden Home area; the other consultant ~
advised he resided in Lake Oswego.
In response to questions from Council, the consultant handy McCort i
advised that problems would be similar in the near future as those problerns :z
now being experienced on Greenburg goad.
Police Chief Ron Goodpaster advised of issues with regard to the impact of
development. A statistical analysis was done at the beginning stages of
development. The Police Department is beginning to see an increase in
1 traffic-related problems. He reported on the impact and the ability to V
service, depending on the type of use which is put in.
Councilor Hunt asked about the affects of high density development in the
area. Chief Goodpdster advised there would be enormous amounts of
traffic.
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Chief Goodpaster
advised a number of factors determine the impact experienced by the Police
Department. For example, poor management or the type of activity drawn
to the area because of the type of unit built could have more impact.
iLi Brent types of uses and development require different types of
responses. Councilor Scheckla asked what would have more impact;
apartments or commercial? Chief Goodp cr noted it was difficult to say;
Councilor Scheckla noted that more specific information would be helpful
j in determining whether to support the issue.
Senior Planner Landsman advised the apartments will generate fewer trips
than general commercial. Councilor Scheckla questioned whether the crime
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 10
i
i
K
rate with apartments was greater then commercial. Chief Coodpaster is
t advised this is not a "black and whiten issue because of the unknowns of
the type of development that would be put in.
d. Public Testimony.
;i
Mayor Nicoll asked people testifying to limit their comments to two minutes,
and to raise an objection at the time they testified if they disagreed with the
two minute time limit. He also requested that once an issue is raised, those
testifying could state whether they are also in favor, but to avoid repeating
statements as much as possible.
Proponents: g
Bill Erdle, 7405 Ste' Seveland, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified he f
wanted to protect his neighborhood and for it to remain a single-
family area. He requested consideration be given to balance
meeting the needs for the Triangle residential area. In addition, he
noted the City should create an environment where one would not
have to always drive to receive services. He urged Council to
protect the livability and to put in place the long term plan/vision.
3 €
® Jerry Koberlein, 7 455 SIN Beveland, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised r
he was not sure he was a "total proponent." He noted T a hodge-
podge cif- development was allowed, it would be a disaster." He
supported all commercial use in the area because of the freeway
access. ,
Michael C. Robinson, 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 23GO, Portland,
9 Oregon, 97204, advised he supports the staff recommendation. '
Tom Dove, 8060 SW Churchill Ct., Tigard, Oregon, 97224, supports
the Triangle plan, noting it was intelligent and creative and i
represented a balance to regional and local concerns. He urged City
Council to balance the concerns.
Gordon Davis, Waremart, and representing Cub Foods, 1020 SW Taylor,
No. 555, Portland, Oregon, 97205, distributed a letter which is on file with
the Council packet material. Mr. Davis addressed transportation concerns,
rioting the current and long-term problems. He advised that along-term
transportation solution must be found. Mr. Davis also submitted a sample
' resolution for Council consideration regarding his proposal.
E
Opponents:
,a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24,1-%5 - PAGE 11
E
Tony Cargill, 13150 SE Winston Road, Boring, Oregon, advised he
j represented a lot of Triangle properly owners. He noted concerns
with residential development planned in the area, and advised that
people are not looking to move into apartments. He advised Council
should loots at this development in relationship to the Metro area. He
said the Triangle market valuation has flaws; it was biased with pre-
conceived end results. He said the master plan does not fit the
market and asked that Council deny the request based on the
Planning Commission and staff recommendations as well as the
evidence- and desires of properly owners. If approval was to be F ;
granted, he requested that nothing be done for at least six months.
• Rick Gorger, 13235 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted
he disagreed with the down-zoning to multi family, and advised such
zoning would slow down development. He noted this was an
opportunity to showcase commercial and requested that Council f
reject the Triangle Plan. C
Ely Wilder, 12260 SW 72nd, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, submitted a
t letter to City Council and read this letter as his testimony. He
requested Council deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and g`` a
j zone change. R
r.
t
Darlene Wozniak, 11550 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223,
read her testimony (copy of this text is on file with Council packet
material). Testimony included concerns that engineers and staff
have not listened to input from the neighbors. She cited safety
issues and noise problems. She referred to Page 38 of the Triangle
Plan, nesting that 150/a of the land was specified for open spaces.
She believes this was forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
• John Wozniak, 11550 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223,
reviewed his testimony, a copy of which is on file with the Council
packet material. Mr. Wozniak opposed the plan. He said he was
moving out of the Triangle area. He referred to a meeting on
September 9, 1991 with a visioning exercise. A majority of the
people were opposed to the plan that resulted. He noted the
Planning Commission agreed and unanimously voted against
implementing the plan. He noted concerns with the process,
including the ex parte contact issues.
Richard Boennighausen, 7275 SW Hermoso, Tigard, Oregon, 97223,
advised he concurred with the staff recommendation which reflected
current realities. He advised the market analysis was outdated, and
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 - PACE 12
- F
t
i F
E,
l
j noted the financial hit that current homeowners would take. He said E
' there was ►no long-term viability for single family homes In the area,
and that there was no interest by anyone to move into the single
family areas of the Triangle. He said the plan was developed with `
} good intentions and referred to the "lawn of unintended
consequences." He advised the current plan does not reflect what
would happen and when people ware faced with different zoning. s
Bill Horne, 7150 SW Baylor, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted he agreed
with comments made by Tony Cargill and John Wozniak.
• JoAnne Nordling, 7105 SW Elmhurst Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223,
advised the Triangle is no longer a viable place for residents.
Property values of single-family dwellings have dropped. She noted
$3.00 a square foot was all that residents could expect to sell their
j property for if it was zoned as multi-family. She noted many people
cannot sell unless the properly is zoned for commercial. She
advised the area would gradually deteriorate over time. She,
suggested some kind of mixed use with commercial and residential
above might be considered. She urged Council to deny or defer the
decision on this issue. (i'tills. Nordling submitted a letter dated
1 January 24, 1905 into the record, and this letter is on file with the
Council packet material).
Sill Chase, 11580 SW 72nd, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted concerns
with safety in the area, and requested Council deny or grant a six
month continuance. (Mr. Chase earlier submitted a letter for Council
review. See personal statement from Bill Chase which is contained
in Council packet material).
• George Nordling, 7105 SW Elmhurst, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised
that someone referred to the quiet residential neighborhood in the
Triangle area - this is not the case. He referred to the noise that has
come with the development due to traffic. He said the economics of
the situation for people were ignored in the plan. He advised he s
would not sell his property for one-third the market price. He
advised that planning has been short-sighted, not only for Tigard but
for the whole metropolitan area. He advised that residential housing
3 in the area is "dead," and urged Council to deny the proposed plan.
• Debi Scott, 7085 SW Elmhurst, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted she
agreed with the testimony by the Nordlings. Ms. Scott submitted a
letter in opposition to the Triangle plan. This letter dated January 22,
1995 is on file with the Council packet material. _
} CITY COUNCIL MEEl`ING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - S=AGE 13
Council meeting recessed at 10.00 p.m. F `
Council meeting reconvened at 10.15 p.m.
• vi Chase, 11580 SW 72nd Avenue, 'Tigard, Oregon, 07223, testrtced -
_ she bought her home 22 years ago. She noted that in 1987 when
'the cinemas were built, noise and traffic became worse. She noted
the value of her home would decrease if the proposal went into
place. She would be forced to remain, which would mean she would
be living In one of the worst areas in Tigard.
s George Hansen, 11515 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon, 97223- F
, advised the Oregon Education Association opposed the
! adoption of the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and zone
change, The Tigard 'triangle specific area plan should be dropped
in its entirety. OEA requests that Council deny the Comprehensive
Plan amendment and zone change. t
Mr. Hansen showed Council a map outlining the property which the '
OEA owns. 'He advised the OEA took exception to the way the
- zoning was dome, noting he disagreed with a "dog-leg" of commercial ;
3 property onto the OEA property. He advised he had not received
any satisfactory explanation with regard to why the zoning was gone
i as it was. He noted he felt that at some time in the future the City
plans to condemn a portion of this property to extend Atlanta
Avenue. He advised it was a "thinly disguised attempt to take
property from a private owner."
He noted that OEA was a taxpayer and a good corporate partner to t
+ the City of "Tigard. Mr Hansen described the improvements with
regard to roads and utilities around and on this property which had
been done in the past. He noted the OEA has a vested interest in {
the zoning on the property, they have spent a great deal of money.
{ Per. Hansen advised the present procedure was flawed and
disagreed with the way the hearing was being conducted. If the Plan
was approved, he requested a continuance so that they would have
time to submit an appraiser's opinion, as he believes the market data
in this area was not correct. He also advised he adopts any
arguments from the people who speak in opposition to this plan.
• Joe Willis, Schwabe, Williamson, and Myatt, 1211 SW 5th Avenue,
Smite 1, Portland, Oregon, 97204-3795, referred to testimony that E
had been submitted to Council in written form {sea letter dated
January 23, 1995 from wren K. Law of Schwabe, Williamson, and
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24•, 1995 - PAGE 14
i
Wyatt, P.C., on file with the packet material). He noted he was
testifying on behalf of the Pollock, and Carpenters (see written
testimony). He advised these people have been depending on the
planning process and relying on some degree of certainty with the
adopted plan. He noted the plan in 1982-83 went through all the
process. There was no commercial development until Dartmouth ~
Road was completed. Private owners created an LID in the area so f
' they could realize their investment. Mr. Willis advised he objected to I
the two minute time limit on testimony.
Issues outlined by ter. Willis: ~
Reasonable expectations based on Oregon law
Economic hardships
' i
Vacancy factors should be reviewed
Agreed with the staff recommendation that the proposal fora
comprehensive plan amendment be denied. i
Mr. Willis questioned the quasi-judicial process. He advised that this
process should be stopped "stopped cleanly."
Pat Biggs, 8797 S.W. Fountain View Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97224,
advised that she served on the'Tigard/Tualatin School District Board.
Her concerns were with the cost to taxpayers if the property was
"down-zoned." She advised that there was already enough
commercial and professional zoning. NA.s. Biggs outlined problems
with the school location (Phil Lewis Elementary School). She advised
that this school had "lost its neighborhood." Miss Biggs described
boundary changes and population shifts in the Tigard area. She
noted that bussing to the school is necessary because of the danger
of walking.
. Richard Carlson, 11475 S.W. Venus Court, Tigard, Oregon advised
he was testifying also as a School Board member frc;~m the
j Tigard/Tualatin School District. Mr. Carlson noted challenges to the
school with the changes in the system of funding and the allowance
of only a certain number of school sites. He advised that there are
very few students in the Triangle area and that the attendance area
for the Phil Lewis Elementary School was getting bigger. He advised
that a school is need in the Bull Mountain area and that money was
needed to build this school. The school district needed to consider
CITY COUNCIL MEEINC MIN U TIES - JANUARY 24, 1595 - PAGE 15
{
9
1 r_
closure of the Phil Lewis Elementary School. The Triangle area was
not a "children-friendly aroa."
Mr. Carlson advised that down-zoning the school property was not
in the School District's best interest and requested that the City leave
the school at its current zoning.
M e Merilee Haas, 20888 Wiiliape Way, Tualatin, Oregon also advised she
was a member of the Tigard/Tualatin School District Board. Miss
Haas testified as to her con crns about the benefit to the community
and expenditure of taxes. She noted that the Tigard Triangle Plan ;
was a "shell game" and would not be of benefit to the taxpayers.
She urged the City Council to deny the proposal for the Triangle
Plan.
Discussion followed with City Council and the three School Board
members with regard to how the attendance areas were calculated. ~
P
Mr. Carlson explained the formula used to determine attendance and t
that it was fairly accurate.
Glenn and Sharon Moore, 11710 S.V. 69th, Tigard, Oregon, advised
? that they owned a house in the Triangle. They referenced the criteria
for making a change to the comprehensive plan; they noted concern
that the criteria did not apply in this instance. The Moores advised
that. if their property was zoned residential, then they would not be
able to move out of their home. Other issues of concern t6 the
Moores were crime and taxes.
` Kathy Godfrey, 7435 S.W. Hermoso'may, Tigard, Oregon testified ~
with concerns about the proposed Triangle Flora in reference to crime
problems. Ms. Godfrey advised that in her review of the police log,
there were about two to three crimes a week committed in the
Triangle area. She said that five years ago this crime did not
happen. She expressed concerns with increased crime if apartments
were built. Ms. Godfrey advised that commercial development
would keep crime down because they would have their own security.
Ms. Godfrey noted that there are only two exits out of the area,
Site said she was concerned about property values and noted that
a number of people were long-time residents in the area. Pis.
Godfrey asked the Council to deny the new plan.
® ichael Lefebvre, 7040 S.W. Baylor Ave., Tigard Oregon testified that
he movAd into the area aoproximately 1-112 y re age sar~ra se-id hn
r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PACE 16
a 1,
;a
y could not afford a "down-zone". He noted that he would not be able
to sell his home because of economic reasons and also cited
jj concerns with traffic.
• Mary Lewis, 11850 S.W. 72nd, Tigard, Oregon 97223 advised that
this property had been in her family for 60 years. Miss Lewis
advised that she loves the Tigard area, but this area had changed
and urged the City Council to deny the proposal. Miss Lewis asked
the Council to be responsive to the residents in this area. ,
•
Michael Andrus, advised that he lives in Tualatin, however has a
business at 7155 S.W. Beveland, Tigard, Oregon. He testified with f
regard to concerns about small segments of commercial property
- and also noted concerns with traffic,
w Tsune Leben, requested that her nephew testify with regard to her
concerns. Her address is 7440 S.W. Reveland, Tigard, Oregon.
Concerns related by Ms. Leben's nephew included the fact that
some hornes are occupied by older residents; the value of their
property was important to them in order to be able to move on to
their next house if necessary.
® Dale Beach, noted his concerns with the "down-zone" of properties
in the 'triangle. He also referred to the accessibility of the Triangle.
Mr. Beach submitted written testimony for the Council record. Mr.
Beach requested the Council deny this proposal.
• Arden Peters, 7105/7135 S.W. Clinton, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
testified with regard to concerns about noise and property values.
He requested the Council reconsider the plan and either abandon
this plan or come up with a new one. He ask that any future ~
process involve the property owners.
® Carl Johnson, 8965 S.W. Burnham, Tigard, Oregon, advised that he
concurred with points brought up by previous opponents and their
testimony.
• Susan Peters, 7105 S.W. Clinton Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified that
if the plan was kept as proposed, this would mean that people would
not be able to sell their homes because of the reduced value of
{
property. She advised that the existing map for the Triangle Area
was what they had originally wanted. She requested that the Council
i not implement the plan.
i.
3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 17
F
.f
f
y
• Gene Jackson, 7045 S.W. Clinton Street, Tigard, Oregon, advised
that he had lived in the Triangle for 30 years. He said the area is
commercial and requested that the Council deny the proposed plan.
• Gordon Martin, 12265 S.W. 72nd Ave., 'Tigard, Oregon 97225,
l testified that he was in support of the suggestions made by Mr.
Gordon Davis. (see letter on file with the Council packet material
t from Gordon E. Davis to the City Council dated January 24, 1995 f
concerning the Tigard Triangle transportation and an attached
proposed resolution for Council consideration.) Mr. Martin noted
that this was no longer a pleasant place to live and people should be '
able to move away. He noted that property values should be
protected as best as possible. =
• David Potter, Facilities Manager for City University, 12600 S.W. 72nd S
Ave., Tigard, Oregon, testified in opposition to the proposed zoning
changes. (see letter written by Mr. Potter to Tigard City Council dated
January 24, 1995 which has been filed with the packet material.)
Steve Halferty, 7015 Clinton, Tigard, Oregon, noted he had moved
from where Cub Foods is now located to his present location. He
noted concerns with the proposed Triangle plan and requested that
the Council not adopt.
{ • Dick Spear, 12335 S.W. 72nd Ave., Tigard, Oregon, advising he was
testifying on behalf of his mother. He noted concerns with traffic ; .
safaty, quality of life and investment issues.
• Evelyn Beach requested that she read Mr. Irv L.arson's letter to the
City Council: Irv Larson, 11720 S.W. 68th parkway, Tigard, Oregon,
requested that the Council not change tax lots 5200 and 3290 from
CP to R-25. He noted that a sale is pending for a commercial
development. Mr. L.arson's note further stated that his family could
not afford the reduced fair market value If such a zone change were
made. Mr. Larson advised that they had been paying commercial 6
property tax on the two sites on Parkway for nearly quarter of
a Century.
e. Council Questions:
In response to a question from Council Rohlf, Senior Planner Landsman
advised that the zoning of this property was not needed to meet density
requirements. There was discussion on the traffic impacts should the
nrnnariv in 4ha Trionnin hn 7nnnrl mmrmPr~_~al_ Transportation Planning
~ c-
i ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 18
I
i
would nosed to bo started over advised one the consultants to the Triangle
Plan. It would tape approximately three to five months to complete such a
transportation plan. ;
Council briefly discussed procedural issues with Legal Counsel. Mr.
Coleman addressed the dissatisfaction expressed by some of those who E
testified with regard to the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Coleman advised that
a quasi-judicial process gives more rights to property owners (i.e.,
notification requirements). He further advised that the City Council's
decision should be linked to the merits of the case presented to them
during the testimony. E
i f. Close Public Hearing
J ~
g. Staff Recommendation
staff recommended that the City Council not approve Comprehensive Plan l
- ~
Map Amendment 94-0002 and Zone Change 94-13002 but direct staff to
prepare design, transportation and open space standard to implement and
identify Triangle goals.
i-
h. Council Consideration:
® Councilor Rohlf advised that it was obvious to him that this was not
a residential area and noted a need for cohesive development in the
Triangle Flan. He noted that he would not want to throw everything
away in regardto the studies done for this area. He advised that he
would vote to deny and direct staff to look into reviewing design
standards for development of which we could be proud.
F
j - Councilor Hunt advised that he agreed with Councilor Pohlf's
statements. He noted the importance of individual property rights.
® Councilor Hawley advised that she also would be in favor of denial f
{ of the Tigard Triangle Plan Proposal. She reviewed the history of the
effort and noted that the motivation behind this effort was to
proactively plan for this area. She noted that the window of
opportunity was missed and that this plan would no longer work in
this area.. Councilor Hawley noted that the development in the
Triangle should be firmly managed and stressed that strong design
standards should be implemented so there would be no more "box
developments".
y crry COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 19
1
{
o Councilor 3checkla advised that he never did like the plan. H nr9ted F
that the intentions ware good; however, the results did not reflect
those intentions. He referred to concerns with traffic and pedestrian k ,
safety. He also noted he Would want to protect the liveability of
those residents remaining in the area..
. Mayor Nicoli advised that he was also in favor of denying the zoning
' proposal. Development conditions needed to be reviewed to assure
a high quality. He noted that the City had spent time and money in
{ a fair attempt to determine what might be good for this area. He
said that the City tried something and it didn°t work. ~
• Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to "kill the
zoning portion of this".
The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. ~
(Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohif and Scheckla
voted "yes.")
After a brief statement by Senior Planner Landsman, it was noted
that on January 31, staff will present information to Council regarding
transportation growth management funds which may be available to
the City. Staff will also schedule time on a future Council Agenda to
discuss how to develop design standards for the Triangle
7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 94-0001
SENSITIVE LANDS A proposal to amend Community Development Code Section
18.84 to bring sons Ito land requirements into compliance with Federal Emergency
. Management Agency regulations relative to procedures for administering and `
' enforcing floodplaira regulations and to reorganize and clarify kcal permit
procedures for lands involving steep slope, drainageway, wetlands and the 100 F
year floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1,
2, 5, and 7; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2,
3.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.84.
1 a. Public hearing was opened.
j
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
r
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 241, 1995 - PAGE 20 -
i
E
c. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the staff report. He outlined the
changes necessary to comply with FEMA requirements and to clarify local c
permit procedures.
d. Public testimony:
„ Carl Johnson, 8965 S.W. Burnham Street, Tigard, OR 97225, testified
with regard to property he owns off Durham Road, near Fenno
Creep. He noted his property was in the f3oodplain and was not
classified as wetlands. He wanted to build on his property and
reviewed the circumstances which he advised were preventing him F
from building. He noted that many of his concerns stemmed from
fill in the fioodplain which had occurred upstream from his property.
He objected to not being allowed to bring fill into the floodpiain on
his property; he said the requirements were too harsh.
He outlined the impacts on him and advised that he was "not the
problem." Mr. Johnson said these requirements took away the use
of his property without just compensation because the flow problems
were generated upstream. He advised that in order to preserve his j
appeal rights, he was objecting to all of Tigard Municipal Code ~
Chapter 18.84.
Mayor Nicoll explained to fir. Johnson that the proposal before the
Council was to update the Code with federal law. The Mayor
advised that the Council mist have a specific reason as to why they
should not follow federal government guidelines.
Discussion followed on process and under what circumstances fill
could be allowed. Mr. Johnson was concerned that a few properties
were being asked to carry the burden.
{
e. Council Questions
i
• In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Senior Planner
Bewersdorff advised that no comments were received from the
Citizen Involvement Teams.
f. Public hearing was closed.
CITY COUNCIL MEEi"ING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1895 - P~C~ ~1
` i
3
i
i
}
1
f
g. Staff recommended that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance.
h. Council consideration:
t
• Councilor Hawley advised that the ordinance appeared to be of a
housekeeping nature and should be approved.
• Councilor Schackla raised a concern with the fact that the CIT`s had
not responded. R
• Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohl, to adopt
Ordinance No. 95-03.
r
ORDINANCE NO. 95-03 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS
' TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (SECTION 18.84 -
SENSITIVE LANDS) RELATING TO FEIV A REQUIREMENTS AND
CLARIFYING LOCAL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR SENSITIVE
LANDS.
3
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. I
$ (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, RohII and Scheckla ~
voted "yes.")
Councilor Scheckla reiterated that although he voted in favor of the
ordinance, he was concerned that there was no testimony from this
CITs.
8, BURG COMP I EE APPOINTMENTS 4 (Set over to January 31, 1995.)
I
9. COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND
COMMITTEES. (This item was discussed earlier in the meeting - see Page o^)
10. NON AGENDA
Discussion on procedures for the Martin/Tri-County Public Hearing. This
was discussed during Study Session. As indicated on Page 1, The Council F
- declined to review issues raised by the applicant on January Si .
a
{ is
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - PAGE 22
i
-7 t
Legal Counsel Coleman noted that Council may tape additional testimony 4
or restrict testimony if the record reopened. If more evidence is taken, then
renotiification mast be done. There was discussion on allowing people to
talk about the conditions of approval labs any new evidence submitted by i
the applicant. As noted on Page 1, this issue will re-noticed to the property
owners with appropriates. Record will be received for Council consideration
on February 14, 1995.
11. ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 a.m.
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
r, City of egard
t
Date: 1hI S
c=0124.95
S
S
i
i
-I
i
f
_j
i
i
I ~
I
,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 24,190-5 - PACE 23
i
a y.
r;
£ E i v is t) COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERSy INC. Notice TT 8 0 8 8
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6840364 Notice
JAN 2 4 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
all t r 3F l:~ar~u Legal Notice Advertising
e City of Tigard ® 0 Tearsheat Notice
13125 Sod Ball Blvd.
{ s Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® ® Duplicate Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
a STATE OF OREGON, ) 9-i•- :~4
OUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
f, Katby Snyder g i
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the m; g r --a t a •t i n -Times
a newspaper of {general circulation as defined in OILS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
I z_ aforesaid county and state; that the
. City Connci 3sj rr Sa Mtg
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
I
j entire issue of said newspaper for ONF- successive and
consecutive in the following issues: t
January 19,1995
Subscribed and sworn t fore me thisl9th day of January,`l?fi •~iAL S Ai
\ ~ (if'r.'P a 3UPGESB
<~i.L~ S r' ; J P r Ur It - ORgGCN i
f /-S!ON N0.024552
y
1 Notary 66cyfor Oregon
My _..PNE WV/16. 557 {
L
a My Commission Expires:
1 AFFIDAVIT
i;
I
l
i
' ~,c'~a'`~~3r_tiR3'~tcCs'i 1 to ~,s..
ow,
e
CITY
r
aw~dy t~.2cc.tnri, (?i~sVrb ft~:tt Ci~nferencel~oat<r) ~ i;a.: `
Aggn& Review
a Ausiness e ck.tRn (Town Hitt) 7:30 p.m..-
7
i
Public Hearings:: .
Naming ofAVainut Street went si 1350) Avenue ~
'quest_for meat Vacatiwi M Waymi
J and Triangle Plan (Heanng will not sta-n
i f f ra g:3(D lxm,)
MA= egWnuon Review (Martufacttucd flon:es and
p Sensitive Land 2esp6n. it,ili;y Outlined)
CojrtO Connidcmuan y
- `n i~. U'~~~s LCS t]R tt C fii+T'Tf T13xS7 ~ni " ~
Cowu ,d Lia;son ppo ns llcros to Vaeicus A 'tis and 4.~
OT6?iil3tt.cc-N
-cat Con. a.c t . Cb ➢v 9'/ onrd
ion: Titc TignTd City Council may go into Execu€iva SC67
und. reti`isions or IOP.-S 192.660 (3)(d), (a), &I (h) to discus
la's c+; rA?aticns, a; ctt i> cis, y transactions, current and parading litigatiora
Z s
i
i
_T
Y
i
I ~
k -
~ L
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS9 INC. Legal
r 7 ) P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 fJ $ 6
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97078
FIGARD Legal Notice Ad Vertlaing
oCity of Tigard ® 0 Tearshost Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
oTigard,Oregon 97223 " ® Duplicate Affidavit
3 f
j AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ~
c
f STATE OR OREGON, )ss
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON. )
-
Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that l am the Advertising
. j Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi ga rd-Tn a 1 at i n T;Lmes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
t
" and 193.020: Published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and states. that the
Hearing%lnut Street E
` a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONH successive and
+ consecutive in the following issues:
January 19 ,1.995
.,.o .,A
1 Subscribed and svrarn to fore me thisl9th day of Januar,~;
0 CIAL'CAL k
) { r_ a i 'h eusiGESS
\.9~7CJyt~ L~ ~t 7 f P'C)7 ✓ i ri!' - OREGON
'i
Notary iC or OTagon f l + l (rrtliis+ ''vrr N'0. Q14552 a
E.IY CO' 'SI Safi <E fkES l,;A'f f t:>~' P
n,.........,....,.......,...,.„„~.,.~„~,...,m.,..: i..
+ My Commission Expires:
i
1 AFFIDAVIT -
ter ~ `,ds P,
e fofissti sn avsllbacons 4a-;:r; icy the'1 s;asel l~ Vtiuja ifl clY ` r
",at7:3t)~:Pv€., 3 3 :rct p';z+ If~,i av~=jn s) i'~ ~~rr 1,12 > ~ a, _
all Boulenrd, igard, Ori,gun. ` crtne info si a € -n nay b;,
fi-o r ft City _Entineer'or0i 2c o wt SIfC 5a 1~ „r, r a or ~y
39.4171. YwA are invited to sfzbm Z vv;ittCn';:Sz fh,:,,, ;Y dVLi,. ^ OF
r ublic 1iznring-, 4* rft!t;.A and tiynony will ~-Iz' the
e pnlAic hzarir', -'vift b S~LIC}~fy irz as~.t, S::F<?oi s ?YiiiZ a~~'y. b
3
Tz-7.3.71)"d =y Ssi..^.S .:E~?. ,,..U~;., r..Li.T~~w..11 Vy'F7f,..~~~.i?I,t.al .,arf c. d.,.t...~>~• ~,~t ~ i..r ~.iei ~t L3`3 a ~ .L L .r a t3 r;. -
E:r f Road .1 1'C>:u
cf 35i.
l
1
f '
t.
f k
4
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER% INC.
Legal
T
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (5Ci3) 684-U Motes e Z T 8 0 81
BE.AVERTON. OREGON 97075
:Il'Y OF
' Isa...,.., Legal Notice Advertising
® d Tesrsheet Notice '
'ity of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
*Tigar, d, Oregon 97223-8199 ° 0 Duplicate Affidavit
a t:
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
~ .
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as.
{ I, Kathy--Snyder-
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of thJ-a-rd -T_a1zi..lat';m7 mes
- a newspaper of general circulaLtion as defined in ORS 193.010
and 153.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Jieai--i 9/7,nM~~e Ollfl? ^y Ant-11 P
n Use
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was publishe sn t
Oi4E successive and
entire issue of said newspaper for
consecutive in the following issues:
January 12 1995
Subscribed and sworn t fore me this 9'-7h 19Au elf ,-tanuar t CdJ~m IAL SAL
fK + Flt c ! A. BURGESS ~
- NO A ~,.8U( - OREGON
sib r i^,o:';E:.:it;i, .
Ia NO. 024552
Notarg lie for Oregon 'r9Y COVMI"jON EXHRES 10M6,1rg7
My Commission! Expires:
AFFiDA' IT -
a
i
~ t
fir. T Cir
( 7- ty 13 ~+.1~L 13125
_,,.,s vvaa4 f)a.,goar, FUwj?jCrr rc~ tasatir3r~ way be-obtiat.... t
-hem 90 Community, Development Dhr"jo,,o7- City Recorder at the sst
; cation or by cslllrgk 6394171, You inyited to submit written tes
5 wq in advanc? of adze public- hearing. written and oral testimony erjlr
^osiside,-t d at the caring, 'P! pub U- heaarani Will b€ conducted in tc -
3°dsr ce with tie appllsal'ile Chapter 18.32 of ti b.'1't rd Municipal Cei .
d any rules o£ precxde a acl z?€ed by the (ou»ch aed avaalabie'a€ Ca W '
n`yfig{! A'pN {
-Olslyffi ]l r'9id+lEA3DIyt~i7T CPA
f !QL j L1 hp V E
F~. A TON G nerally east of 72nd Av; nun and west 61i 6S Avenue
n Hampto Ctr - at &W .3rei:.kno-Wn as to '
I c ~cd Trating4~.:,lso crest of 72nd r'4vstru~.+ south csf B~velantl•Strear ~
J E h<,q proposal is,to amend the voinprehensv` a lrlan ac an and koning map ;
on 37 parc;elstotaling, cpproxid2ately Ott acres: TO pQosal`aoold
' ~_.s3 a ate 1S acres from tqlw-dewier r-Ider~s~al t"R=3.5; ~0 medium" h in
t ,ai(typ re,i&ndi a (R-°25);.20.7 acxs fwm r mt-au&.-il pi'ofossitanal (C-*. )
- y 5 €S +ul~aT!-lla~ll i38gE3atyIC~I~- '21F8~ t ~ t+,T> TS i„S IJ V-z ~T! !tl
a r ° !r,lfli to ct1^'i2Y -;,p i i~ p, r t l 6.2 zFCS from Cc -
,~Wea,4fll meal (C-0) to connn i-ciai (C-f'); anti 1.7 'acres I
s i a wccrL- l come ci.il (C.t:;) t t; ~ ~5us d a--ity e ~ Icy tt I
I
6101. Aho pri5rimcd .S a = Ci7afige zGf.mg Y3S ds r4h1? A H N sun
I
&T da W dais case are Su wi s `°I mTting C nis I, 2,9,10.12. and 13;
CI aW ' ALN Corn un1=t,' Dm 3r pme W Caa?Nus 1$12 and
'331
,e C7~t~i1'~r~ty~ ,~+-al'r r~r r•i~l'~ ~C?;~ (;:;€:1
A y%m pml w ammdCom 1,183kj.-?CVdoppt°ra Lode. Section 13.4 im t
ing ~i t ~rdtrU Ialt i (R.'P1 i7 ~ r;~ Co ti?[~ 'x y P Z?-e^vai l T P -rte i3_' i
c, i r..~ru~ sn,~.~,~~~..,_v. ~ r~_r,`_ o..n•. , isn't to;~ ,.ti~~J;xS _;-ace ~n:eaa~,~a~-_ ~ i ,
nad _ nfardn i oodpi ai, : re d r,
kt ~,Istt ;
5~~,h,;trr z1t`~9fi~s.'?_3 I 3~zF~~rE tc c2.~ n~,c_i,y~
l ntl4 =..,ir !M. 100year
~PIr 9c;`IGl Cr,I yC~~i'trY- 7.`. ° <„'Y 7;4
De';'Ciop-
j
COMMUNITY ® Legal
'ECEIVFD TT 81782 C-
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 ~
JAN ? 41 19%
E
Legal Notice Advertising
*-ITY OF TIGARD
®City of Tigard ® C] Tearsheet Notice 7
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
_j OTigard,Oregon 972238199 13 Duplicate Affidavit
1 ~
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION a
STATE OF OREGON.
_ COUNTY Or WASHINGTON, )as. t
I t, KatI_ r~Sn}ceder ~ s
being first duty sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising i
=1 Director, or his principal clerk, of the`r'i ga rd-ri „a 1 at- i n mimes J
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at-_Tigard in the '
- aforras~6d county and state; that the
l7otice rf kesem sl sL~~ i
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for T30 successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
January 12,19,1995 -
j ,
SLbscrib6d and sworn t fore rase this] 91-b ri a y a i Tan„ a r~
~J ill S AL
j - r UI a A. BLIPC SS
NO7r a" I ' - ORE3CPd
r
Pfotary P for regaon ; . ^.CO Y ? t N0.024552
My Commission Expires:
AFFID"Aff
`t
bACAT10', 01,'TI 'OS ; , ELA S ~ Sri SL TC F+ 1) ~ -
is135 AND `"r5, fnT3l> LOTS #'27 t1P;L~ ~2~-' bid
Vl,Si iiol d . ~1311;fic o'n u d'ay, J-1 t-fy
"o vrr"l a3S+~_^., rni ..~7ao£iFdJ 33iW £C ~Yl°..~ o td , .t:,I f: ,i 3`}° 4o'f.' e.FLa _
k i.7 13, t nr._ h ,;Ii 7 Ary M 1`-.
.
.F" - "xW7,T and t s~ ec ft, or
wob rax i x- z loo _is j
F -
s Cl-fY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
s
1 In the Matter of the Proposed, .
r t
STATE OF OREGON }
r.
County of Washington )ss.
City of Tigard }
1, C - el L, AP A 1 F_
_ begin first duly sworn, on oath, F
depose an say: E`
f.
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance F
Dumber (s) IS -(D Q S- C) a q'E~° -
r which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated t ~ Q S
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being he to attached and by reference made a part hereof,
on the\-AA day ofti 19
t. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4
2. West One Bark, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson"s Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
i T
A
Subscribed and swam to before me Otis day of 19
a
G>FFiCIAL SEAL ~9J t~tlV~/LXJ G~iJVY r M
CONNIE MARTIN Notary Public for Oregon
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON
CoMAAN AN No. 015877
- °MY COMMISSION EXPIRES TUNE 4,1995 !
My Exp r t
Commission tress ' 4W41 Ll
i
3 7
t .
~ P
E '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
?3.N ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NA14ES OF CERTAIN STREETS TO WALNUT STREET AND
WALNUT LANE.
WHEREAS, a new street has been completed providing an extension of ~
3 Walnut Street west from 135th Avenue to Scholls Ferry Road; and,
.;a WHEREAS, the various plats that dedicated the right of way for the new
. street do not show a consistent name for the street; and,
f WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the new street be
j named Walnut Street and that the name of existing Walnut Street west of
135th Avenue be changed to Walnut Dane; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 227.120, the City Council held a hearing
on the proposed name changes at the regular meeting of January 24, 1995;
j and,
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was given in the Tigard Times within the c
week prior to the week in which the hearing was held; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the renaming of the streets as
recommended by the Planning Commission is in the best interest of the
City in order to reduce confusion and provide uniformity of street
naming. k.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: F
SECTION 1: The name of the street shown as S.W. Murray Blvd. on the
plats of Cotswald Meadows No. 3 as recorded at page 34-36
in Book 62 and Castle Hill as recorded at page 31-36 in
Book 82 of the plat records of Washington County,
Oregon, is hereby changed to S.W. Walnut Street.
SECTION 2: The name of the street shown as S.W. 135th Avenue on the
{ plats of Morning Hill No. 7 as recorded at pages 22 and
23 in Book 69, Morning Hill No.8 as recorded at pages 38-
40 in Book 79, and Castle Hill as recorded at pages 31-36
} in Book 82, of the
plat records of Washington County,
t
Oregon and that portion of S.W. 135th Avenue being along
the east boundary of Castle Hill No. 2' as recorded at
pages 35-39 in Book 91 of the -plat records of Washington
,j County, Oregon, is hereby changed to S.W.Walnut Street.
SECTION 3: The portion of County Road, No. 934 (also called S.W.
135th Avenue) lvina between the wester?v ex4Giip.{. Vtt of ans; on of Il.ra
.-d .ti~.. F
north line of Morning Hill No. 7 as recorded at pages 22
' and 23 in Book 69 and the easterly extension of the south
ORDINANCE No. 95--0(
Page 1
line of Castle Hill as recorded at pages 31-36 in book 82
of the plat records of Washington County, Oregon, is
hereby changed to S.W. Walnut Street.
} `3 F
SECTION 4: The name of the street shown as S.W. Walnut Street on the
plat of OBRS Heights as recorded at page 43 in Book 22 of
the plat records of Washington County, Oregon, is hereby
,j changed to S.W. Walnut Lane. E
`t SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified
copies of this ordinance with the County Clerk, the
- County Assessor, and the County Surveyor of Washington
County.
SECTION G: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its F
passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and
posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By UnC LKk MOLLS vote of all Council members
press after being read by number and title only, this
ezL4 ttl day of , 1995. F
Catherine Wheatley, Cit Recorder
+ APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of
i995.
d
4
4
Jame 18(51i, Mayor
U
Approved as to form:
Ci A torney
.15
Date
f,
r
3
i rviwainu%3
ORDINANCE No. 95-
Page 2
CITE' OF TIGARD, OREGON ~
j ORDINANCE NO.. 95- (3~ t
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF DEDICATED STORM DRAINAGE ~
EASEMENTS LOCATED BETWEEN LOT #35 AND LOT #36, AND BETWEEN LOT #27 AND
LOT #28 OF THE PLAT WAVERLY ESTATES IN THE, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, OREGON. i'
f
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request
pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on December
13, 1994; and
e WHEREAS, this easement is a dedicated public easement, giving the
public rights over the land for storm drainage; and
-4
WHEREAS, the reason and purpose of this vacation is to eliminate storm
r drainage easements that are no longer needed and will be replaced with
new drainage easements; and
WHEREAS, the adjacent properties support this vacation; and
WHEREAS, the vacation has been initiated by the City Council and
{ approval has been recommended by the Community Development Department;
+ and
WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies kR
and emergency service providers, have reviewed the vacation proposal
and have no objections; and
WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said
vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as described by ORS
271.080; and
i,
' WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120 the r
Recorder posted notice in the area to be vacated and published notice
of the public hearing; and
{
WHEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have
not objected in writing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on January 24,
1995, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to
vacate those certain portions of storm drainage easements because the
public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation as provided be
ORS 271.120 and TMC Section 15.08.130; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following conditions are necessary {
to vacate said land.
i 1. The easement vacation shall not be effective until the recording r
of new st-'nrm drainage easements to replace the easements being
ORDINANCE No. 95- 0a+
} Page 1
vacated by this application.
f
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of
those certain portions of the public storm drainage
easements as shown and described on the attached F
exhibits A and B (map and legal description of area to
be vacated, and by•this reference made part there of.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation
be subject to the following condition:
1. The easement vacation shall take effect upon the '
recording of new storm drainage easements to replace the
easements being vacated by this application.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its
j passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and
posting by the City Recorder.
`x
PASSED- By vote of all Council members °
present after being read by number and title only,, this k.
day of 46-rVAA 1995. c
E
Catherine Wheatley, City Re order
j APPROVED: This day of / 95.
James o i, ;Mayor
Approved as to form:
J
Ci A torney
r
Date
-1
ti ORDINkNCE No. 95-
Page 2
s _
i
i EXHIBIT "A"
INN o=BER 21, 1994
F A
~ - ~~iates W>8. WELLS & Assoc., INC - J06 93-336
i
inc. LMAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATING STOMH DRAIN MIENT
ME. F St.
, OR 97293 i%SI`I•
Smote { 254-56,96
FAX (50 2a3W
A 15 foot strip of land for the purpose of a stogy drain easement,
being a portion of Lots 35 and 36 of the duly recorded plat of
_ Waverly tatesa situated in the Northeast One Quarter of section
1-4, Township 2 south, Range 1 West of the Willamtte Meridian, in
the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, Record
in Plat Sack. 92, Panes 9, 10 & 11 of Washington County Plat
,s Records, being more particularly described as follows:
The easterly 7.5 feet of said Lot 36, and the westerly 7.5 feet cf
said. Lod: 33, along the 'c t line of lots 36 and 35, extending to {
the north line of lot 35.
b
112A4
_
"An
LOT S 6"
PROFF-SSIONAL Loy °
EYOR
LAND SU
0F,,F_00 N
i)AVID W. MILLS r
01993
j
F
_ L+tt TZ! This vacate is needed due to changes, during construction,
~liaectinq t1ift Swale a-Und at--= line. The stoma line, as built, will
i ' 1-0 i 4
1-e better situated within the neaw. eas nt describnd in a nx6 ~
Crean" 5010CM
3zIpvAd FourE,xgectaMonar.
EXHIBIT °B"
r { 101 Is 0=09ER 5, 1994 k
and
E
ciates . 8. b4-aLS & AS=. , INC JOB 93-235
i _
asso
inc.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATING SI'OIMI DRAIN E.ASEIIfLYft
f NSF SL
Paftnd. DR 97313 EMIEIT
FAX 2
x
A 15 foot strip of land for the purpose of a stores drain easement,
b;ArT a portion of (sots 27 end 29 of the duly recorded plat of ~
Waverly Estates, situated in the Northeast One Quarter of section -
14, Township 2 south, Range i 'nest of the Willamette Meridian, in
the City of Ticard. County of Washington, State of Oregon, Recorded t
in Plat Rook 92. Pages 9, 10 & It of Washington County flat
Records. being more particularly described as follows:
j The easterly 7.5 feet of said Lot 22, and the westerly 7.5 foet of i
said Lot 27, along the comiwn line of lots 28 and 27. extending to r
- the north line of lot 27.
11
vZ h e
-27
i4EGICTi ReD
IsU,
'7- 3
OA';,1O W. MILLS 6 = ~C:
C!1 ~1~aS
NOTE- This vacate is needrd due to changes, during construction.
affecting the swale and stomas line. The storm Brie. as built, will
be better situated within the ne% easement described in exhibit
E
;,dpNon~l sm,•v:Cty,
err'4p.R:fvgt ga"L°hJ'~Bl`!R. ~
Cua#ry 60yand Your Umm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CITY OF TIGA.RD, OREGON ~S t
ORDINANCE NO.
i
E AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
(SECTION 18.84 -a SENSITIVE LANDS) RELATING TO FERIA REQUIREMENTS AND
CLARIFYING LOCAL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR SENSITIVE LANDS.
3 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency requires that the j
development code be amended to comply with the National Flood Insurance
- Program; and
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendments at a public hearing on December 5, 1994 and voted to
recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on January 24, 1995 to
consider the amendment."
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in
Exhibit "A" according to the findings shoran in Exhibit "B".
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSER: By unan. mo vote of all Council members 1
present after bein read by number and title only, this
mot- day ofd .
GA"ru 1
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of .
f
r
J' Nicoli, Mayor
i
Approved as to form:
Ci y , ttorney r
ORDINANCE No. ~94-
Page 1
EXhibit 1A" i
i
3
Language to be added is bold,
Language to be deleted is bold) t
1
_ f
Chapter 8.84
SENSITIVE LANDS
.3 `
i.
o.ctions:
18.84.010 Purpose
18.84.015 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and
Nonconforming f
a 18.84.020 Administration and Approval Process
18.84.025 Maintenance of Records
18.84.026 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas l;
18.84.028 General Provisions for Wetlands
18.84.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards of Extension of Time
18.84.040 Approval Standards
18.84.045 Exception for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine below
the 140 Feet Elevation
- 18.84.050 Application Submission Requirements i,
18.84.060 Additional Information Required and Waiver of F
Requirements
4 18.84.070 Site Conditions
18.84.080 The Site Plan
18.84.090 Grading Plan
18.84.100, Landscaping Plan
18.84.010 Purpose s
r
A. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for
development because of their location within: t-be
f
OR-slaves, er 8-an un 1
2. The 309-year floodplain;
2. Natural drainaageways;
F
3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies
including the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant
wetland on the comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland
Map; and
4. Steep slopes of 25 percent or greater and unstable
ground.
I
Draft. December 6, 1994 Page +I i,
Chapter W4 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit X
1
3. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare of the community through
the regulation of these sensitive land areas. E-
t
C. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are
intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streams, and
creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank
stability, maintaining and enhancing water duality, and fish
and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and
} recreational potentials.
D. The regulations of this chapter are intended to implement the
a-- t
d comprehensive plan and the dayal
oitve s floo ain manacrement $
, t
iqam
program as required by the National Flood insurance Igo
a and help to preserve natural sensitive land areas from
encroaching use and to maintain the September 1981 zero-foot
rise floodway elevation.
spe. -f
1 r
j ~'svz33f~ i .
1 y e i r.
-1
1
i
' 1 DES
• ~.~.-3,'... ~ x.. ~ ate. s,._~ s~tz~-~.e
* a e
r
ems-
1-s- --e'er
~eeT-s~e~t~~ -~d•-~-~~~.a
d E
Ord. 83 52)
3
i
i
Draft - December 6,199i Page - 2
Chapter 18.84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit IX I
s? " icabi ity o Uses: Pe i' tted . Prohi; bitgd , and
A, Outright Permitted Uses - No Permit Required
Except as provided by Subsections 18.84.015.B, D. and E., the f
i following cases are outright permitted uses within s k
the 100-yeas floodplain, drainageways, slopes that
are 25 percent or greater, and unstable around when the use
woes not involve paving. Par the purposes of this chapter,
f the word "structural' shall exclude: children's play
equipment, picnic tables, sand boxes, grills, basketball hoops F
and similar recreational equipment.
1. Accessory uses such as lawns or
~ gardens, play areas-r
except in-Wetlands;
2. u Farm uses conducted without locating a
structure within the sensitive land area t----ift
3. Community recreation uses
excluding structuresT `
_ t, w
p t -a _ _ ;
4. Public and private conservation areas for water, soil,
open space, forest, and wildlife resources; t
5. Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry, or
other noxious vegetation;
6. Maintenance of floodway excluding rechanneling; and
I 7. Fences, except in the floodway area;
i
8. Accessory structures which are less than 120 square feet
in size, except in the fl.oodway area; and
i
9. Landf arm alterations involving up to 10 cubic yards of
material, except in the floodway area.
Y
B. Administrative Sensitive Lands Permit
1. sepawa-te Administrative sensitive lands permits in the
100-year floodplain, drainageway, slopes that are 25
{ percent or greater, and unstable ground shall be obtained
from the appropriate community development division for
the following:
-Ia. The City Engineer shall review the *installation of
public support facilities such as underground
utilities and construction of roadway improvements
including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and
driveway aprons;
7
t
Drat - December 6, 1994 Page - 3
Chapter 18.84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit 'A'
b. The City Engin-)er shall review minimal ground
disturbance(s) or landform alterations involving 10
to 5o cubic yarns of material, eXcopt in the
floodway area, for land that is within public
F,
j easements and rights-of-way;
inimal ground
n - The Director shall review
Oc.
disturbance(s) bt*t---am or landform alterations
involving 10 to So cubic yards of material, except
in the floodway area; ell&
3d. That Director shrill review the Rrepair,
reconstruction, or improvement of an existing
structure or utility, the cost of which is less
than 50 percent of the market value of the
structure prior to the improvement or the damage E.
requiring reconstruction provided no development
occurs in the floodway; `
#e. The Building official shall review building permits
`
for accessory structures which are 120 to 528
;j square feet in size, except in the floodway area;
i and t.
Sf. The Director shall review applications for paving
on private property, except in the floodway area.
2. The responsible community development division shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application
for a development permit, as described above in
Subsection I., based on the standards set forth in
sections 15.84.026, 18.84.040, and. 18.84.045.
C. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Landform alterations or developments which are only within t
wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and
permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division
of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, and/or other federal,
state, or regional agencies do not require a sensitive lanais
permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits
from outer agencies are obtained. All other applicable City
a requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land
permits .
for areas within the 100-year floodpla3in, slopes of 25 percent
or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands
which are not under state or federal jurisdiction.
B. A se
j~ air" d Q..r c
i
j
Draft - Deter bbrr 6,19% Page- 4
Chapter 18.84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit W
,
D. Sensitive Lands permits Issued by the Director
1. The Director shall have the authority to issue a
'i sensitive lands permit in the following areas:
a. Drainageways;
b. slopes that are 25 percent or greater or unstable
ground; and
C. Wetland areas which are not regulate by other
local, state, or federal agencies and ass.
designated as significant wetlands on the
Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map. ~
a
2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas
in Subsection. D. 1. above when any of than following
circumstances apply: ~
a. Ground disturbance(s) or l,andform alterations
involving more than 50 cubic yards of material;
" b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an r
existing structure or utility, the cost of which
a equals or exceeds So percent of the market value of ~
the structure prior to the improvement or the k
damage requiring reconstruction;
L
C. Residential and non-residential structures intended `
E
for human habitation; and
J d. Accessory structures which are greater than. 528 -
square feet in sire.
R. sensitive Lands Permits issued by the Hearings officer
:I
1. The Hearings officer shall have the authority to issue a
sensitive lands permit in they 100-year floodgl,a.in.
i
a. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the loo-year
floodplain when any of the following circumstances apply:
a. Ground disturbance(s) or landio alterations in
all floodway areas;
b. Ground disturbance (s) or landfo alterations in
other f4eedple-i-ft floodway fringe locations
involving more than 50 cubic yards of material;
' C. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an
existing structure or utility, the cost of which
equals or exceeds So percent of the market value of
the structure prior to the improvement or the
damage rewiring reconstruction provided no
development occurs in the floodway;
d. Structures intended for human habitation; and
s
Draft- Decernher b, 1494 Page - 3
Chapter 18.84 SENSMVE LANWS Exhibit IX
. ocessory structures which are greater than 528
square feet in size, outside of floodway areas.
' OF. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this
chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land
j areas.
a A use established prior to the adoption of this title, which r'
would be prohibited by this Chapter or which would be subject
to the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter, shall
be considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall
be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.132. (Ord. 90--29; l
Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 84--36; Ord. 83-52)
Es
E
18.84 020 Admii istration and Amoroval Process
A. The applicant for a sensitive lands permit shall be the
recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in
writing by the owner.
B. A preapplication conference with City staff is required. (See'
section 18.32.040.) If uncertainty exists in regards to the
location or configuration of wetland areas, staff shall make
an on-site inspection prior to an application being initiated
to determine the nature and extent of the resource. if
necessary, assistance: from state and federal agencies shall be
sought to provide the applicant additional information.
C. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or
local policy, infcrm ation given by staff to the applicant
during the preapplication conference is valid for not more E
than six months:
_ 1. Another preapplication conference is required if any
variance application is submitted more than six months
after the preapplication conference; and
provide any of the information
2. Failure of the Director to
required by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of
the standard, criteria or requirements of the
applications.
1 D. The appropriate community development division shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny an application for an
administrative sensitive lands permit within the loo-year
floodplain, drainageways, slopes that are 25 percent or
greater, and unstable ground as set forth in. Subsection
18.84.015 B.
s
E. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny
an application for a sensitive lands permit as set forth in
Section 18.84.015.D. The decision made by the Director may be
appealed to the Hearings Officer as provided by
subsection 18.32.310.A.
7
Draft - December 6, 1994 Page - 6
Chapter 18.84 SENSUIVE LANDS Exhibit W
i
OF The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions,
t
or deny an application for a sensitive lands permit within the
100-year floodplain as sat forth in Subsection 18.54.015 E.
i! The Hearings officer's decision away be reviewed by the Council
as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.B.
F. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive ~
lands permit applications to determine that all necessary
permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local
governmental agencies from which prior approval is also
required.
G. The Director shall notify communities adjacent to the affected
area and the State Department of Land Conservation and
Development prior to any alteration or relocation of a
watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the
Federal Insurance Administration..
H. The Director shall require that maintenance is provided within
the altered or relocated portion of sanice a, watercourse so
that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. E.
1. The Hear appropriate approval
authority shall apply the standards set forth in BubsSections
18.84.026, 18.84.040, and 18.84.045 when reviewing an f '
application for a sensitive lands permit.
J. The appropriate approval authority shall require that than a
elevations and f loodproof ing certification required in Section
18.84.025 be provided prior to occupancy or final approval of
all new or substantially improved structures.
Jt. The Director shall give notice of applications to be heard by
the Hearings officer as provided by Section 18.32.130.
The Director shall mail notice of any sensitive lands
application decisions in subsections 18.84.015 D. and E. to
the persons entitled to notice under Section 18.32.120. (Ord.
90-29; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; ord. 83-52).
18..84.025 Maintenance of Records
A. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood
' Insurance Study, the Building Official shall obtain and record
the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the
lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially
improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains
a basement.
B. For all new or substantially improved floodproofed structures,
the Building Official shall:
1. Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to
mean sea level); and
2. Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in
this chapter.
Draft - December 6, 1994 Page - 7
Chapter 18.84 SENSi i3VE LANDS Exhibit A'
0 ..a f4roodpeae- Director shall*
aintain for public inspection all other records
j pertaining to the provisions in this chapter. (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
1;a84.026 General Provisions for Ploodiolain Areas ~
A. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit
applications to determine whether proposed building sites will
be safe from flooding..
D. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal
insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering
report entitled "OThe°s Flood insurance study of the City of
Tigard,." dated September 1, 3981, with accompanying Flood
Insurances Maps (updated February 1984) is hereby adopted by `
reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This k-
' Flood Insurance Study is on file at the Tigard Civic Center. f
r
C. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in
l accordance with subsection 18.84.026. B., the Director shall.
obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation
and floodway data available from a federal, state or other
source, in order to administer Subsections 18.84.026.H and H). i
D. where elevation data is not available either through the Flood
Insurance Study or from another authoritative source,
applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure
k
i that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from
flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and
includes use of historical data, high watermarks, photographs
of past flooding, etc., where available. Pailure to elevate
at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas
may result in higher insurance rates.
elty
BF. All new construction and substantial improvements, including
manufactured 2zpmes, shall be constructed with materials and
u utility equipment resistant to flood damage. i
. All new construction and substantial improvements, including
i manufactured homes shall be constructed using methods and
practices that minimize floors damage.
BH. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-
conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be i
designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent
water from. entering or accumulating within the components
during conditions of flooding.
Draft - December 6, 1994 Page • 8
Chapter 18.84 SENSrnVE LANDS Exhibit A"
j BX. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed
to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the
` : system sa a h~-
' FJ. All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial F
_ .1 improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse,
or lateral movement of the structure.
GK. New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters
into the systems and discharge from the systems into
floodwaters.
HL. On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid
impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. F
-M. Residential Construction
1. New construction and substantial improvement of any
residential structure, including
manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor, t''I
-j including the basement, elevated at least one foot above
base flood elevation; and
'S 2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are
subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed <<;
to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
a exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of
floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must
either be certified by a registered professional engineer
or architect, or must meet or exceed the following
j minimum criteria:
a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area
of not less than one square inch for every square
foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be
provided;
S
b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than
one foot above grade; and
c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or
other coverings or devices, provided that they E-
permit the automatic entry and exit of flood
waters.
i
3. Kanufactured homes shall be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored permanent foundation system.
Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to,
use of over-tie-top or frame ties to groused anchors.
Draft - December 6, IM Page- 9
Chapter 18.84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit A"
I
4W. Nonresidential construction
3 4ra: New construction and substantial improvement of any
3 commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure
shall either have the lowest floor, including basement,
elevated to the level of the base flood elevation, or F
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,
shall:
Be f loodproofed so that below the base flood level
the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
a.. Have structural components capable of resisting ;
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of p<
buoyancy; r.
3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer ,
or architect that the design and methods of
construction are in accordance with accepted
standards of practice for meeting provisions of
this subsection based on their development and/or
review of the structural design, specifications and
plans. Such certifications shall be provided to f
the Building Official as set forth in Subsection
18.84.025.B; and
4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not
floodproofed, must meet the same standards for
. space below the lowest floor as described in s
i 18.84.026.1.2. Applicants floodproofing
nonresidential buildings shall be notified that
flood insurance premiums will be based on rates
that are one foot below the flocdp°roofed level -
(e.g., a building constructed to the base flood
level will be rated as one foot below that level').
(Ord. 94-05; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32)
0. Subdivisions and partitions in the 100-year floodplai.n shall
i meet the following criteria:
a
1. The design stall minimize the potential for flood damage;
2. Public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems shall be located and
constructed so as to minimize flood damage;
3. Adequate drainage shall be provided to reduce exposure to t .
flood damage; and
I
4. For subdivisions or partitions which contain more than 50
lots or 5 acres and where' base flood elevation data is
not available from or another authoritative source, E
x the applicant shall generate base flood elevation data to
t be reviewed as part of the application.
Draft- Meember 6, 1994 Page -10
Chapter 18.84 SENS.IM I.&NDS Exhibit W
i 18.8 X028 General Provisions for Wetlands
A. Wetland regulations apply to those areas meeting the F
a definition of wetland in Chapter 18.26 of the Community
Development Code, areas meeting Division of State Lands
wetland criteria and to land adjacent to and within 25 feet of
a wetland. Wetland locations may include but are not limited r.
i to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory
and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon," Scientific
Resources Incorporated, 1990.
F
B. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps;
specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary.
Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at
the applicant's expense. (Ord. 90-29)
18.84.030 Ex iration of AnDroval• Standards for Extension of Tune
A. Approval of a sensitive lands permit shall be void if:
:f
1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not
begun within a one-and--one-half year period; or
2. Construction on the site is.a departure from the approved
plan. i
B. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and r.;
payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the
approval period not to exceed one year, provided that:
1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by
the approval authority;
? 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction
! of the site within the one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on
which the approval was based.
C. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant.
The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as
provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.040 Approval Standards
A. The appropriate approval authority Hear shall
approve or approve with conditions an application request
s within the 100-year floodplain in Subsections 18.84.015 S. and
E. based upon findings that all of the following criteria have
been satisfied:
_ 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the
floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-
foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroaclamen s
Draft -December 6, 1994 Page - 11
Chapter 18.84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit'A,
j f.
na~letd xat~ fi31~ new construction. substaintial k..
i rovements . and other development unless -
certified by a registered c
professional engineer that the encroachment will not
i result in any increase in flood levels during the base
1 flood discharge;
2. Land form alterations or developments within the 160-year
floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as
i commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land
use map, except that alterations or developments j"
associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or E.
public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of
the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas
designated residential subject to applicable zoning
;i
standards;.`
;j 3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted +
to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any
increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year
flood;
1 4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a
pedestrian/ bicycle pathway in accordance with the adoptGd
pedestrian/ bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction F
' of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as
untimely ;
{ S. The plans for the pedestrian/ bicycle pathway indicate
that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average
annual flood;
6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of
,y Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals
shall be obtained; and
f
7. Where land form alterations and/or development are
allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain,
the city shall require the dedication of sufficient open
land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall
include portions of a suitable elevation for the
construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the
floodplain in accordance with the adopted
f.
pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan.
B. The appropriate approval authority shall approve or
approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive
lands permit on slopes of 25 percent or greater or unstable
ground in Subsections 18.84.015 B. and D. based upon findings
{ that all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
I. The extent and nature of the proposed land form
alteration or development; will not create site
disturbances to an extent greater than that required for
i the use;
f
i
Draft -'December 6,1994 page - 12
Chapter 1834 SENSrLIV$ LANDS Exhibit A'
i
t .
1 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not i
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground
_ instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site E:
effects or hazards to life or property;
i
3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to
ensure structural stability and proper drainage of
i foundation and crawl space areas for development with any
i of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table;
high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and k
shallow depth-to-bedrock; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land F
form alteration or development, the areas not covered by E
j structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to €
prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening. i"
C. The appropriate approval authority shall approve or
1 approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive
ii lands permit within drainageways in Subsections 18.84.015 B.
and D. based upon findings that all of the following criteria
have been satisfied:;
1. The extent and nature o-A the proposed land form
! alteration or development will not create site
disturbances to the extent greater than that required for
the use;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will
_ result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground
instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site
effects or hazards to life or property;
3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not
decreased;
i 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land k
form alteration or development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to
prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening;
5. The drainageway will be replaced by a- public facility of
adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance
with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan.
6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of j
Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals
shall be obtained.
7. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed
within and, adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City
shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area
within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with
► the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions
of a suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrian/ bicycle pathway within the floodplain in
Draft -December 6, 1994 Page - 13
I Chapter 18.84 S&14SPT[VE LAINIM Exhibit W
accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway
plan. (Ord. 90-29; Ord. 90-22;Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66;
Ord. 87-32; Ord. 86-08; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52)
D. The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an k
j application request for a sensitive lands permit within
wetlands in Subsection 18.84.015 D. based upon findings that
all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. The proposed landform alteration or development is
neither on wetland in an area designated as significant
wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland
,i Pap nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland;
1
2. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration
or development will not create site disturbances to an
extent greater than the minimum required for the use;
_ 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site
drainage which would adversely impact wetland
characteristics have been mitigated;
' 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed dub to landform
.I f
alteration or development, erosion control provisions of
;z the Surface Water Management program of Washington County
must be met and areas not covered by structures or r.
impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar ;
species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping
i and Screening;
5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter
i have been met;
6. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be
met. p'
7. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and
i Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Turks, Recreation and Open
Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been f
satisfied. (Ord. 90-29; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-°66; Ord. 87-
32; Ord. 83-52)
G-
I
18.84.045 Exception for Development of the 1-0-8th~113th Ravine below the f
140 Feet Elevation
A. Under the sensitive lands permit process, the appropriate
approval authority , as set forth in Subsections
{ 18.€34.015 R. and D., may allow portions of the ravine at 108th
3 and 113th, designated as a significant wetlands area, to
develop provided that all of the following criteria are met: E,E
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for
development is less than 25 percent slope;
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being
considered for development; and
Draft - December b, 1994 Page - 14
Chapter 182E SENSnTVE LANDS Exwbit *X
1 3. Applicable provisions of Section 18.84.040, Sensitive
j Lands Approval Criteria shall be met. (Ord 90-29; Ord.
89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-•32; Ord. 83-52)
t
i
18.84.050 Application Submission Requirements
A. All applications for rases and activities identified in
Subsections 18.84.015 B. through E. shall be made on forms
provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by:
1. Copies of the sensitive lands permit proposal and
} necessary data or narrative which explains how the
proposal conforms to the standards, (number to be
determined at the preapplication conference) and: G_
a. The scale for the site plan(s) shall be a standard
engineering scale; and b
b. All drawings or structure elevations or floor plans•
shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4
inch by 1/8 inch to the foot;`
2. A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are
° property owners of record within 250 feet of the site;
and
3. The required fee.
B. The required information may be combined on one may. C. The site playa(s), data and narrative shall include the
following:
1. An existing site conditions analysis, Section 18.84.070;
2. A site plan, Section 18.84.080;
3. A grading plan, Section 18.84.090; and i
4. A landscaping plan, Section 18.84.300. (Ord. 90-29; Ord.
89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.060 Additional Information Recauired and Waiver of Reauirements 4
.l
i A. The Director may require information in addition to that
required by this chapter in accordance with Subsection
18.32.080.A.
B. The Director may ware a specific requirement for information
in accordance with Subsections 18.32.080.B and C. (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
- 3
t
l
{
j Draft - December 6, 1944 Pap -13
Chapter 18.84 SENSITIVE LANDS ExhlbitW
i
t t-
.8.84.t97Q Site Conditions
:t A. The site analysis drawings shall include:
1. A vicinity map showing streets and access points,
pedestrian and bicycle pathways, and utility locations;
2. The site size and its dimensions;
`a 3. Contour lines at two-foot intervals for grades zero to
ten percent and five-foot intervals for grades over ten
percent; 6
4. The location of drainage patterns and drainage courses;
5. The location of natural hazard areas including:
a. Floodplains areas (100-year floodplain and
floodway);
b. Slopes in excess of 25 percent; '
C.. Unstable ground (areas subject to slumping, earth j
slides or movement);
d. Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24
inches of the surface for three or more weeks of
the year;
e. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential, or as
defined by the Soil Conservation Service; and k
f. Areas having severe weak foundation soils;
6. The location of resource areas as shown on the
comprehensive plan inventory map and as required in
Section 18.84.035 including: f.
a. wildlife habitat; and
b. Wetlands;
3 7. The location of site features including:
a. Rock outcroppings; and
b. Trees with six inches caliper or greater measured f
four feet from ground level;
8. The location of existing structures on the site and
proposed use of those structures. (ord. 83-06; Ord. 87-
66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
i
t
F;
Draft - De..etriber 6, 1994 page - 16
Chapter 18.94 SBNSrMI E LANDS Exhibit W
j
` 18.84.080 The Site Elan
1
A. The proposed site development plan shall be at the same scale
as the site analysis plan and shall include the following
information:
1. The proposed site and surrounding properties;
2. Contour 'Line intervals (see Section 18.84.070.A.3);
,i 3. The location, dimensions, and names of all:
a. Existing and platted streets and other public ways
and easements on the site and on adjoining r'
properties; and
j b. Proposed streets or other public ways and easements
on the site;
4. The location and dimension of: F
_3 k
f a. Entrances and exits on the site;
b. Parking and traffic circulation areas;
C. Loading and services areas; Y
d. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
y 4
R
e. Outdoor common areas; and
f. Utilities;
5. The location, dimensions, and setback distances of all:
a. Existing structures, improvements, and utilities
which are located on adjacent property within 25
feet of the site and are permanent in nature; and
b. Proposed structures, improvements, and utilities on
the site;
6. The location of areas to be landscaped;
7. The concept locations of proposed utility lines; and
8. The method for mitigating any adverse impacts upon
wetland, riparian, or wildfire habitat areas, (ord. 89-- j
06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
F
18.84»090 Gradinrr Plan
A. The site plan shall include a grading plan which contains the
following information:
j
1. Requirements in sections 18.84.070 and 18.84.080;
Draft - December 6. 1944 Page - 17
Chapter 18.85 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit 'A'
2. The identification and location of the benchmark and
corresponding datum;
3. Location and extent to which grading will take place
j indicating contour lines, slope ratios, and slope
stabilization proposals; and `
i
3 4. A statement from a registered engineer supported by
factual data substantiating: t
a. The validity of the slope stabilization proposals;
b. That other off-site impacts will not be created; .
C. Stream flow calculations; t
d. Cut and fill calculations; and
i
e. rhannelization measures proposed. (Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.8.4.100 Landscape. Plan
i
I
A. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the
' site analysis plan, or a larger scale if necessary, and shall
indicate:
1. Location and height of fences, buffers, and screenings;
2. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and ,
common open spaces where applicable; and
i 3. Location, type, and size of existing and proposed plant i
materials. 4[
8. The landscape plan :shall include a narrative which addresses:
1. Soil conditions; and
2. Erosion control measures that will be used. (Ord. 89--06;
Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
~ i
kL.HC/ACT.doc (DOS)
TCDCSL.144
'j
- j h:\Login\potty\tcdcsL.144
(Also on S WO fl(oppy)
j
i
3
i
_ i
I .
F
i Draft - December 6, 1994 Pao - 18
Chapter 18,94 SEISUME LANDS Exhibit A°
Exhibit "B"
i FINDINGS - ZOA 94-°0 5ENS ITIVE LANDS_ (FERA)
The following findings are to be included with the Planning
Division staff report dated 11-18-94 Amendments to Sensitive
Lands and F'loodplain Regulations
LCDC GOALS
Goal 1. Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearing and
1 opportunity for response was advertised in the local
paper and request for comment were sent to all CITs,
DLCD, METRO, DSL, the Corps of Engineers and F"EMA.
Goal 2. Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures
is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed
measures conform to F'EMA requirements and clarify f
i previously approved local requirements.
Goal 5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
Resources. The proposed revisions aid in controlling
- impact on sensitive land areas including wetlands.
Goal 7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. The
proposed revisions strengthen city regulations relating
to floodplains, clarify the decision-making process for
other sensitive lands including steep slopes,
drainageways and wetlands and bring City requirements
into conformance with F'EMA.
Ce"3MPREHENSIVE s~LAN POLICTES
l.l.a. This policy requires that legislative changes are
consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional t
development plan. The findings above address the
statewide goals. METRO was sent a request for comment.
The agency does not regulate sensitive lands.
2.1.1. This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement
process. A request for comment was sent to all City
Citizen Involvement Teams and was legally advertised.
2.1.3. This policy requires that information on issues be
available. The staff report and findings and proposed
ordinance have been available for review since November
18, 1994.
i
5
3.1.1. This policy governs areas with areas having development
limitations. The proposed ordinance clarifies existing
regulations and procedures.
3.2.1. This policy prohibits landform alterations that would
i
result in rise in the elevation of the 100 year
a j floodplain. The proposed ordinance adds FEMA mandated `
requirements to further guarantee no damage or rise in
the floodplain. C
:3.2.2. This policy governs rise in the floodway. The proposed
ordinance complies with FERA standards and has been
j reviewed by FEMA during the development of the
provisions.
i
3.2.4. This policy governs development related to wetlands. The
,a proposed ordinance identifies uses that are permitted
without a permit and clarifies permit procedures that are
in compliance with FFAA requirements.
f,
t
E-
3 E
3
t_
i
J
r
I
i
t j
i
t- _
i
i
l
i
X503
01• :.#%95 10.53 20 480 S•TOEL RIVES Q002; 003 i -
STOEL 1WES BOLEY S u,~,
JONES &GR.EY ► la y cry
ATTORNivS AV LAw
SUITS 2300
STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 1-.-
900 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORT1,41ND. OREGON 97204-11-86 relcphare !50312:4.3300 ~
7aleevpkr ($03) 317.2400
Wlar Leurpvrt
Tall: 703433
r
¢ Wrltrr3 Dine Dial Plumber
J (503) 294-M4 €
January 24, 1995 J . William A. Monahan
! City Administrator
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, oR 97223
Jae: rDlication by Gordon R
p Bear Bill: ~
I am writing this letter at your request. This
letter is not a document or evidence in support of the
j application, so there is no right to a continuance pursuant to
ORS 197.763(4)(b).
r
As you know, the Tigard City council tentatively f
approved Mr. Xartin's request on January 17 and instructed the
applicant to prepare findings for final adoption on January 31.
Since January 17, the applicant and Z have had, several
discussions about hoer to proceed with this matter.
Because of these discussions, Mr. Martin elected not '
to prepare the findings for presentation to the City council on
Ja nuary 31 so that we might be able to resolve an issue that
has arisen since January 17.
one of the conditions of approval in the City
Council's notion required 26 percent landscaping an the site.
T mould like to discuss this condition of approval, with the
city Council at its January 31 meeting. 1 would then like the
city Council to reschedule adoption of the findings for the,
next available City council meeting.
-i
P~xr-165530.1 24036 cool
r
i'CRT4ANN.. SSATTLL VANCO(MR, 90K F- WASHINCTC,4. -
OREC.ON UFAMINCTON WASH =O%, 10A1IC QTAK WOTAV" OP COMM114A
k
01'.214i95 l W$0:53 u 0503 220 2330 STOEL RIVES Q3003,'003
1
a
1 MEL RIVES SOLEY ~
JONE.S&t, REY
W William A. Monahan
Tah ary 24, 1995
Page 2
Please let me know it the city council would like one
-to appear on .Tanua.ry 31 to discuss the condition of approval
regarding landscaping.
k'
Thank you for your assistance. - - ~
Very truly yours,
? a i
P
Michael c. Robinson `
1
McR:cfz
cc: Mr. Gordon Martin (aria facsimile)
Mr. Ed Christensen (via facsimile)
,t Mr. Dick Bewersdorff (via facsimile)
Roberts (aria facsimile)
Mr. Mark
Mr. Timothy V. Ramis (aria facsimile) ~
t.
f
i
- ~ i
b
r-:
1
'j
F
J F
f:
F
a-:6~s~o.x z~osa oaoa -
i
i
(vmhed to 2 minutes or less, please)
1 y r Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on C
other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first +.€y to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the m6eting. Thank you.
STAFF
# NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
Jr,
Lj~> r
1400sw Lt -SouA LW
E
_ 10-10 %-W. vtrg-
r-
`t
-1
i
i
i
j.
j
i
i
i
h: sn vatsEtors. ~
rr
t
!y -
I
S
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. Wrid on comments are always appreciated by the Council to ~
- supplement oral testimony.
1
c
i
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: January 24, 1995
p
On January 9, 1995, the Manning Commission. recommended street name changes. The
1 recommendation was to change the names of certain streets to Walnut Street and Walnut lane.
i The Council wilt now hold a hearing, as provided by State law to accept or reject the Manning
Commission recommendation.
1
R
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS
i ;
i
re~
I
j F
i
1.
F
i
f.
i
'f
{ f I
I
j
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
PLEASE PRINI
Proponent - (Speaking In (Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
a Name t
_11 F'
Pd>~ dry
i
air's
77 ~
E N me
s
A~ic4re~s Addre€s
rasa Address
1Usrne Dame
c
resa drew
tvieatee (vamps
roes rasa
&Mrme Name -
Address Padre i
Pile Name I..
rosu Address
i
N me
i
1
rams Adsft+sss
i
Name fftqw
r6PY9 a Add"=
li
1 i. !
MSkm tsrtrtca }
Adifr Addr
_j
_ • k
fi
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 U necessary. Written comments are always appreci6tsd by the Council to t
supplement oral testmony. `
:-9
PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) VACATION OF TWO STOR DRAINAGE EASE ICI E
LOCATED BETWEEN LO'T'S #35 AND #36, AND LOTS #27 AND #28 IN WAVERLY ESTATES ~
SUBDIVISION
The Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 24, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at t: .
the Tigard City Mall, Town Hell Room, 15125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, to consider the ~
proposed vac ation of two storm drainage easements. The request was initiated by the City
Council on December 13, 1994 on behalf of Kenneth Waymire. Any interested person may
i appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said storm drainage easements.
Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by January 24, ~
1995, by 7:30 p.m.
F
E
a PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACKED SHEETS ;
Y
I
k
i
i ' i'
{
1
~a F%9A PRINT
Proponent o (S aWing In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
2- aC 5u) COONTRY
q
M3 roes
Ranee Name
Address
Flsrr Flame
dross
;c
3 Name _
~ddrssa Address
r
k
rs~s dress.
Nam Name
,I
Address Address
NUM Name
Addro~a Addrosg
J
N&we Name
Addnm Address
I
Flame Remo
I
roaa rc=
Pksrreo Nnm
Addross Address
i
j
C pendis- on the r;g.amNr 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 F
supplement oral testimony. G
E_ G
,
i COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A ENDMENr CPA C F- CKANGE ZCN 9 TRIANGLE
LAND USE (QuasWudlelab) LOCATION: Generally east of 72nd Avenue and wrest of h Avenue,
between Aflanta Street and Hampton Street in the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Also vest of
72nd Avenue south of Beveland Street. See attached map. This proposal is to amend the
comprehensive plan neap and zoning map on 97 parcels totaling approArnately 49 acres. The proposal
would redesignate 17.5 acres from low-density residential (P-3.5) to medium-high density residential (R- F
25); 20.7 acres from commercial professional (C-P) to medium-high density residential (R-25); 2.5 acres
from low-density residential (R-3.5) to commercial professional (C-P); 6.2 acres from commercial F
{ `general (C-C) to commercial professional (C-P); and 1.7 acres from general commercial (C-C) to
rnedlum-high. density residential (P-25). Also proposed is a zone change for two parcels totaling 11.9 ;
acres from C-C to C-P". APPU :ABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: The relevant criteria in this case are
' Statewide Planning Coals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1,6.'I.1,6.6.1,
- 5.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, and 12.1.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and
j the change or mistake quasi-judicial pier, reap amendment criteria of both the Comprehensve Plan and
Community Development Code.
`a
1
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY O THE ATTACHED SHEE'R'S
l
3 a ~ r:
PILEA~SE PEW
Proponent - (Speaking In opponent - (Speaking Against)
} t F
14) 1
Add Parses
t- V-0 4"A
arm roes
1
Nme
boa BIAS 15-3 U I~ 9-120(A mddr a~
dress
few rAddress
w
ram-
u ~vrvlGllsausE~
Ric 14 AA
AM= Address
0 so
N ma Name .
Aadmas
s"~ddrBSS -716 0 31 ~v l~tl r r j
y E
Edarras
Fidd ss '
/0 S
{ i
~ 7 d ~ _ `
Name rsas l Address
lm:gp
Name - P rairse
d"= Addmes
Nam _ Exams
~Pdraw
Address
i
i
? p BE PRINT
i Proponent (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
Nam
Address
t®sa Address
' mo't''
Rddrass Address ~ W!
15V Are
1 f
710
rasa V drew
7~? ,rLtJ / 61, .r--
am
dress Brass r
9 7 Address Addres
J a
Mme
1
Address i Address i
te e
ease drams
i h:\ftln\lo\tasttfy
t f
~ i
1
i
i "
I
j
PLEASE PRIMT
f ! Proponent-(speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) F
-Name
ram rea
jOA.YLot& A" r►
Ana
/ ,rjr,
Ad rM Address
'F` 0J- 4t a1r1L ~1(~ ,~~4t7ie~J f trt c ulc E
e i
,c~rxfct ea /5 on
Addr a Address
9 j kvf7 v~C{ krs~~111~fi Ua51f>Ci P
!dame - - - ~
Narria
/Lo
arm Address
j ® EAd t ` .
€addraas a h
Name no
i j r
a~
dress Address
Name Mmo
Address Address
e Name
F
rasa ress
5 I
f
h:\iegln\fo\tesgfy
i
{ r .
I:
I
a
i
i
r
~ j
f
j
C
4
d
A PHI
j Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
C
Kam
rose ACafe83
r j fv<trpt~
Addross line
Mddr
Ms.
Name-
.9 ✓1
r85S -
Addffa-
N Nme ~
dress l 6~$r¢asa
4arne
Address Address c
%Arl
~arvas f
i
{ Address Address
I f
Ire rne ► ~
i
!I$rs d~dsa
r
h:\iogin\lo\teta*
i
i
1
1
3
j
i
j
i
} f
, j
i
j
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 arrays appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
-list
PUBLIC HEARING -ZONE ORDINANCE Axc END E ° ZOA 1 SENSMVE LsANDS A
proposal to amend Community Development Code Section 18.84 to bring sensitive land requirements
into compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations relative to procedures for
administering and en orcing floodplain regulations and to reorganize and clarify local permit procedures E
5 for lands involving steep slope, drainageway, wetlands and the 100 year floodplain. APPUCA131_E
REVIEW CAI"fERIA: Statewide Planning goals 1, 2, 5, and 7; Comprehensive Plan pol:cles 1.1.a, 2.1.1,
2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4; Community Development Cade Chapters 18.30 and 18.84.
,j
L .
1 l~
I
I PLEASE SIC IN TO TESTIFY ON THE AWACHED SHEETS
I
i
f
k
I
I ~
r.
{ F
I
. I
PLEME-PONT
Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) opponent - (Speaking Against)
Addrrtes _
Address
fiddrOM
t+me
Address
i ~EEa
ksms+ ~ F.a(r1r3
t .
rPz&9 Address
y'Name
7 E.,
Name
Address j .
Addr
N ne Wme
l Address Adds
'2erraea floe»e
Per Addteas i
e NaM
Address tease F
Nme - NAM
i
Address f
Addrew
j
j Gt C'e c~~vz n
's
b14
9 January 18, 1995 Yt~
Tigard City Council
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
,y Tigard, OR 97223
,f
Dear Sirs:
At the South CIT meeting of Wednesday, January 4, 1995,, several
members in attendance brought up the conditions experienced at the
intersection of Hall Blvd. at Sattler Street. They have found that
it is very difficult to turn left-from Sattler, east bound, on the f'.
_ Hall Blvd,. north bound. Problems also exist for persons turning
left from Hall Blvd. north bound, on the Sattler, west bound. A
letter was presented to the members at the meeting from the ODOT,
(copy attached).
The membership at the South CIT's meeting was about 18 people,
excluding the City of Tigard staff members and the CIT facilitator. k:
After the discussion, it was moved and seconded that a letter
should be written to the City and City Council requesting a study
be, initiated to seek possible solutions to the existing problems.
There are a series of steps the ODOT suggests to initiate a study. -
The motion was voted on and the results were unanimous. Several
members asked that the South CIT' strongly indicate that this
request is very important and urgent because of the construction
due, later this year closing Durham Read between Hall Blvd. and
Upper Boones Ferry Road. Traffic will be routed from Durham Road
to Fall Blvd. to Bonita and Pacific Hwy. this will exacerbate an
already congested intersection.
The members of the South CIT hope that the City and the City
Council takes action on this request quickly.
1 Respectfully presented,
i ^r c /Sterling a
Facilitate , SAttachment
C: City Engineering
r'
i
f
r
aq (s
To. Tigard City Council V,-,4ors
j From. Friends of Summer Creek
(Kathleen McDonald. Repr.)
Re. C.I.F. Street Projects
1994-2001 i
Date. January 24, 1995
Dear Mayor, and Tigard City Council.
We, the Friends of Summer Creek, have been pursing the
elimination of the 130thlWinterlake extension from the CIP
for over one year. We feel the safety of the children who ls~ j p~fczmc~
use Summerlake City Part: is at rist, if this extension is
s allowed to be built.
:;J We recently, Jan. 179 1995v submitted a Ballot Title far
initiative Measure concerning street design... Resolution No. 95-
0I.. you determined it does meet requirements of both the Tigard
t Municipal code and the state election laws, and approved that F
".I ballot title on Jan. 17, 1995. Thant; you.
~ p
J
J Curing the same time period last week when we were having
' this ballot measure drawn up and presented to you, we also came
across some valuable information that we feel will finally put
an end to the 130thlWinterlake extension, or at least grove it
to the year 1999-2001.
T'igard's Police Chief Ron Goodpasteur has provided us with
the information that in the past year, 1994, at the corner of
Tiedeman and 'Walnut, (which is the intersection in front of
Fowler Middle School with 5814 students) there have been four
injury accidents. This intersection is known to be dangerous.
The 130th/Winterlatce extennsion, which we feel will CREATE a
safety hazard for the children using the Summerlake part::, is
scheduled to be constructedand completed BEFORE the Fowler
Middle School intersection. While a hazardous extension is being
constructed in the next three years, the Fowler intersection,
waits until 1999, 2000 and completion in 2001. Please see
attachment from Police Chief Goodpasteur's office.
i
Looking at the TIF monies used for both projects. $1,000,000
for the 130th extension, and $1,026.000 for the Walnut -Tiedeman
intersection, we feel the City can readjust the CIF' to begin
immediate construction on the Fowler Middle School intersection
so that the injuries, at four a year, will not continue for the
next 3 to`4 years... possibly 16 more injuries? Please see
,.i attachment two, the City of Tigard's CIP.
I have been in contact with Val Martin, who is the PTA
President at Fowler, and she is alarmed that this situation
{ was not a priority on the CIP. We will be working with the
~ j
"1 a f
NY
{
3 PTA, Val Martin, the Fowler parents, students, school admiriistra-
tion and residents of the area, to let you know the concerns
of the citizens of Tigard.
At this time we are not moving forward with signatures for
the Ballot measure because we feel the -new information from
Police Chief Goodpasteur is very clear, and the two projects
s can be switched on the CIP, Do Ti.edeman--Walnut now, and k
plan for 130th-Winterlake in 1999-2001,
We will be at the council meeting when the issue of the
vote for construction of the 130thfWinterlake extension is
discussed and voted upon by you; and as we filled the room
before, we will speak again, and with the Fowler parents
and neighbors, we will now be speaking of actual injuries that
have occurred, and ones we are concerned will occur in the future p!
in both cases. Please help, is there something that
can be done before that Council Meeting, before another
- accident occurs by the Middle School,
Thank you.
Kathleen McDonald
crir-_I-Ida of Summer Creed;
Representative ~
590-3847
-
. t
4
j
i
i
i
1 i
" F
~ F
j ,
i
S
Data for Walnut Street ;
Accident
s
F
{
a
In 1994, Tigard Police Department responded to 21 accidents on Walnut
Street. Where were 8 injury and 13 non-injury accidents.
' 10 Pacific Hwy and Walnut ~
i 5 Tiedeman and Walnut 4 injury
' 2 Grant and Walnut
2 135th and Walnut
1 Scholls and Walnut
1 Chalet Village and Walnut
_______-__d____e___________________________________ j
21 Total Accidents
s
,i
i
prepared by Angela with instruction from Police Chief Ron Goodpasteur--
f
;I
1
I
I
I
f
1
1
J i
STRF-F?T PROJECTS C . I . P .
OTHER
FUNDING
PROTECT TIP GAS TAX SOURCE
FY 11994-95
Committed projects 508,000 27,000
TIF Transit reserve 85,000
Major maintenance 300,000 `
Hall/99W intersection 0 ODOT
Grant Ave. sidewalk,- 40,00 ' 0 CDBG Grant
'72nd/Bonita signal 12,500 12,500 €
Grant Ave. bridge 140,000 Federal Grant f
y Main St. pavement replacement 284,500 Storm drain
(Fanno Creek to railroad) fund;..
Burnham r/w & widening @ Main 150,000
130th Ave. (Hawk's Beard to Scholls) p'
j design 50,000
130th/rRinter.iake connection -design 60,000
Bonita Road (Fanno Creek to 72nd) 1,062,500 i
_ Totals for FY 1994-95 1,928,000 804,000
_ j FY 1995-96
TIF transit reserve 87,000
Major maintenance 300,000
Tiedeman Ave. bridge replacement 200,000 Federal Grant
Main St. pavement replacement 299,000 Storm drain
(Scoffins to 99W & Fanno Creek to 99W) fund
79th Ave, preliminary design 20,000
Bonita Rd. (Fanno Ck, to 72nd) 110,000
130th Ave.(Hawk's Beard to Scholls)
--construction - 360,000
130th/Winterlake connection -const. 269,000
a
Totals for FY 1995-96 1,026,000 619,000
t/
3
I
a
i
j , T PR O TS C . I . ' . (Continued
~ OTHER
FUNDING
PROJECT Tir „ GAS TAX SOURCE 1-
FY 199E-97 [
TIF Transit reserve 89,000 °
Major maintenance 300,000 F
Main St. pavement replacement 212,000 Storm drain
(railroad to Scoffins) fund
Pedestrian improvements - Park/Watkins - 122,000
130th/Winterlake connection - const. ~,t11 000
Greenburg Road r/w 200,000
Creenburg/Mapleleaf intersection 250,000
Walnut (132nd to 135th)-design & r/w 301,000 ~ f
F.
{ Totals for FY 1996-97 1,045,000 634,000
- FY 1997-98-98
i
TIF transit reserve 70,000 r
Major maintenance 300,000
79th Avenue 311,000 LID k
Ped. improvements - Park/Watkins 38,000
Walnut St. (132nd to 135th) - const. 749,000
Totals for FY 1997-98 819,000 649,000
F
i FY 1998-99
TIF transit reserve 54,000
Major Maintenance 300,000
Pedestrian improvements 50,000 {
Burnham/Main Signal. 60,000 60,000
North Dakota bridge replacement 254,000
Walnut St. (132nd to 135th) - const. 245,000
Walnut/Tiedeman intersection 281,000
-design & r/w
Totals for FY 1998-99 640,000 664,000
r
1 r--
77 rr
STET PROJECTS C . I . P . (aqW;1nued)
f
OTHER
FUNDING is
PROJECT TIF GAS TAX SOURCE t.
FY 1999-2000 G:
TIF transit reserve 45,000 f
' Major maintenance 300,000
Pedestrian improvements 50,000
j North Dakota bridge replacement 329,000
walnut/Tiedeman intersection r/w 490,000
Totals for FY 1999-00 535,000 679,000
FY 2000-01
TIF transit reserve 35,000 "
Major maintenance 300,000
Pedestrian improvements 50,000
Walnut/Tiedeman intersection - const. 255,000 A.
Walnut (121st to 132nd)-design & r/w 126,000
Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins 344,000
Totals for FY 2000-01416000000 694,000
{ I
i
~ G
j
i
j
{
l
aa1
S
I
l
~ f
1
a _
i
~ f
i i
6-S
k1i
- i
January 24, 1995 lob
,r
t
Deax Mayor and Councilors:
j i
It is in the best interest of the citizens living in the
City of King City to have an independent attorney, who is in no
way connected with the law firm of O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan
& Bachrach. F
There are instances where King City has contracts with the
City of Tigard, such as the Intergovernmental Water Agreement
-r where it would not be wise legally for the officials of the City
of Tigard to know what is being discussed in Kind Citv.
There is an appearance of a potential conflict of interest.
and the King City Council members should investigate thoroughly
this matter. The City needs an independent attorney.
Further: Possible case in point The City of Tigard is
negotiating with Lake Oswego on a 50-50 partnership Agreement.
The Intergovernmental Water Agreement (King City, Durham, TWD F
Unincorporated) may or may not require "conditions" to be placed F
into the Tigard/Lake Oswego agreement. If the so-called "co-
nditions" are not satisfactory to King City, Durham and TWD it
would not be in the best interest of the King City Council
members to have a contract with O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & f'
Bachrach.
r
The King City Council minutes dated August 17, 1995 has a
motion approved by Council members of King City to hire an ~
attorney from the law firm of O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan &
Bachrach.
The City of King City need an independent Council.
F
Sincerely,
Jack Polans
16000 S.W. Queen Victoria Place
King City, Oregon 97224
(503) 684-1782
CC: O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach
"s
j
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF ► ~ y t qs-
k
F
i
~ MEMORANISUM
F
3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON rJ 35 ~
~TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator
FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director ~ k
" DATE: January 12, 1995
' SUBJECT: Water Rate Analysis
Water rates for the Tigard water system have in the past been set
by the Tigard Water Board during the budget process. Beginning
=i January 1, 1994, the authority for setting water rates was t
- transferred to the Tigard City council.
In reviewing the Intergovernmental agreement for water (IGA), the
Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) has as one of its
? responsibilities, "to make a continuing study of the rate structure
of the water system". (IGA section 3,E,1)
The IGA also specifically sets forth the authority of the Tigard f
City Council to set rates and charges in Section 5,B. Any changes
in the rates and charges must be reviewed by the IWB prior to
taking effect and the rates shall be limited to covering the actual
costs of providing the related services.
In order to determine the adequacy of the current water rate f;
structure and to develop a method of evaluating the impact on rates
of various capital improvement alternatives, I suggest that the
City retain an expert in the rate setting field to perform a rate
analysis.
The results of such a review will provide the IWB and the City
Council with cost of service information that is currently not
available. This type of information will allow us to determine how
our current water rates compare to the cost of providing water
service. At the same time, we would like to have an expert review
alternatives for an inverted block rate system that may be used
during peak periods. We would expect at the end of this analysis
to have a computer model developed for our use in evaluating rates
in future periods. r
F
We are currently reviewing requests for proposals used recently by
` other jurisdictions. We will have a draft of an RFP for a rate
analysis for your review next week. According to the IGA, this
should be discussed with the IWB for recommendation to the Council.
The 1994/95 water budget did not anticipate a rate analysis.
Therefore, we will need to prepare a budget adjustment for council
approval before a contract can be entered into. This step can be
done anytime but would make the most sense if done at the time a
recommendation is made by the IWB.
i
AGENDA ITEM 3.3 t
For Agenda of _January 24, 1999
I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY '
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Request to USA to include projects on the SWM master -olan
i PREPARED BY: R. Waoley DEPT HEAD OK 's CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE ,,BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Request to USA to include Tigard projects on the SWM master plan list.
- J STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Request that USA include replacement of the Grant Avenue and Tiedeman Avenue
bridges in the SwM master plan list.
INFORMATION SUMMARY_
See attached memo.
-.3 t
ETHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
i
FISCAL NOTES
i
i
-
- c
i
I
i
j
I
1
i
I
i
,rw/swm-s
4
i
i
t
MEMORANDUM
- } CITY OF T.IGA.RD, OREGON
i-;
TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator
' FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineerv
DATE: January 12, 1995
F ;
SUBJECT; SWM Master Plan
a There is an opportunity to use some of the funds in the storm
drainage reserves to fund projects in the capital improvement
program. Using these funds for two current bridge replacement
projects would free up some street funding for other projects,
Background
Storm drainage system development charges (SDC) collected since
July 1, 1991, can only be spent on projects that are on the SWM
(surface water management) master plan of USA (Unified Sewerage
Agency) . Currently, there are few projects on the S[nTM master plan,
none in Tigard. The USA master planning effort in the Tigard area
will likely not be completed for another two or three years. In
the Tigard CIP (ca ;
pital improvement program) there is $676,000 of
this ",New SDC° funding currently shown in a reserve account. r.
In an effort to free up some of this SDC funding, USA has developed
i a program to add certain high-priority city projects to the SWM
master plan. The projects must be shown on an existing city master
plan and meet other state and USA requirements for SDC funding.
Two projects on the current Tigard CIP appear to qualify. Those
projects are the replacement of the existing bridges over Fanno
Creek at Grant Avenue and at Tiedeman Avenue. The bridges are old
{ and narrow and reed to be replaced for traffic safety reasons.
However, they are also a restriction to flood flows. The new
bridges will provide a greater stream clearance to accommodate
flood flows. Replacement of these bridges was one of the
recommendations of the Master Drainage Plan for Tigard adopted in
1981.
,So, it appears to us that the costs related to replacing the
existing bridges at their existing widths qualify for funding under
the SWM master plan. The costs related to widening the bridges and
adding sidewalks are not eligible. Approximately half of the Grant
bridge project cost could be eligible for SDC funding.
Approximately a third of the Tiedeman bridge project could be
r
- eligible. However, the Grant and Tiedeman bridge replacements are. F
funded largely by state and federal grants. The required local
match is well within the limits of costs eligible for SDC funding.
CIP impact ~
If the local share of the Grant Avenue bridge replacement can be
funded with SDC, it will free up $140,000 in gas tax money in the
1994-95 CIP. This will potentially provide funding for the
proposed speed hump trial program and may allow projects such as
the sidewalk improvementprogram to proceed more quickly.
Similarly, in FY 1995-96 CIP, some Tiedeman project TIF (traffic
impact fee) funds would be freed up to potentially allow other TIF
projects to proceed more quickly.
' Assuming prompt USA approval, the CIP adjustments can be made as
part of the CIP update this spring. `
Recommendation
r
I recommend that the Council, by motion, request USA to include the
.:i Grant Avenue and Tiedeman Avenue bridge replacements in the SwM
master plan and direct staff to provide the necessary supporting
information to USA. 4
i
i
rw/ swm-M
1
I
~I
I
j
c .
AGENDA ITEM # 3. L4 6
For Agenda of January 24, 1995
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
(Local Contract Review Board)
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorize City Engineer to advertise for bids on Main
Street and Major Maintenance Projects
e
PREPARED BY: R. -Woolev DEPT BEAD OK CITY A.DMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Engineering Department proceed with main Street and Major
Maintenance projects as combined 1994-95 and 1995-96 projects, as proposed in
the attached memo?
j STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for construction bids as recommended
in the attached memo.
- ; INFOP2MATION SUMMARY
;See attached memo for project details.
1 The
r requested approval would allow the Engineering Department to proceed with
preparation of construction documents. Prior to actually signing a d..
construction contract, additional Council reviews will be required. In the
case of Main Street., Council approval will be required on the final purchase
agreement for the tavern property. On both projects, Council approval will
be required at the time of bid award.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL NOTES
j - -
j
1
rwlcip-s
i
- MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
3 i
'a TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator' i
FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer
DATE: January 12, 1995
j SUBJECT: CIP projects
The CIP (capital improvement program) adopted in August, 1994,
shows $300,000 per year dedicated to the pavement major maintenance
j program. It also shows the Main Street pavement replacement F"
_ project phased over three fiscal years.
In each of these two projects, we propose to combine the FY 1994-95
and the FY 1995-96 work into one construction contract. We'
anticipate that combining the work will result in better bids and
reduced coordination costs. It will also help to reduce
inconvenience to the public during construction.
Both projects are summer construction projects. As a result,
actual construction payments will occur partly in the current F`..
fiscal year and partly in the coming fiscal year. However, by
combining the work into one contract, the bidding can occur this
spring and the contractor can be ready to start work early in the
summer, better assuring completion during good weather.
~ i
The funding for these projects is from gas tax. Gas tax is a
limited but dependable source of funding.
j Major Maintenance
The major maintenance program is the funding source for pavement.
overlays and slurry seals to protect the public investment in
_ street pavements. The proposed projects for the combined fiscal
years are all pavement overlay projects, as listed on the attached
table.
Main Street
The condition of the Main Street pavement is too poor for
correction by the major maintenance program. Total replacement of
the pavement is required.
The 1994-95 CIP provides funding for the f.
portion between Fanno
Creek bridge and the railroad, with funding for the remainder of
the street tentatively shown in the next two fiscal years. In
- November, we met with the Main Street business owners to discuss
i
the project and talk about how we should phase the work to cause
1t the least disruption to the businesses and the public. As a result
of this discussion and further project review, we are recommending
combining the FY 1994-95 funds and the FY 1995-96 funds into one
project to extend from the bridge to Scoffins Street.
Also to be bid as part of the same project is the widening of
Burnham Street at the Main Street intersection. The Burnham Street
j intersection work is fully funded in the current budget. r
j Bidding will not occur until purchase of the tavern property at
Main and Burnham is completed. However, Council approval now will
allow us to complete the construction documents and be ready to bid t
when the purchase is completed.
Request
1. I request that the Council authorize us to advertise for bids
for the major maintenance program as shown on the attached table.
2. I request that the Council authorize us to advertise for bids
for the Main Street pavement replacement between the bridge and
Scoffins, including widening of Burnham at the Main intersection,
with the understanding that bidding would not occur until a E
3 purchase agreement has been approved for the tavern property at
Main and Burnham.
I t;
i
f
i
j
' F.
'r
i
i ~
f
i t
P.
I
rw/cip-m
1 7~
1 -
i
a
i
' k
i 94/915 an 95/96
OVERLAY PRQJ CT
PROJECT ROAD Limits AREA !OVERLAY DEPTH PAMUC DIGCUT STRIPE TOTAL ACCUM.
'j (SY) (TONS) (INCHES) f~) (SY) (LF) COST TOTAL
1 Hunziker Hall to 72nd 16,473 2,317 2.5 100° 100 4120 $127,268 $127,268
2 Hampton 72nd to 69th 9,809 1,379 2.5 25° 572 1003 $84,569 $211,837
3 Boones Ferry Durham to 72nd 7,274 1,023 2.5 100 200 1373 $67,697 $279,533
4 McDonald 100th to 95th 7,580 1,066 2.5 100 400 1108 $77,542 $357,075
5 72nd Ave Boones to Durham 4,224 594 2.5 25 100 950 $34,974 $392,049
6 512nd .Ave Durham to S/O Millen 5,800 816 2.5 0 250 1050 $45,247 $437,296
7 Durham 99W to Summerfield 3,379 475 2.5 100 0 475 $27,400 $464,696
8 Carmen 72nd to Sequoia 6,313 1,065 3 3° GRIND Sa 900 $54,486 $519,182
' 9 Walnut Watkins to Pathfinder 25 $1,250 $520,432
10 Kable 72nd to Cul-de-Sac 2,851 401 2.5 75 250 0 $29,740 $550,171 r i
11 Pine 71st to 69th 1,408 158 2 0 85 450 $11,594 $561,765
12 McDonald 99W to 100th 6,180 782 2.25 1650 $40,575 $602,341
5
~.v
$602,3 f€:= 0f:
41
<fS:c
. .....n.,......,..,...... ...\v:.v::..::; .,..v:... .,tv!G; C (:...:^v„_,.... n.... : :n,. .>N djfi:
,l „n. .E:1\ ~ :4.,.,,•. » v. .:v vv ..:v. .v. :.n..v ..\......f+... :...ttv, n.. ...1: ..F
t
I
i
!P
S
-177- 7
9
AGENDA ITEM # L
For Agenda of January 24, 1995
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY e
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Namina of Walnut Street west of 135th Avenue
i
i PREPARED BY: R. WooleyDEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE
Naming of Walnut Street west of 135th Avenue.
y ES
j STAFF RECOMMENDATION E
Approval of the attached ordinance. t.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
a On January 9, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended street name changes f
{ as described in the attached staff report. Under state law, the Council
should now hold a hearing and accept or reject the Planning Commission
.recommendation. The hearing has been advertised for January 24, 1995.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
_-_--_=FISCAL NOTES
Estimated cost of $200 for revisions to existing signs and maps.
i
i
i
~ I
i
:w/name-cc
f.
1
j
F'
i PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE
i _ WALNUT STREET ~
i ,
Rec nest
-
A new street connection is being completed between SW 135th Avenue r
and Scholls Ferry Road. The new street is being constructed by the
developers of Castle Hill subdivision to comply with the
transportation master plans of the city and county. When
construction is completed, the street system will be as shown on E
the attached map.
It is proposed that the new street connection, including all the
area shaded on the attached map, be named Walnut Street. The name F,.
of existing Walnut Street west of 135th Avenue would be changed to
Walnut Lane.
F3ackaround
I
i Street name: are typically assigned by the plat maps that dedicate
_"i the land for the streets. The new street connection has been
created by several different plats, and the plats do not agree on
the name.
f This issue was discussed at the West CIT in November. The CIT
recommended that the new street connection (the shaded area on the
map) be named Walnut Street, since it will be an extension of the
1 existing Walnut Street. k,
To avoid a conflict in street names, a name change is required for
the existing local street called Walnut Street west of 135th. In
j a petition dated December 12, 1994, the residents of the local
street have requested that its name be changed to Walnut Lane.,
i r
If approved, the new street names will be as shown on the attached
map.
Process
State statutes (ORS 227,120) provide the procedure for renaming of
streets. The Planning Commission shall recommend to the City
Council the renaming of any existing street, if in the judgment of
the Commission the renaming is in the best interest of the city.
Upon receiving such recommendation, the Council may rename the
i street in accordance with the recommendation or may reject the
{ recommendation. The Council lL-nust hold a hearing before making its
decision.
f
I
1
t
Staff recommends ion f,
Staff suggest that the Planning Commission recommend to the City ~
Council that the street names be changed as shown on the attached.
map.
Upon City Council approval, the names will be changed on all
official maps and street name signs will be revised. E
Submitted December. 29, 1994
;t
a ~
1 Randall R. Wooley
City Engineer
l
f -
rw/walnut
r
f
3 r
V
S
i
j i
1
[
1 [
1
I
{
St
i
1 rf '
{
:j
j
8ONNEVILL2 POWER ADMINISTRATI N
s~
~ trice' [
• tiiaiEt
° n 1~ t b •iiii{• s.
$ ele•t
tenet
1 ~ b tiiii{• _
ittt{
F••{
iiiigit
i gQt
•a
`•1 iii
i ttt
GTH V
r '
t::Is ON
j ~
.i ~
ti•
if
OT t'`S
• ~ Vyry~i~6~.~ .7!• x•12':' '
135TH 64V { { `iarp{F••
. .;tg•t••
i
l i
i I
Cr
~ I
fh i
r
L-j
i
;i
{ AGENDA
i
j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE --Vacation of- two 15 foot storm drainage easements located
bewtween lot 435 and lot #36. and lot #27 and lot #28, in Waverly Estates.
PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea DEPT HEAD OK ho 10 CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council vacate two 15 foot wide storm drainage easements?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the vacation as requested.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
# Council initiated this vacation at a public meeting held on December 13, 1994 f`
(Res. 94-57; Exhibit F, Vicinity Map; Exhibit E).
Kenneth Waymire, petitioner, requests City Council approval to vacate two 15 foot
wide storm drainage easements located between lot #35 and lot #36, and lot #27 and -
#28 of the plat Waverly Estates (Exhibits A and B). The vacated 15 foot wide
:sements shall be replaced with new 15 foot wide storm drianage easements
(Exhibits C and D).
The petitioner has stated. that this vacation is needed due to changes during f
construction. The storm line, as built, is located a feu feet easterly of the
centerline of the existing easements. The applicant is creating new drainage
easements to serve the as-built lines. This vacation will remove the existing
easements. The net effect of this action will be to move the easements
approximately 2.5 feet to the east of their present location.
Appropriate agencies have been contacted and have offered no objections to this
easement vacation.
a OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
I
1. Approve the vacation as requested.
2. Deny the vacation request.
3. Take no action at this time.
FISCAL NOTES
All feeshave been paid by the applicant.
i
r
EXHIBIT "C"
f
a r f -
Wells
.,REV 15ED"
' s
and.
A soclate C--" 3 GZR 21, 1994
inc. #
4230 FmmW
P mI OR PV13 ILL DEESCRIP IaN FOR STORH DRAIN EASENMW
Pi ( 284.6MIr
7 FAX (te) 25A-85M ISI'1'
A 15 foot strip of land for the purpose of a storm drain easement, ~
being a portion of Lots 35 and 35 of the duly recorded plat of
Waverly Estates, situated in the Northeast one Quarter of section
14, Township 2 south, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in
the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, Recorded
in Plat Book 92, pages 9, 10 & 11 of Washingtan County ?plat
Recor&, being more particularly described as follows: f
The easterly 5 feet of said Lot 36, and the westerly 10 feet of '
- said toot 35, along the ccm= line of lots 35 and 36, extending to
the north line of lot 35.
l `
I
4- REGISTERED
FROFESEICNAL
8
LAND SURVEYOR
ND S
- 1 yy
I , I I
i °DAVOREGO imy Is. 1980
ID W. MILLS
=60 01915
~ ~ ~ fr2E9g~~~ad el'Or2M ~,ZAdr f
f
N This easerreent is needed due to changes, during ccmtruction,
~xc ,rrerrarSer+rsce. affecting the swale and storm line. The storm line, as built, wi l)
crcarrvvsorul,,n=. be better situated within the new eas nt .described above.
{ oual=yBeyond Your tl0m.
i - - - - - - - - - -
-
EXHIBIT "D11
i r
day
OcTOBM 5, 1994
;and r
ci # W.D. WELLS & ,iSSCc., INC - JOB 93-°°s36
asso
Inc.
LEGAL DEsatiPTION FOR STORM MUNI EASEWN7i
NF- St
Rte, ORQM3 WIS&T
Phone (sa ) 284-SM
FAX j6q Ld4-U.~b"
A 15 fact strip of land for the purpose of a storm drain easement,
! being a portion of Lots 27 and 28 of the duly recorded plat of
Waverly Estates, situated, in the Northeast One Quarter of section
14, T°ownsillp 2 south, Range 1 Wast of the Willamette -Meridian, in
the City of Tilraird, County of Washington, State of Oregon, Recorded
in Plat Book 92, Pages 9, 10 & 11 of WashinTton County Plat ~
i Records, being mora particularly described as follows: 6
The easterly S feet of said Lot 28, and the westerly 10 feet of
'..l said Lot 27, along the coal an line of lots 28 and 27, extending to
the north line of lot 27.
t
i . {
LDT 27
*CALF E
LAk'a
5
J"Y M 1"1*
D1EDW. MILLS
.q.y„Q,. Ot9t;
.j ~so~tmsy y^74yAAr•
r
i
NOTE: This easement is needed due to chFasu.res. during construction, f
affectinT the swale and storm tine. Tile storm line, as built, will
be better situated within the new gZimnent described above.
~ ~ac~,otar,xat Smn+;cYt. ~
WRY Beyond Your EVecMda-m
{
"Ell
RD
TIG D
HIGH
- E
SCHOOL-
cu
3 1 `
f f
j
i
_ I
' c..ES Ie IR
5a !k !A 1,m yF
i ~~1 ~ n+ I t
i
i
t~3• yxa .3C~b~
a ~
EXHIBIT "F"
CITY OF TTGARD, OREGON ~
RESOLUTION No. 94-.®.
A RESOLUTION CO C ;ING THE VACATION OF TWO 15 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STORM D SOB
4 LOCATED BMMEN LOT 035 LOT #36, AND BBETWESH LOT 027 AND LOT 028, F
F ESTATES SUBDIVISION f
to
f
UREAS, the plat of Waymire Estates dedicated a public storm drainage easement
' between Lot #3.S and lot #36, and between lot #27 and lot #2e; and,
1 WHEREs, the 1S foot wide stoma drainage easements are no longer necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the owner of the affected lot has requested that the easements be vacated;
and,
WHERE, the Tigard City Council finds it appropriate to initiate proceedings for
the requested vacation.
.i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The Tigard City Council initiates a request for vacation of two 1S
foot wide storm drainage easements located between lot #35 and lot
#36, and between lot #27 and #26, of the Waverly Estates
subdivision, as more particularly described in Exhibit "All and "B".
I all/
Section 2: A public hearing is hereby caned to be held by the City Council
on Tuesday, January 24, 1995, at 7:36 p.m. at Tigard City Hall,
13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within the City of Tigard, at which time
and place the Council will hear any objections thereto, and any
interested person may appear and be heard for or against the 4
! propsosed vacating of said easement.
Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby authorized and directed to cause to
have published in the Tigard Times, a newspaper of general'
circulation in the City of Tigard, a notice of said hearing, the
first publication to be on January S, 1995 and the final
publication to be on January 12, 1995. The Recorder is further
directed to cause to have posted within five days after the date
of first publication, a corny of said notice at or near each end of
the area proposed to be vacated.
Section 4: The particular public easements to be vacated are shown on the
attached Exhibit "B" and "C" and by reference made a part hereof.
SEL : This day of 1994.
Maya C:.ty of Tigard %
- I
_ ATTEST:
S
City Recorder - city of Tigard
i
l
i
r
I 74
J Y
4 _
E
4. .
f
i
i
I
i_
j
o r
i
/57
RESOLUTION NO. 94--
Page 2
r
r
AGENDA ITEM #
For Agenda of January 24 1995
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
E
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE C_ omK)rehensive Plan Map Amendment CPA 94-0002 and Zone Change `
ZO N 94-0002.
PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK U
j _______ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A Should the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment redesignating G"
approximately 46 acres in the Triangle and a Zone Change from C-G to C-P on approxinately
12 acres in the Triangle?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION _
a r..
Staff recommends that the City Council not approve Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
94-0002 and Zone Change 94-0002, but direct staff to prepare design, transportation and open
space standards to implement identified Triangle goals. If the City Council chooses not to
follow the Planning Commission or staff recommendations, an ordinance to implement the
'proposed land use changes has been included in this staff report.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The amendment concerns redesignating approximately 46 acres of land containing 97 parcels
located in the Triangle area. The affected area is located generally east of SW 72nd Avenue
and west of SW 68th Parkway between Atlanta Street and Hampton Street. Current land use
of the affected properties include single-family houses, vacant areas and some small
f..
x businesses. The zone change concerns two parcels of land comprising approximately 11.9
acres located west of SW 72nd Avenue and south of Beveland Street. The Phil Lewis
Elementary School is located at this site.
The amendment and zone change would be the first step in implementing the Tigard Triangle
Specific Area Plan. This plan is the result of an extensive planning effort that seeks to guide
future growth in the area to establish a mixed use community that recognizes the
complimentary relationship between land use and transportation. It includes land use,
transportation, urban design and open space elements combined in a way to promote
alternative modes of transportation, reduce traffic congestion and encourage a more
pedestrian oriented style of development.
AGENDA SUMMARY
PAGE 1 OF 2
E
i
The Planning Commission held a hearing on June 20, 1994. After closing the hearing the same
night and further deliberation on July 18, 1994, the Commission voted 8-0 to recommend City
Council deny the proposal. This packet contains the following items;
1. Ordinance - Includes Exhibit A, Draft Final Order; Exhibit B, Land Use Chart; Exhibit CC, F
Vicinity Maps; and Exhibit D, Resolution 94-54.
1. Attachment 1 -Excerpt from Tigard Triangle Residential & Commercial Market Evaluation.
11. Attachment 2 - Correspondence from citizens and organizations. f
Ill. Attachment 3 - Planning Commission minutes from June 20 and July 18, 1994 meetings.
_ OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
l
1. Approve fie Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change.
2. Deny the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change. F
3. Deny the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change, and direct staff to
propose design standards for the Triangle area.
FISCAL NOTES
No direct fiscal impacts to the City.
k
f
i
i E
-i
f
F
j AGENDA SUMMARY
PAGE 2OF2
3
Y
r
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON G
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
<z
AN ORDINANCE OPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A
1 TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE ON 99
PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY fib ACRES WITHIN ',CITE TIGARD E
TRIANGLE AREA.
WHEREAS, the proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map in the areas i.
(shown in Exhibit C) generally west of SW 68th Parkway and east of SW 72nd Avenue
between Atlanta Street and Hampton Street, and west of SW 72nd Avenue south of
Beveland Street as follows:
1) Redesignate and rezone 15 acres from Low Density Residential (R-3.5)
to Medium-high Density Residential (R-25).
2) Redesignate and rezone 20.7 acres from Commercial Professional (C-P)
to Medium-High Density Residential (R-25). g
3) Redesignate and rezone 1.7 acres from General Commercial (C-G)
to Medium-Nigh Density Residential (R-25).:
4) Redesignate and rezone 2.5 acres from Low Density Residential (R-3.5)
3 to Commercial Professional (C-P).
{ 5) Redesignate and rezone 6.2 acres from. General Commercial (C-G) ~
to Commercial Professional (C-P).
6) Rezone 11.9 acres on two parcels from C-G to C-P.
WHEREAS, in July 1991, the City Council commissioned a report to examine a range of
development alternatives for the Tigard Triangle area; and I'
WHEREAS, on October 19, 1992, the Planning Commission accepted a land use plan and.
general development standards for the Triangle Area, and recommended that the City
Council adopt the roaster plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Tigard Master Plan map on November 24, 1994
(Resolution 92-54); and
WHEREAS, the City Council commissioned: a specific plan to be prepared on the Triangle
area which included land use, urban design, transportation and open space elements; and
ORDINANCE No. 94-__
Page
F
f
- , 3
j
E , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the CPA 94-0002 and
ZON 94-0002 proposals regarding the Tigard Triangle Specific Area plan and Master Plan
Map at its meetings of June 20 and July 18, 1994, and recommends denial. 6
~
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGAR.D ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
S SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the
facts, findings and conclusions noted in the attached final order, land.
use chart and vicinity maps identified as Exhibits B and C; i
SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the staff recommendation and approves
the request to redesignate the areas listed in Exhibit A and illustrated
j on the chart and vicinity :naps (Exhibits B and C).
SECTION 3: 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 . 1995. t
f
. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1995.
j
Jim Nicoii, Mayor
Approved as to forma:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 94
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER ~
A EINA ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN
j APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE C TGE. ~
_1 f
The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing; on January 24, 1995.
The City Council approves the proposal. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings
and conclusions noted below.
k
~
A. FACTS
1. General InfoL- i nation E
t
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0002 and i
Zone Change ZON 94-0002. -
. REQUEST: 1. A request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment from Lose Density Residential to Medium-High
-i Density Residential; from Commercial Professional to
Medium-High Density Residential; from General
Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential; from
Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional; and
from General Commercial to Commercial Professional.
I
2. A request for approval of a zone change from C-P
i -
(Commercial Professional) district to R-25 (Residential, 25
units per acre) district; from R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units
per acre) district to R-25 district; from R-3.5 district to C-P
district; and from C-G (General Commercial) district to C-P
district.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard'
Tigard, OR 97223
'i LOCATION: Generally, east of SW 72nd Avenue and west of SW 58th Parkway
between Atlanta Street and Hampton Street. Also, west of SW 72nd
Avenue and south of Beveland Street (See Exhibit C).
AREA DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change areas f
comprise approximately 58 acres of land. The area includes vacant land,
single-family homes, an elementary school and some small businesses.
TIGARD TRIANGLE FINAL ORDER RAGE 1 OF 8
CFA 94-0002/20N 94-0002
r
The plan and zoning designations would affect the following parcels.
s
Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential - WCTM .
`i 1S136DC lots 100, 101, 200, 300, 301, 400, 2600, 2700, 2701, 2800, 2900,
3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3501, 3506, 3507, 3508, 3509, and.
3 3510; WCTM 2S101AB lots 200, 300, 301, 302, 303, 400, 500, 600, 601,
and 700.
Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential - WCTM g.
1S136DA lots 902 (southwest portion), 2100, and 2200; WCTM 1S136DD
1 lots 900, 1000, 1100,1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1701, 1702,
1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800, 2890, s
2900, 3000, 3001, 3100, 3200, and 3290; WCTM 2S101AB lots 2000,
1 2100, 2200, 2201, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, and 2800; WCTM 2S101AC
lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, and 1000.
General Commercial to Medium-Nigh Density Residential WCTM
2S101AB lots 100 (south 125 feet) and 101.
Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional- WCTM 1S136DC t-
lots 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, and 4200.
t"
General Commercial to Commercial Professional - WCTM 1S136DC lots ~
4300, 4400, and 4402; WCTM 2S101AB 100 (north portion).
e
C-G to C-P (zone change only) - WCTM 2S101AC lots 1.801 and 1900. F
r-
7 ~ J
- " 2. Vicinity Information
The affected parcels are within the area known as the Tigard Triangle and are shown in
Exhibit C. The area to the east of SW 72nd Avenue includes land designated as General t
Commercial and Professional Commercial to the north, east and south; approximately 15
acres immediately adjacent to the roadway are designated as Dow Density Residential. The
_ i area to the west of SW 72nd Avenue includes land designated primarily as General
Commercial, except at the southern end where Love Density Residential and Public '
Institutional uses are located.
The area is generally bordered by SW 68th Parkway on the east and SW 72nd on the west. i
Dartmouth Street bisects this area. The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map identifies
j these three streets as major collectors. Transit services are presently available on SW 68th
Parkway, Hampton Street and Highway 99W.
3. Packeroun.d Information
a The Tigard Triangle Master Plan, completed in March of 1992, provided a land analysis,
assessments of development trends and of development potential of the Triangle. After over
i a year of study and extensive public input, the Planning Commission approved and the City
Council accepted a master plan map for the Triangle in November of 1992 (Resolution
92-54). This map showed generalized areas of land use crategoi-ies which reflected the
decisions of the study participants (see Exhibit D).
i
TIGARD TRIANGLE FINAL ORDER, PAGE 2 OF 8
CPA 94-0002/ZON 44-0002
Early in 1993, the City was awarded a grant from the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) to conduct a more detailed planning study of the area. The study
which covered land use, transportation, urban design and open space issues resulted in the
Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan, January 1994 (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan is an
attempt to guide future growth in the area in order to establish a more pedestrian-oriented
sustainable community. Redesignating some land to accommodate higher density
residential, professional and retail development, and designing a transportation system that
supports transit and provides pedestrian and bicycle paths to complement the new land uses
;j is a major objective of the Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission held a hearing on the proposed amendment and zone change,
which are based on the final Specific Plan, on June 20, 1994. After further discussion on
July 18, 1994; the Commission voted unanimously against recommending approval of the
proposal.
4. Proposal _
F
As the first step to implementing the recommendations in the Specific Plan, the City f
proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 97 parcels totaling ~
approximately 46 acres and change the zoning map on only two parcels totaling F..
approximately 12 acres. The maps in Exhibit C indicate the specific areas to be changed. ,
The changes would result in an increased housing opportunity of 870 units for a total of
approximately 1000 units in the Triangle. Land dedicated for general commercial
development would decrease by approximately 20 acres to a total of 74 acres in the Triangle.
The proposal would redesignate approximately. 1g
15 acres from Low Density Residential (R-3.5) to Medium-High Density Residential F
b 20.7 acresfrom Commercial Professional (C-P) to Medium-High Density Residential
(R-2o),
`i
1.7 acres from General Commercial (C-G) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-25);
0 2.5 acres from Low Density Residential (R-3.5) to Commercial Professional (C-P);
0 6.2 acres from General Commercial (C-G) to Commercial Professional (C-P); and
® 11.9 acres from C-G zoning district to C-P zoning district.
r
5. Agency Comments
I The Tualatin Malley Water District, General Telephone, Unified Sewerage Agency, Portland
General Electric and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue have no objections to the proposal.
j No other agency responded at the time this report was written.
t
E
+ TIGARD TRIANGLE FINAL GIRDER PAGE 3 OF 8
CPA 94-0002/ZON 99-0002
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
t
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13;
Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1 and 12.2.1; and
Community Development Code section 18.22 and 18.32..
F
The proposal complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following
findings:
1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has an adopted citizen
involvement program which ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process. The affected residents of the Triangle area have been
involved in a public review process since March 1992. This final proposal was
presented to members of the East C.I.T. on June 8, 1994, and reviewed by the F
s Planning Commission on June 20 and July 18, 1994. All public notice requirements
1 related to the proposal have been satisfied.
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant f
Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community
Development Code requirements in t1Ae review of this proposal.
E
3. Goal 9, Economic Development, is met because the proposal continues to promote
opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare and
prosperity of Tigard's citizens. The greater mix of uses, including higher density '
residential, would encourage more diverse commercial development to tape place in
the area..
7
s 4. Goal 10, Housing, is met because the proposal provides for additional housing
opportunities as called for in the City Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan
Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12). Approval of
the proposal would increase housing opportunity by a maximum of 870 dwelling
units, mostly multi-family. This increase would help implement the housing rule
which requires that the City maintain a minimum housing opportunity for buildable
land of 10 units per acre and provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new
residential units to be attached single family or multiple family housing.
~ t
5. Goal 12, Transportation, and Goal 13, Energy Conservation, are met because the
proposal provides for a more convenient, economic and energy-efficient transportation
system in the area. A mix of higher density housing with commercial and office uses
creates a lard use pattern that supports a multi-modal transportation system.
Intensive housing development near major transportation corridors (Highway 217, I-5
and Highway 99W), employment centers and shopping areas helps reduce vehicle
trips and miles traveled. According to the Transportation and Traffic Evaluation
study of the Specific Plan (July 1993), the "recommended land use plan would reduce
TIGAP.D TRIANGLE FINAL ORDER. PAGE 4 OF 8
CPA. 94-0002/ZON 94-0002
vehicle miles traveled by 13.5°% o compared to the potential land use development
under current zoning". Transit services will be better supported with the increase in ;
residents and improved pedestrian environment. The proposal also incorporates
measures for a more efficient street system. All of these factors help implement the
requirements of the State Transportation Planning Rule (Oregon Administrative Rule
Chapter 660, Division 12). '
The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the
following findings:
l
1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring a citizen involvement program, is satisfied because the
surrounding property owners were given notice of all public hearings to date related
to the proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notices
of hearings were also posted at City Nall and advertised in a local newspaper. In
a addition, a citizen advisory committee participated in the planning process.
2. Policy 6.1.1, requiring the diversity of housing densities and types, is satisfied
because the proposal would provide the opportunity for additional multi-family
Ilol.lslilg and a would la increase the net ~ the et residential density per buildable acre in the Citv_
--J
3. Policy 6.6.1, requiring buffering between land uses and on-site screening, is satisfied
through design standards contained in the Triangle Specific flan which are t
consistent with the requirements of this code policy.
4. Policy 8.1.1, requiring a safe and efficient roadway system, is satisfied for several 6
reasons. According to the Evaluation Study, the proposed redesignation of the area
would result in mixed-use development which reduces vehicle trips by 13.5%
compared to allowable development under the existing zoning. The overall land use
changes will create an area with higher density housing, employment centers and E
shopping opportunities, thus encouraging alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
Because of the Triangle's location, this mixed use development will be well served by
alternative modes of transportation, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the roadway
system. F
5. Policy 8.2.2, encouraging the expanded use of public transit, is satisfied because the
' proposed redesignation of the area would locate more land intensive uses in close
proximity to transitways.
6. Policies 9.1.1 and 9.1.3, encouraging reduced energy consumption and sound energy
conservation, are satisfied because the proposal would create a land use mix which it
promotes a more energy efficient transportation system. This is accomplished
through a land use redesignation which provides a framework for higher density
residential and commercial development in close proximity to transit routes, major
f highways, diverse employment opportunities and shopping centers.
PAGE 5 OF 8
TIGARD TRIANGLE FINAL ORDER
CPA 94-0002/204 94-0002'
t
7. Policy 12.1.1, locational criteria for housing densities, is satisfied for the proposed
Medium-High Density Residential designation areas for the following reasons:
a. The affected properties are not committed to low density development.
i
b. The proposed plan design guidelines are consistent with the density transition,
buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code. G'
These requirements help ensure that development of the proposed Medium- r
High Density Residential areas are compatible with neighboring established '
low density residential areas.
4 ,
C. The affected properties have direct access from a major collector or arterial
street. In this case, SW 68th Parkway and SW 72nd Avenue are classified as f
f 1 a major collectors.
i
d. The affected properties are not limited by development constraints.
e. The affected properties are accessible to facilities which have the capacity for
. a additional development.
F Theaffected properties are within one-quarter mile of public transit. In this
case, public transit is available on SW 72nd Avenue and Hampton Street.
g. The affected properties are within one-quarter mile of a commercial shopping
area or business and office center. ,
h. Private or public open space and recreational facilities can be provided as part
of site developments.
8. Policy 12.2.1, locational criteria for commercial areas, is satisfied for the proposed
Commercial Professional designation areas for the following reasons:
j
a. The subject areas are not surrounded by residential districts on more than two
_i
sides.
b. The proposed redesignation will result in fewer vehicle trips generated, miles I
traveled and peak hour trips than the existing land use designations. The
proposal will not, therefore, create a traffic congestion or safety problem. The
subject areas have direct- access from a major collector or arterial, and public
transportation is available to the general area.
C. The subject sites are of adequate size to accommodate present and projected
uses. The areas are visible from three major collector streets in the Triangle.
t
TIGARD TRIANGLE FINAL ORDER PAGE 6 OF E tt`
CPA94-00021ZON 94-0002 -
d. The proposed plan design guidelines are consistent with the density transition,
buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code.
These requirements help ensure that development of the proposed Commercial
Professional areas are compatible with the non-commercial uses. Site r
development review will allow unique site features to be incorporated into the
E
site design.
The proposal is consistent with the City's standards for approval of quasi-judicial
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings:
1. Section 18.32, setting forth the procedural requirements for consideration of quasi-
judicial plan amendments, is satisfied for the following reasons: The City-initiated
application has been processed in accordance with the Development Code (18.32.020, f
18.32.050 and 18.32.060); the Planning Commission and City Council have conducted
hearings in the prescribed manner (18.32.090 (D) and (E)); and the requirements for f
notification of the hearings have been met (18.32.130 and 18.32.140).
2. Section 18.22.040 (A) of the Community Development Code requires that decisions
on quasi-judicial amendments be based on evidence of change in the neighborhood or
community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map. b`
Staff' finds that Section 18.22.040 (A) is met because a mistake was made on the
Comprehensive Plan Map and significant changes have taken place that directly
affect the Triangle area, f;
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map mistakenly designated the Triangle area for
land uses that could not be adequately supported by the planned transportation
system. This mistake has come to light in recent years as the Triangle area
continues to develop and traffic increases. Since 1983 when the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted, there has been a significant increase in traffic impacts in and around
the Triangle area. In 1980, the average daily traffic on Highway 99W ranged
between 19,400 and 39,500. In 1992, the range increased to between 44,000 and
48,000. The Tigard Triangle Traffic Circulation Analysis study (ODOT 1987) found
that 68th Street in the vicinity of the 1-5 southbound ramps carried 2,300 vehicles per
day. The same part of 68th Street carried approximately 5,500 vehicles per day,
during counts conducted by the City during 1992-1993 (Mike Mills, 5/4/93). Without
extensive road improvement measures, studies show Highway 99W will be at an j
unsatisfactory level of congestion by 2010. j
As the land uses in the Triangle develop, more pressure is put on the road system f
including Highway 99W. According to the Evaluation Study, if the potential land use
growth under existing zoning in the Triangle is realized, it would generate 9,603
vehicle trips during the PM peak hour and over 347,306 vehicle miles traveled per
_ I
TIGARD TRIANGLE FINAL ORDER PAGE 7 OF 8
CPA 94-00021ZON 94-0002 -
day. Currently, there are only 3,118 PM vehicle trips and 96,084 vehicle guiles=
traveled per day. The proposed rezoning would generate 8,000 vehicle trips during E
the peak hour and 300,590 vehicle miles traveled per day. This means that under
the proposed zoning there would be a 16.7% reduction in PM trips and a 13.5%
reduction in vehicle miles traveled as compared to the existing zoning. ¢
In addition to a mistake made on the Comprehensive Plan Map, there has been a_
change in the community. Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983, there
has been a significant increase in demand for easy accessibility and walking and r:
.a bicycling opportunities. This demand is related to the substantial increase in traffic
congestion and commuting times. The housing industry has responded to this
demand by developing higher density projects close to employment centers. The
l Kruse Way corridor just south of the Triangle is a good example of a mixed use area.
The new values of urban residents are reflected in recently adopted regional and
state policies and rules. Metro adopted the Regional Urban Growth Goals and
Objectives (RUGGO) in 1991. The goals addressed several growth management
issues and provided a policy framework for the Region 2040 Plan. Both of these T
studies call for a more balanced transportation system that gives prior-ity to meeting
the mobility needs of a growing urban area through a range of mode choices. `
E
Using the Specific Plan recommendations as a guide, the Council finds that providing
opportunities for higher density residential areas adjacent to commercial development
contributes to the success of creating the desirable land use mix for alleviating traffic
problems and encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation.
Redesignating some of the acreage in the Triangle area to Medium-High Density
Residential land use helps create a pedestrian-oriented community by reducing the
need for automobile travel to adjacent retail and professional services. Strengthening
the Commercial Professional land use district serves several purposes.- It creates
additional opportunities for employment, business and professional services to be
located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods; it supports other commercial
uses; an it will support the existing and future transportation network.
j The City Council concludes that adopting the proposed Comprehensive Plan f
Amendments and Zone Changes would be the first step in establishing a mixed use
community that recognizes the complimentary relationship between land use and
transportation. This community would serve to promote alternative modes of
transportation, reduce traffic congestion and implement the new regional and state
planning regulations in the Triangle area.
{
f
TIGARD TRIANGLE FINAL ORDER PAGE 8 OF 8
CPA 94-0002/ZON 94-.0002
TIGARD L
PROPOSED AREAS FOR LAND USE REDESIGNATION
t k
Location Indicator Affected Area Existing Comp. Existing Zoning Proposed Comp. Proposed Zoning
See maps of Exhibit C Plan Designation Designation Plan Designation Designation
Two sections: The area bordered by 70th, Clinton, Low Density R-35 Medium-High R-25 i
72nd and approx. 250' north of Baylor Street. Residential Density
(33 parcels, 15 acres) Residential
1 Three sections: A triangle-shaped area between
70th and 72nd Avenues, north of Baylor Street; the Commercial C-P Medium-High R-25
area bordered by Atlanta, 68th, Clinton and 70th; Professional Density
and the parcels along Beveland St. & Gonzaga St. Residential
1 (51 parcels, 20.7 acres)
r
An area approximately 270' wide between 70th and Commercial C-G Medium-High R-25
72nd, south of DarGncuth Street. General Density
(2 parcels, 1.7 acres) Residential
i
The area bordered by Clinton, 70th, . Low Density R-3.5 Commercial C -P
I`
Dartmouth and 92nd Avenue. Residential Professional
(7 parcels, 2.5 acres)
i L
The areas immediately to the north and south of Commercial C-G Commercial C-P
Dartmouth Street between 70th and 72nd Avenue. General Professional i
(4 parcels, 6.2 acres)
i
i
j
The triangular area bordered by 72nd, Hwy 217 Public/ C-G Public/ C-P ~
i and the Beveland residential area. Jnstihttional Institutional
(2 parcels, 11.9 acres)
klkgin\ray4reablr { i
January I1. 1'NS
E
TI A D TF
MAP I
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE MAP
1
Professional E°
Commercial
General
! Commercial i
Low Density ~3p r l
I
Residential
Medium High t\~' ' ' a f 1: ;I k
Density Residential ~
j ' Public - -
,j-- Institution i
F~L
¢ } u
I Uj 9 -
co
i 44
1 ACRE
r
fM ~
a
N
January 11, 1995 C:1AP.
a
r
i
Exhibit C
L 1 of 2 Vicinity Meps
JANG
AFB 2
PROPOSED CHANGES TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP
fi y Professional
Commercial
Medium High
i L Density Residential
r.
tCi '
LL.
1 ~ E
~ N
r 1
j1
i i
t
i
1CMEWWRIANGRAPR
f,
i
Jt
,
TIGARD TL
:.f
MAP 3
~j EXISTING ZONING MAC'
Professional
commercial
General
Commercial f
R-3.5 i
R-25 0j,
I _j i
i 0 /
f z
L-j=1 ACRE
R
a N
January 11, 1995 C:W
i
E
Exhibit C
E
y of I i~ L of Z Vicinity Maps
E
1 f
3 MAP 4
PROPOSED CHANGES TO
~ .
ZONING MAP
F Professional
Commercial
i R-25 4 .
®41
3 , L -j LO
E9 I--
_ < f
1 ( LL I
i
z
~ f
it
i
j
i
;1CVIEMTR1ANGF.APR
L/
E.11=1T D
I Li
11
LK 5T.
)Y 4?T J ~Jr 1~
1
L ,
t
I I ~i ~,~.I. mil 1 ~
iI H
±1'
nz
3C-SO C9vEY /
TIGARD s
6tj' :
1
~ ACCEPTED 11/10/92 RESOLUTION 92-54
NoMnbet 24, IW2
f
j DEVEMPLIENT D E
3 • A grid rn of streets will established so tot the area is interconnected and
no one local street ernes more trek than another. E
{
* in addition to existing landscaping standards there will be additional standards for R
i trees. stirm -fhe emphasis on trees not only cra visual appeal, but also F ;
' creates a pleasant walking environment ~
• Commercial developments will have safe and landscaped pedestrian access.
Maximum building set backs will be established to encourage a safe walking and
urban environment
,j
• Each development will have a maximum number of parking spaces as well as a
i minimum.
R idential areas will require. a minimum density rather than maximum to insure an
amount and deers-ty of built housing.
acres of park will be in the Triangle either as a traditional park or a
fte
• At least
linear walking park.
• Natural areas, particularly trees, will be protected as much as passible. E
• Design standards.along 99W will be improved.
E
j .
-1
Octoter
V
i
I:4
~ 3 9,ti
F
ATTACHMENT I
Excerpt from Tigard Triangle
Residential & Commercial Market Evaluation
i'
s
J
F
t
L
1
Excerpt from Tigard Triangle
Residential Commercial Market Evaluation E
Chapter III. Comparing Residential & Commercial Uses
SUMMARY
The Market Evaluation study of the Triangle Plan reviewed the market for r
i residential and commercial properties in the Portland metropolitan area generally
and for the vicinity of the Tigard Triangle more specifically. Chapter III evaluates
the Tigard Specific Plan allocation of residential versus commercial use based on
economic market and feasibility considerations. The study finds that because of the k
tune value of money, the net present value for multifamily residential and k
commercial land is similar. The 'time value of money' refers to the situation where
a near terra sale of land for multifamily may generate a higher net present value to
the property owner than a longer term and perhaps more speculative sale for h
commercial use. 't'hus, the study finds that multifamily land could range from $1.78
to $2.57 per square foot, while commercial land could range from $1.62 to $2.83 per
1 square foot. The analysis indicates that the wide gap in current asked prices for
commercial versus multifamily land disappears when values are discounted to reflect
dates when the land sales and development actually occur.
k
i
i
{
1 }
l
j
AM.,
TIGARD 3
TRIANGLE E L
MARKET & COMMERCIAL EVALUATION
I
y
4 Prepared for: i
City of Tigard
13125 SW Ha11 Boulevard
r`
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Prepared by:
E.D. Hovee & Company ~
P.O. Box 225
951 Officers Row
Vancouver, Washington 98666
(2€36) 696-9870
j In cooperation with:
i
OTAK, Inc. Architects, P.C.
l
June 154 1993
r
E
:i
j
111. COMPARING RESIDENTIAL ~ COMMERCIAL USES
a _ f
1 An important part of the planning process is to evaluate and then make trade-offs between
competing uses for real estate. The proposed development plan reconimends an allocation of ~
residential versus commercial use based on planning, environmental, neighborhood and policy
considerations. This analysis evaluates the proposed allocation baste on economic market and
feasibility considerations. i
Two key questions are addressed by the analysis:
m hat is the highest and best use of the property as indicated by land values?
j * What are the prospects for the uses proposed to actually develop within a reasonable
] time fe-ame (assumed to be year 21310 for illustrative purposes)?
Comparative Land Values r.;
For this analysis, land values for commercial and multifamily residential property have been
researched for the Tigard Triangle and voider vicinity area. These comparisons are provided by
Figure 19., _
Figure 19. Comparative Multifamily Residential and Commercial Land Values ;
Tigard Area Quoted
Land Valets r:
u (5 per Square Foot) Comments
Co S4.50 - $10.00
Properties vri ate' am discounted by
$1.00 or more per square foot. Banc l
quoted -ales of as lour as $2.00 - $2.50, albeit
addng liri -are much higher.
Mul' ` a y $2.00 - $4.00 Borer end of dw price range tends to be for
sites without sewer to the propeny. Typical
range of per unit land cwt is $4,000 - $7,000.
Single Family (with residences on-site) $3.00 - $10.00+ Based on a review of multiple listing data. The
only parcels with values below $5.00 tend to be
single family homes on large 20,000+ square
foot lots.
Source: B.D. Ham & Company based an coan is with area commerdA and residential realmtate brokers,
hfty June 1993. Values estimated are for p by water and .
i
As this chart indicates, there is wide variation in quoted land values for commercial and
multifamily property in the Tigard area. This is for severs! reasons:
m Some of the values quoted reflect c rrg ririces rather than actual sales transactions.
F.D. Howe ~ r-or ir* ,-caar 1h QTAX Iran for the City of 21g d
TWArd Triangle Residential & Comm =al hbAwt Bval ndon (ftelumany . Draft) Page 23
f.
} a Value depends in large measure on location. This is particularly true for retail
i properties for which frontage on a major traffic arterial typically commands a higher
price.
In today's market of less predictable demand and tight financing, there is more
uncertainty over future sales pptential. Contacts with realtors revealed, for example, a
v&-iety of opinions regarding the highest and best use of the Tigard 7Hangle for
j commercial versus multifamily development.
i,
a
Discounted Value Analysis
The land use that is the most marketable (or valuable) may not necessarily be most desirable from
a planning or policy perspective. However, it may be useful to evaluate the potential
marketability of multifamily residential versus commercial uses as part of the planning process.
INs, atalysis is useful for a couple of reasons. First, property owners and others who are
`s residents or have businesses in the area may be interested in obtaining some idea as to the time
period'and conditions by which properties may become developed and resulting property
valuation. Second, public agencies including the city can benefit from knowing the absorption and ~
valuation potentials of alternative uses for purposes of capital facility/budget planning and i
provision of public services.
This comparison is accomplished through a &scounted cash flaw analysis procedure. The
question that this discounted cash flow analysis addresses is: What is the ner present value of
k future land sales in the Tigard Triangle for multifamily versus commercial use?
The following mptiorzs are made for this illustrative analysis:
® Average current land value in the triangle approximates $5.50 per square foot for
commercial and $3.00 per square foot for multifamily property - for parcels with
water and sewer available to the site.
-i
4 Maximum absorption potential for the triangle would not exceed one-half of the
development potential for the entire Tigard area (as defined by Metro) based on
currant Tigard area shares of Portland metro area housing and commercial space.
6 Discount rate to a property owner or investor approximates 100/a per year.
L
Net present lased values and absorption rates are contrasted for each of two rnul . y and tyro
commercial development scenarios.
i ED Howe & Company in Capperxion with OTAF, k for the City of Pgsard
7i 'd Tr=g1c RcsWuftW Ctranmmial Marba Evaluahon DMR) Page 24
f
3 ,
j - gum 2 0. Discounted Land Value Evaluation Summary
i Development Scenario
Multifamily Development Commercial Development
' Minimum maximum Minimum Mmdfflurn
Assunied. Develepm ent 193 units 572 units 1.156 million sf 1.456 m llion sf
Acmn* for DeWopment 11.0 54.5 80.0 110.0 K
Morption (yeas) 5.0 5.0 5.5 3.4
l Net PreseW Value eLand Per 4FL $2.57 $1.78 $2.83 $1.62
AbsoqWon Period to Build-Out 2-3 years 10-11 years 15-16 years 32-33 y
'i
6 ldote: h sum lopament assumes maximum regional dew; m=imm development assumes min oral
-a
eSourm: F,83. Hasvec & Company, June 1993. Sex w orksheat attached to report for added detail. This analysis is ,
intended for illustrative purposes only. Actual rates of absorption, level of development and net present
vale could vary significantly from what is indicated here due to changing market, financial, plarrnng
j or other considerations.
Az this chart indicates, net present vvalue for multifamily lased (using assumptions indicated) could
range from $1.75 to $2.57 per squarer foot; for commercial, the land value range is from $1.62 to ;
$2.83 per square; foot. This analysis indicates that despite; a wide gap in current wed prices for
commercial -versus industrial land, this gap largely disappears when values are discounted to
reflect dates when land sales and development actually occur (i.e.. absorption). r
1 Becalm absorption of commercial land could occur over a longer time period than multifamily
residential, some land owners will conceivably have to wait for quite some time to receive their
asidng price. For example, at a discount ratan (or cost ofmoney) at lf1°Jo, receiving $3.00 per
square font this year is equivalent to riving $6.00 per square foot 7-5 years from now.
If an investor views commercial demand prospects for Tigard Triangle property to be highly
uncertain or potentially weak, it may be preferable to sell for multXamily use (if multifamily
proves to be associated with stronger or more certain demand). Investor preferences can be
to be strongly influenced by which of the two markets (commercial versos WAd ' ' y)
that they believe will be stronger both short and long-term.
Competitive Implications
The prospect of new development inevitably raises questions about potential impacts-- positive
' negative -a on other similar' uses within either the metropolitan area.or the more immediate
11gard southwest metro market. From the perspective of the City of 11gard, regional impacts are
probably of less inure diate significance than more localized effects on existing development
elsewhere in the community. Of particular conc€ m would be actions that would reduce the
viability of other commercial or r dential a, within 7 igard.
Y _
v F
F-D Hoo & COM ny to C.oo allon with OTAK, Jnc fbrto a Cary of 7Xgvrd
Ti . Triangle Residea fiat & Commacid dom. Evaluation tae ° ~ IDraft P4p 25
~a
i
Competitive implications of development in the Tigard Triangle car be assessed separately for
i rnultifasrily residential and then commercial properties. i
ulA ily Residential
Development of new multifamily residential could have a negative effect if vacancy rates for other
sinfdar existing projects were to be significantly increased as a result of undue competition. This
was a particular concern in the late 1980s as the pace of development often exceeded demand,
in ' g vacancies.
{ In today~s more stringent financing environment, it has become increasingly difficult for
developers to build on a speculative basis in advance of proven market demand. As long as E
current financing conditions persist, it is very unlikely that multifamily development in the Tigard
'T'riangle would materialize until actual demand is demonstrated. As a result, it is not expected
that biongde area development will negatively impact other existing multifamily projects
elsewhere in the Tigard area. Commercial Development
The competitive implications of commercial overbuilding are somewhat different than for s
multifamily properties. In large part, this is be case financing and development of commercial
i property has became largely tenant and laser driven. If major office users or retail stores are
Pre-pare, d to anchor a project, financing may be forthcoming even if other existing centers are
negatively innpacted as a result.
In Tigard, two areas which could be affected are of special interest: downtown Tigard and the
f
Washington Square area. Either commercial area could be negatively impacted if new
development pulls tenants out of these existing retailloft"ace areas or similar types of uses that
reduce the market available to businesses opeb-acing in these other established areas.
i
On the other hand, if the Tigard Triangle attracts commercial eases that are not currently found in
the other centers or is supported by net growth in the marketplace, negative impacts may not
materialize or may be ameliorated. In fact, added competition could be beneficial by providing
more retail and commercial uses to draw customers and clientele into Tigard a competitive
retail and office destination.
Increasing Residential Density
- ? Asa firial item, it is noted that there has been some discussion of the potential to significantly
increase development densities for Haul ' y housing in the Tigard 'T'riangle area. One question
rdwed is regarding the cost implications of such an increase.
-D. Home & Company in Cooperation with OTAX Iran. for tyre City of l dgard !
Tigard Triangle Residential & Co „`al Me= Evaluation (PmfiminM Drl) Page 26
Development schemes currently being considered for the Tigard Triangle reflect a density of
16-15 units per acre. Based on a similar recent analysis, E.D. Howee & Company has compiled
? the following cost comparison of low r;.se versus i id r isc multifamily housing.
4
Figure 21. Multifamily Cost Comparison
LOW bfid Rise
o
A.ssarned Units per Acre 20 50
Lanced Cost (per sq. Pt.) $3.00. $5.04
S Construction Cost
Lidirect Costs (as %.of conAniction) 33% 25% E
]Paddng Cosa (per space) $2,540 (at grade) $10,000 (structure)
Total ]Development Cost (per sq. #t.) $67 $92
d
Source: E.D. Hoyee & Company. 3tsrae 1993.
As this table indicates, total cost of developing mid rise (50 unitlacre) multifamily can be 35-4090® ;
higher than low rise (20 unittacre) multifamily projects. Such projects typically are not
i undertaken except in areas which can support significantly higher per square foot rents. To date, r.
this has not generally been the case in the suburban Portland market.
i
i 4
i .
ED. doves & Come In Caapffation with OTAX In for the City of 77gard
j
Ilprd Trirn& Residential & Evaluation oWhWnwj D FA) Paga 27
r
IV. CONCLUSIONS & POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This analysis has reviewed market potentials and land values associated with various mixes of F'
cc nimercial and multifamily development of the Tigard Triangle area. While this analysis is
preliminary and subject to revision, several conclusions and policy implications are offered for
f
consideration:
The Tigard Triangle has the capacity to accommodate a significant amount of E
commercial and/or multifamily development.
Development schemes that emphasize housing will require capturing a smaller Share of
the regional market than those that emphasize commercial use.
® The interior of the Tigard Triangle appears suitable for multifamily residential use
pro'ded that development is planned to minimize traffic, noise and encroachment
from incompatible uses.
0 Thd triangle is also suitable for a variety of commercial office and retail uses. Most ~
retail will tend to gravitate to high traffic count corridors, such as highway 99 and
sites with visibility and direct access to idighway 217 or 1-5. Interior sites could be
more suitable to office use (e.g. for larger low rise campus office complexes).
* While asking; prices of com nercial property are generally well above costs of
multifamily land, these differences may be si
y - gzynf' scantly reduced when the tune valise of
money is considered. Simply put, a near terra sale of land for multifamily may
generate a higher net present value to the property owner than a longer term and
perhaps more speculative sale for commercial use.
o The net present value analysis suggests that providing a balance of multifamily and
commercial development opportunities could be as advantageous or possibly more
advantageous to area property owners than retaining the primarily commercial
planning desi ions for much of the trfangle's undeveloped property.
While multicandly projects can serve traditional young adult and retiree markets, much f
of the growth potential in the Portland metro area will be oriented to housing that
serves the needs and interests of aging baby boomers Multifamily markets will also
be driven by an increasing proportion of non-traditional households. Capturing these
market potentials may require innovative multifamily housing products - offering
quality, privacy, security and environmental amenities at a competitive price.
. ~ i
i
ED. House & Cb,mpanry in Cooperation with OTAK, lrac. for the City of Tigard
Tigard Triangle Residential & Coatam=ial Market Evaluation (Preta i Draft) Page 29
I
jj~
_1
} ~ f ~
jj{I ~~li/
1II ~+J
i1 V
I S 14
~ C ~
j
1
I ~ ~
i
f i
' ~ ,
E
~ I
j i
i l
~
j ~ " ~
J
I ~ f
~
i
~ f
i i
1
i
_T_..~..,__-,- - - - -
t_
I~ Correspondence From Citizens and Organizations ~
F
4
E -
i
i
i
i i
i
4 _
f.
-1
_ f
al
l
1.
I
i
l
I
j
- f
L
L .
I
1 SUMMARY t
The following is a summary of the correspondence received from November 1 1994,
to January 12, 1955, regarding the City Council's consideration of the Triangle Plan.
It is categorized by for, against and modification, with additional notes about the
t
communications.
F:
a
1. IN FAVOR OF PLAN - 2
i
One letter contains a petition with 17 residents of the Beveland/Hermosa
neighborhood requesting the "City Council to implement the Tigard Triangle zoning
plans regarding Phil Lewis Grade School and not allow Phil Lewis Grade School to
remain zoned general commercial". The other letter urges the Council to consider the. .
best, long-term interests of the community for a unified plan with mixed uses.
11- AGAINST PLAN - 13
The letters against the plan are mostly concerned with the expected loss of value to
their home due to the zone changes. One includes the signatures of over 120 property _
owners who oppose R-25 zoning. A few of the letters also express concerns about
increasing, population in an area that already is experiencing impacts from the
commercial development. One letter expresses the fear that the resident will be
j displaced from their home if the plan is approved.
One letter, addressed to the Planning Commission, was hand delivered to the joint
' CC/PC meeting on November 21. It is from a law firm representing three people who
own a substantial portion of the land proposed to be rezoned. It is critical of the i
meeting and amendment processes that have been conducted so far; and concludes
l that the PC should not engage in downzoning but rather should rezone all residential
i and professional to general commercial.
111. PLAIT MODIFICATION - 1
The author of the letter is against the extensive zone changes to R-25 and in favor
of zone changes to Commercial Professional.
i
f
November 13, 1344
To: The Tigard City Council
From: Dayle Beach, Spokesman
'i Subject: Down-zoning the Tigard Triangle
Dear Councilors:
Attached is a letter which was unanimously approved at a meeting of
' 46 Triangle property owners on Monday, November 14th.
Also attached is a list. of the names and addresses of 120+ Triangle
property owners. These people have all signed petitions opposing
down-zoning in the Tigard Triangle.
Since we have identified ourselves to you, could you kindly reveal
the names of the people who apparently are applying tremendous
pressures, on the City Council to keep down-zoning alive? Where in-
deed is your citizen support for this action? We demand to know.
We freely admit that our motive is to protect our financial stake
in our properties. What is their motive? What do they stand to gain
by destroying the market va ues of our properties? Please don't
tell, us that they are selfless altruistic people who are only trying
to serve the public good.
We applaud the Tigard Planning Commission for hearing our pleas and
for having the great courage to reject the Tigard Triangle special
i area zoning plan. We ask that you respect their unanimous decision
and vote accordingly at this meet in (Nov. 21st).
Postpaning the decision hurts all property owners in the Triangle:
Property values will remain depressed while the zoning issue remains
unresolved. Investors simply are reluctant to buy any property if
_ they are uncertain as to how the property will be zoned.
f
Your prompt and decisive action on this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
i
Respectfully submitted,
i
i
i
3
z
1 `
November 11, 1994
To: The Tigard City Council
From: Citizens of Tigard residing in the Tigard Triangle
rear Councilors;
:i
As, Citizens of this fair city, we wish to voice our disappointment in the fact that you are
continuing to pursue the Tigard Triangle specific area plan. Manny of us have opposed it
from tine beginning. We have Voiced that opinion in numerous meetings and gatherings, as ~
wall as oil a petition signed by over 120 of us and still growing. Alter hearing many of the s .
' opinions and concerns we have, the Planning Commission voted unanimously that this plan
E should not be implemented. Some of the reasons for our disapproval are:
' > Down-zoning of land within the Triangle to R-25 for high density residential s ;
development would cause financial loss to many of the residents and land owners in file
Triangle.
> Down-zoning could increase the potential tai burden for the residents of Tigard.
> High density residential development would not fair well in the Triangle, due to the
high volume of traffic and noise that is generated even now by the existing coninkercial
businesses.
> Down-zoning of the Phil Lewis School property from C-G to C-P would financially
harm the Tigard-Tualatin School Distract. ;
> Conurercial Professional development would also probably fair poorly since there is
1 already a high vacancy rate in the area.
> If the zoning were changed to R-25, virtually no activity ;would taste place, since few .
of the residents could afford to sell at the price developers would pay for R-25 land.
We strongly urge that you endorse the Planrtrrng Commissions unanimous decision to reject
the Tigard Triangle specific area plan. We do not believe a representative front the Triangle
was involved in the formation of the plan. If there was someone involved we would like
their name, since they were not a voice of the citizenry of this area. If there were none, we
s believe this to be a flagrant violation of the Tigard Comprehensive Flan Policies, which
states in paragraph 2.1.1 that "The city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement r
program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.".
We would all appreciate not having to take this issue through the legal system. The only
real -Anners in a court battle seem to be the lawyers. Unfortunately, two Triangle land
i owners, Gordon Martin and Don Pollack, have had to pursue this avenue to guaranice fair
treatment by file city. Due to the millions of dollars at stake, the rest of us reel a need to
prepare for a similar battle. Your continued endorsement of tine Tigard Triangle specific
area plan may guarantee a joint effort on our part to protect ourselves. Considering the
current track record of tiro city attorney, we would consider that to be a waste of our hard
carried tax dollars.
i
E
3
• i,j
va;;e 1 of 2
i
1 k
The Tigard Triangle ~onr:rty owners listed below have
signed petitions opposing I1-25 zonini.•a
T:A7.i A DDIti;S
Irving L. Larson 11720 3',1 68th Parkway ;
Robert J, Hoch 7130 SW Baylor St. t,
!9illiam 1. Horne 7160 SW Baylor St.
Bobbie Horne 7160 SW Baylor St.
Larrie 11. Noble 11750 J6V 72nd Ave,
T. L. Noble 11750 72nd Ave.
LVilliam L. Chase 11580 SW 72nd Ave.
Violet Chase 11,980 S+:V 72nd Ave
John '.~Vozniak 11550 SW 72nd Ave.
Darlene Wozniak 11550 SW 72nd Ave. {
Anna Belle Mahon 11780 SW 72nd Ave. t
Wary A. Fegles 11720 SW 72nd Ave. C,
Vargaret MI. Gooley 7130 SW Baylor St.
Ely E. Wilder 12260 Sit 72nd Ave.
John Scott 7085 SJ lmhurst St.
Debi Scott 7085 Si Elmhurst St.
Calvin Barrett 7175 SW Beveland St.
'i Diana Barrett 7175 3W Beveland 3t.1
Allwin Cohn 7105 SiI Baylor St. E
Nancy P. Haag 7070 SW Baylor St. Emma L. Wilder 12260 S,;' 72nd Ave.
i r
-i henneth G. Brian 11680 je: 72nd Ave.
' John C. Law 6945 S10 Baylor St.
Billie J. Law 6945 SI< Baylor St.
Mark E. Schultz 7010 S:V Baylor St.
' -Laura h. Schultz 7010 SW Baylor St.
Ijichael Lefebvre 7040 SW Baylor St. -
Linda Lefebvre 7040 SW Baylor 3t.
Gene E. Jackson 7045 `JtV Clinton St.
Robert vinkler 11745 SLI 70th Ave.
Huth Salimena 7100 S11 Baylor St. l
f John Salimena 7100 SW Baylor St.
Luella Winkler 11745 S.V Baylor St.
' tairiam Dahn 6835 SW Clinton St.
j John Dahn 6835 SW Clinton St.
Ada Shiley 11600 a'++V 69th Ave. f
Lawrence E. Greene 6830 SW Haines St.
i Delores D. Greene 6830 SW Haines St.
Arden L. Peters 7135 SW Clinton St.
Shirley S. Peters 71.35 SW Clinton St. i
James D. Buehler 7175 314 Baylor St.
Melissa S. Buehler 7175 SW Baylor St.
Al Thomas 7135 SW Baylor St.
June Thomas 7135 SlV Baylor St.
Caree Beniston 11570 sa 69th Ave..
Chris Beniston 11570 SLP 69th Ave,
Lavida E. Miller 6870 SW Baylor St.
a George Nordling 7105 SW
Elmhurst St.
Sudie E. Tommy 7120 SW Gonzaga St..
Bob L. Tommy 7120 SW Gonzaga St.
JoAnne Nordlin€, 7105 SIN Elmhurst St.
Neal Djt%dton 7025 S+,J Gonzaga St.
Velma L3. Zeek 7060 s ',-J Beveland St.
Linda Dorton 7075 SW Clinton St.
Charlie Dorton 7075 SW Clinton St.
Jacqueline F. Byles 6860 S51 Haines St.
uteven lip. White 6940 SYJ Baylor St.
oanice t/hite 6940 S[V Baylor St.
&:ichael. Gordon 7086 S5: Beveland St.
Christopher D. Shaver 7040 S111 Elmhurst St.
Priscilla Ditter 7070 SU Elmhurst St.
Ditter' 7070 S'd Elmhurst St.
9Sichael 1:. Andrus 7155 SW Beveland St.
Lonnie 11alferty 7015 SW Clinton St.
tl
• Page 2 of 2
Rerty owners listed below have j
E~ J The Tigard Triangle prp
signed petitions opposing R-25 zonin,i
i
IVAf i ADDH!LI3S
i Jill A. Serivner 7115 N'ti Beveland St.
lion L. Scrivner 7115 S.l Beveland St. c,
Anne Leiser 7021 SrI Baylor St.
Roy R. Rogers 12700 Sig 72nd Ave.
1 Evelyn 0. Beach 11,930 SYJ 72nd Ave.
1 M. Jean Gieszler 7070 Sh' Gonzaga St.
Li Jim Baker 7075 SW Gonzaga St. f
Leona Bordenkircher 7105 SW Gonzaga St.
Fred L. Harris 11540 SW 70th Ave.
Cynthia J. Brooks 7085 Sod Beveland St. E
} David A. Brooks 7085 :S11 Beveland St. f
Dayle Beach 11530 Ssa 72nd Ave.
Gordon S. Partin 12265 SW, 72nd Ave.
Joan Jacober 7110 SW Clinton St. ri
Mary &ianley 7435 Sfd Rermosa 'St.
1-_athy Godfrey 7435 Std Hermosa St.
Lester Jacober 7110 SW Clinton St.
Don Pollack 1834 3sJ 58th Ave.. Portland k' 1
Yichael Schaefer 6775 SSd Clinton St. f
.1 Dean Smith 11705 SW 68th Ave. E.:
Robert S. Hogg 6860 564 Clinton St.
Harriet L. Hogg 6860 Sod Clinton St. rj
G. :'red Warden 3900 Portland Rd., Newberg
Carl H. Johnson 8965 Siff Burnham St.
J. T. Roth, Jr. 12300 3:v 69th Ave.
Jennie Larson 11720 SW 68th Pkwy.
JoAnn winters 19000 :.;47 iJcCormick hill, Hillsboro
_ Kenneth L. Reusser 17345 i'vJ Reusser Ct., Beaverton
Gertrude G. Reusser 17345 SW Reusser Ct., Beaverton (-r
Donald Scheckla 21885 S'ai Scholls, Sherwood
Lucille Scheckla 21885 SW Scholls, Sherwood
Ken Rosenfeld 11930 Ssl 70th Ave.
Owen Housel 9289 S5i Club Meadow Ln.
Cecil Jones 12190 ~.c 69th Ave.
Donna K. Jones 12190 Se 69th Ave.
i Yrs. Mildred Perry 8439 56,1 61st Ave. r`
Bill. Steinberg 8310 SINJ 10th Ave.
Janine M. Jensen 2736 9;alibu 4'ay, Eugene
Stephen A. Clair 11565 Lm 66th Ave.
Western Evangelical Sam. 12753 S'uJ 68th Ave.
Eldon F. Baurer 11800 SW 69th Ave.
Ramona Baurer 11800 SW 69th Ave.
i Sharon Moore 11710 Sid 69th Ave.
Glenn :,',core 11710 St9 69th Ave.
Stephen W. leirce 12525 Sind 63th Ave.
Lucille L. Vasey 1602 NE 40th Ave., Iortland
Grey Sammons 6950 jW Alden Ct., Portland `
Stephen Kroo 11930 Sr 72nd Ave.
Darlene A. Landon 6210 SW River Rd., Hillsboro
' Kathleen D. h'ulwiler 15510 Lakeside Dr., Rockaway
Paul B. Vdagar 6980 SW Baylor St.
Kaneko ::agar 6980 S4 Baylor Ut.
l Louise Stewart 11990 S'V 72nd Ave..
Donald Stewart 11990 S,d 72nd Ave.
John Connet 11810 S,11 72nd Ave.
{ Jane Connet 11810 SW 72nd Ave.
Steven C. Rand 7540 St`1 Y,ermoso 'S`ay
David Sloan 7355 SV9 Beveland St.
_ Mary C. Lewis 11860 SW 72nd Ave.
i Jason C. Lyman 7395 SW Hermoso Way
4
11
F
t j+
i ~ ~
F
E PACt T lC:ENMR, SUITES 1600-1950
1411 SOUnIWEiS'I' FIF111 "ENUE ■ PORTLAND, OREGON 17204-3795
l TELEpKON _ M 2r-99331 ■ FAX: 503 796290 ■ T''Y.EX 6937535 SWK U1
PC
`i ATTORNEYS AT LAW
KAIMN V- LAW
November 21, 1994
j f
Tigard Planning Commission
13125 S.W. Ball Boulevard _
Tigard, OR 97223
s
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA 94°0002, Zone Change
ZON 94-0002 Work Session
Dear Commissioners:
This office represents Donald E: and Julia Gail
Pollock, and Richard L. Carpenter, who own a substantial portion
of the land in the Tigard Triangle which was proposed to be
rezoned to a less intensive use by the planning staff at the City
of Tigard in their recent application to the Planning
Commission.' Most of the land which is proposed to be
11downzoned,11 is also located within the Dartmouth Road LID,
formed in 1983 for the building of the Dartmouth Road. As
discussed below,. the Pollocks and Carpenters oppose any plan.
amendments or zone changes which change the zoning desiginations
in the Tigard Triangle to a less intensive use. To the contrary,
Pollocks and Carpenters support an 11upzoning" of land in the
Tigard Triangle, from residential or commercial professional to
commercial general, to foster the Triangles current commercial
development.
The application for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and zone change is an atypical request, because it originates
with the planning staff, not landowners. The Planning Commission
should scrutinize carefully any request by the City staff to
engage itself in land lase planning at this level, especially when
the staff just completed periodic review through LCDC, and made
no efforts to amend the plan maws or zoning for the Tigard
Triangle in that arena, where such a change is appropriate.
' 'The Pollock and Pollock/Carpenter land is situated on
either side of Dartmouth Road between 72nd and 70th Airenues.
FOMAND OAT= VANCOUVER WASIiiN M4
oR=N • WAffiIit1 aWN • WASIIQSaMN • DMMCr OF COLUMEM
21V81 ~6M4168 266*7= 704M (5Win21"WWr2M/ELU/554541.1)
t
Tigard Planning'C6mmission
t November 21, 1994
Page 2 .
Pirot, the Planning Commission likely does not have the
authority-to conduct this work session or redraft the proposal
for a zone change in the Tigard Triangle. The City of Tigard
Planning staff's application to /Adownzone51 the Tigard Triangle
(based on the Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan) was rejected by
{ the Tigard Planning Commission in an 8 to 0 vote: on July.18,
1994. Under CDC 18.32.090.U, the Planning Commission had the- f
authority to conduct a public hearing on a quasi-judicial
comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change and to approve,
deny, or approve with conditions the application. In particular,
for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map and zoning amendment
"[T]he Commission's function shall be limited to a recommendation
<i to the Council. CDC 18.32.090.D.2.a. The Planning Commission ~:II
has exercised the extent of its authority by denying the
applicant's proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning map
amendments. Its function now is to merely recommend that denial
to the City Council. The Commission does not have the authority
to conduct work sessions to refine and rework the applicants'
proposed zone and plan map amendments.
Under CDC 18.32.160.B.10 the Planning commission must
make a decision on the application pursuant to 18.32.250 or take
- the matter under advisement pursuant to 18.32.180. Taking a
matter under advisement means continuing the hewing to gather r
additional evidence, consider the application fully or give
additional notice. The Planning Commission did continue the
hearing on the application once:, but at the conclusion of that f
hearing the Planning Commission made a final decision on the
application by voting to oppose it 8 to 0. Thus, the Planning
Commission should have prepared a statement of denial in a form
addressing the requirements of subsection 18.32.060.A.3.b. CDC
18.32.250. In violation of the Community Development-Code, the ;
City of Tigard has not submitted a final written decision denying
the application for the proposed zone and plan map amendment
changes. CDC 18.32.250.
The applicant for the zone change, the Tigard planning
staff, have made no attempt to appeal the 8 to 0 vote of the
Commission to deny their application.a CDC 18.32.300. The
Planning Commission's authority is limited to that granted in the
Community Development Code. Thus, the Planning commission's sole
authority was to make a decision to deny the application, or take
the matter under advisement. Since the Planning commission made
its decision, it is outside its scope of authority to further
consider the zone and plan map amendments.
ZIt is not clear that the staff would have standing to
appeal, even if they had attempted an appeal; Pollocks and
Carpenters deny that the staff have such standing.
_raxuiisasar.m>
SCHWABa WWYATT
r
Tigard Planning Commission
November 21, 1994
Page 3
second, the work session is inappropriate now, because
the staff cannot submit a new proposal for downzoning the ~
Triangle for at least twelve months. k
Under CDC 18.32.290.A, "An application which has been
s denied May not b0 resubmitted for -n sue. or a
subs .a i s' m ra as for-the same s st
p milar fiction fct° period of at least twe vb_ r nths from
date the final city acticsn s made dept' Lp _ -he acp~ iraticn useless
there is a substantial change in the facts or a change in city
policy which would change the outcome." Although the City failed
to write a final decision, it did deny the application for a zone
change at the planning Commission level in a unanimous vote, and
failed to :recommend the zoning and plan map amendment changes to
the City Council. The applicant has made no appeal of this.
.,i process. Thus, the application is denied and pursuant to its own
Community Development Code, the City of Tigard cannot resubmit
this plan or a substantially similar plan to the City Council for
_ twelve months after this final denial of the application, barring '
some substantial change in the facts or City policy. Since there
is no written final decision, the date should be calculated from
the date that final order is adopted. `
Even if this matter is properly before the commission,
f
_ Pollocks and Carpenters strongly oppose any reduction in the
zoning in the Tigard Triangle as stated in the letters of wren {
K. Lana to the Tigard Planning Commission dated June 120, 1994 and
July 5, 1994. In summary of those letters, any t=downzoning4°
- ' plazas will fail to meet section 13.22.040 of the Tigard Community
Development Code governing quasi-judicial zone changes. There is
no set of facts which can support a downzone of the Tigard
Triangle to meet the recpaired criteria that there is a public
' need for the zone change and that such a need is best served by
changing the classification on the properties in question.3 In
addition, the "downzoning" of the Pollocks,' and Carpenters,
property, which is located within the Dartmouth Street
improvement LID, is inconsistent with the planning, formation,
and assessment of that local improvement district.
The Tigard Triangle has been primarily zoned for and k
designed for commercial development since the Comprehensive Plan
was first adopted in the early 1980s. since the construction of
the Dartmouth toad, which removed the Tigard Comprehensive Plan's
prohibition on development ,4 commercial development has taken off
3b'~~,anC1 Board of County Cg dssig13g, g of W f3~ll ~t Q,~
C _unty, 264 or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973).
' 'The Tigard Comprehensive Plan provides in section 11.4.2.
that, 11[i]n the Tigard Triangle described its Policy 11.4.1, lba-se
shall F
parcels designated fog an co develoi3me
via= WMMMMM ~WYATr ~~W6!lJaSS~S!?a273PL{L8a1s&S4Ai.7)
F
Tigard Planning Commission
November 21, 1994
'Page 4
in the Tigard Triangle. In less than one year since the road was
completed, the Cub Foods Center has been fully constructed
including a Petsmart store, a pending sale for O'fficeMax, and one '
other building pad currently for sale; Costco has built its store
and is open for business; and several other large pads for these
type.of "box" stores have been cleared and are on the market.
E The'Dartmouth Road has been widened at some points to five lanes k.
-for this commercial development after the Planning Commission and
staff determined that a three lane Dartmouth Road was inadequate.
Exhibit A. In addition to the new "box's store development, the
Triangle is already hone to such large commercial sites as
Landmark Ford to the east and Tigard Cinemas to the north. F.
in addition, all indications in the Tigard Triangle are
twat the residential developments are going away to commercial
{ development. Many homes were cleared for Cub Foods, site. ~
Residential landowners have overwhelmingly opposed a reduction in
the zoning in the Tigard Triangle toward more residential
development. Rather, most landowners seek to retain their
current zoning, or even 00upzoneB3 their property, if necessary, to
professional or commercial development so the landowners can sell
their property at a high enough value to find a replacement home
in another residential community. The only school located within B
the Tigard Triangle, Phil Lewis, is leaving the Tigard Triangle,
and it too seeks to sell its property for commercial development
in accordance with its current zoning.
Fourth, if the City proceeds to "downzone'® Pollocks'
and Carpenters' property located east of 72nd Avenue, in accord
with the Tigard Triangle Concept Plan, there is a serious
constitutional flaw upon which that decision would rest. The
Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan was not adopted, but used by
the City of Tigard in making planning, development decisions.
ge-, for example, the letter of Carol Landsman to Donald E. ~
Pollock, 19I am sending you a copy of the Dartmouth Street Concept
Plan for your information and review. his plan will not be
adon•ted by city nol4cv boards° it will be used by e:ity staff in
' project review. . ~o Exhibit B.
Essentially, certain staff at the City of Tigard
determined that it granted the property east of 72nd Avenue to be
rezoned into a mixed use residential/professional development,
and developed plans to support their decision. When the
Dartmouth Street Plan was conducted, the engineers used the
proposed Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan as if it were fully
adopted, in order to base its projections on traffic circulation
and street use. The Specific Area Plan, in turn, was used on
proposed traffic circulation in accord with the Specific Area.
_ i
o
If--not alregdv s de elo
ay loiOL_.f_9r
j connector rdescribina Dartaaoa~t Roadl be constructed.
1 ScHwrAaa WmLwj=N WYATr
i
~
1 Tigard Panning Commission
November 21, 1994
Page S
Plan. Thus, the Tigard Triangle Concept plan and.the Traffic
Circulation Study confirmed each other's proposals that Dartmouth
Road east of 72nd would be a small, three lane road to serve the s
proposed residential development. Dartmouth Road west of 72nd
was deemed to be adequate as three lanes at that time, but
further expansion was expected in the future.
The Pollocks' and Carpenters' rights were prejudiced
i when the City of Tigard planning staff, without notice or
hearing, and in accord only with the unadopted Specific Area Flan
'j Tigard Triangle Concept Plan allowed Dartmouth Road west of 72nd
Avenue to be widened to five lanes. When a representative for F
Donald Pollock asked that the road be widened to five lanes east
of 72nd in front of the Pollock/Carpenter properties, the staff
at the City of Tigard said that such a widening would not be
allowed because it was not in accord with the Tigard Triangle
Specific Area Plan.
s The Tigard Planning Commission entered a final order on C'
November 24, 1993 in which the Planning Commission adopted an
} "after the fact" order on the widening of the road. As noted in
that order:
i
It became apparent that what was being built
by the LID would not only be inadequate, but
that the curbs, street lighting, sidewalks,
storm draining system and landscaping would
have to be rebuilt or relocated or otherwise
disrupted in order to widen the street. An
obvious better choice would be to allow the
street to be widened now, and the curbs,
sidewalks, street trees, etc. be placed where
they ultimately would be when the entire road
section was widened.
A plain was devised:, therefore, to widen
Dartmouth between 72nd and the site entrance
with an additional westbound lane . . .
i The tim n was such that the City staff could
not schedule a nublic hearing or otherwise
involve the Planning Commission. Therefore.
'theta£f deeded to allow the wJl enA$g and
1 thgLa eresiaest that the Planning Compsion
amend the condltion to re l.ept what he
E getually been built.
As a result of this maneuvering, which deprived the i
Pollocks and Carpenters of notice and a hearing on the issue of
whether Dartmouth Road should have been widened to give-lanes
SCHWAM WULLAMMN & WYATr (SW%V2/ 1ELUt584541.1) -
. r
k -
y
{
i '
Tigard Planning Commission
F' November 21, 1994
i Page 6 b
west of 72nd. Avenue, Dartmouth Road is now a five-lane road west
of 72nd and a mere three-lane road east of 72nd. This
discourages traffic from traveling on the road directly in front
A of the Pollocks' and Carpenters' property, and thus will reduce
its commercial value. Clearly, the actions of the planning staff
,i. to approve road widening without notice and hearing and the f
Planning Commission's "after the fact" approval violated the due
process rights of the Pollocks and Carpenters.
a
If further action is taken by the Planning Commission
to "downzone°' the Pollocks' and Carpenters' properties in accord
with the street system now built (that is, since the street is
only three lanes in front of the Pollocks' and Carpenters'
property, it is more appropriate for residential/office
development than the five lane sections of the street), then the
error of the Tigard Planning commission will be compounded. The
Planning Commission should not compound its prior wrongs to the E
Pollocks and Carpenters by allowing any "downzoning" of the
Pollocks' and Carpenters' property.
Thus, for all the reasons stated in the letters of k'
Karen K. Law to the Tigard Planning Commission dated June 20,
1994 and July 5, 1994, and all of the reasons stated above, the E_
Tigard Planning Commission should not engage in any downzoning of
the Tigard Triangle's current zoning. Rather, in light of the
development of the Tigard Triangle since the construction of the
Dartmouth Road and the strenuous objections to "downzoning" by #
all almost all of the residential and commercially zoned land
owners as well as the Phil Lewis School, the Planning Commission
should consider rezoning the residential and commercial
professional portions of the Tigard Triangle up to general
commercial.
Very truly yours,
Karen naAw
KKL/ls
r
i
a
i
j
r:
t
~ (5421 XUiSR4S43S)
SCHWA= WWYA?T
{ . IV,
CITY OF TIGARD
{ Washington, County r
- - NOTICE OF FINKL ORDER - BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Concerning Case Nu r(s)z SLUR 3-002/PDB 93-0001
2. Name of Owner: 8 u.MV91ez H0 dings. Ync.
City of Tigard -
Name of Applicant:
-;r
3. Address 13125 SW -all Blvd. 'City mi„raard - - State OR Zip 97223 `
• 4
4. Address of Property: 7500 SW Dartmouth Blvd. i
Tax Hap and Lot No(s).: 1S1 36DC, tax lot 600, 2500. and 2501
~°tion of ISI 36CD. tax lot 2000r and a Dortion of 2S2 IBA, tax lots
4
100 and 100
5. Request: To amend condition of approval 011 in the March 25, 1993 ~
Planning Commission Final Order, thereby allowing the
westbound lane of SW Dartmouth Street from 72nd to the site
entrance to be constructed by the developer. APPLICA3L€ k
FXVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32,
18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.103, and 18.120.
ZONE: C-G and C-G (PD) (General Commerciale Planned
Development) The C-G zoning designation allows public
agency and administrative services, public support
facilities, professional and administrative services,
3 financial, insurance, and real estate services, business
i support services, eating and drinking establishments,
j general retail sales, and single-family residential units
1 among other uses. -
J 6. Action: Approval as requested
X Approval with conditions
Denial i
7. Rotice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted: at City Hall,
and mailed to:
i
X The applicant and owner(s)
` X owners of record within the required distance
X She affected Citizen Involvement Turn
Facilitator
X Affected governmental agencies
4
8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON December 6, 1993 I
UNLESS AN APP=AL IS FILED.
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can
be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW
Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
9. ARpeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in
accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that
a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and
sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied
by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costa, (varies up to a -
maximum of $500.00).
The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. December 6„,_1993
10. Questions: if you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
Planning Department, 639-45171.
i '
OF WARD PLANNING cobMSSION
FINAL. ORDER NO. 9.1-16 PC
X 4
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CH APPROVES
AN AppLICATiON FOR AN AM~NDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
.,,HE CUB FOODS SHOPPING PLkZA. (SDR9 )
ilbii'aS D UPON
The Tigard planning commission has reviewed the above application at a public hearing
on November 15, 1993. The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and ~
conclusions noted below. E .
DE AnED APPLICATION DEs ON
On March 22nd;1993 the planning Commission approved the Final Order for the proposed
Costco site development plan. Condition #11 of that approval stated contained the following
3 note: "rhe street improvements shall be as described in the applicants' preliminary plan
t
submittal dated March 1, 1993 except that sidewalks shall be separated from the curbs and
the additional Dartmouth Street westbound lane from SW 72nd Avenue to the site entrance
shall be omitted".
Page 19 of the Final Order on which condition #11 is found, along with the section of the
final order dealing with the street width of Dartmouth, is attached as exhibit A.
At that time, the City was in the process of conducting a transportation and land use
analysis of the Triangle, working with O'TAK and ITS consultants. It was thought, at that
time, that a full five lanes may not be needed for several years, or not at all, and particularly
if the land uses were to be changed. In addition, since the Planning Commission and City
Council had indicated support for introducing a significant number of residential units into
the Triangle, it seemed appropriate to try to keep the street width to the minimum
j
necessary in order to foster a more pedestrian oriented environment. So at the least, it
a seemed premature to allow the street to be built with another westbound lane from 72nd
to the site entrance. F
Since that decision in March, additional analysis has been completed, and it is now apparent
' that with the build out of the Triangle, Dartmouth will need to be widened to five lanes
i between 72nd and 99W to be able to handle the traffic. Further, the five lane width was
shown to be necessary even if the land uses were changed to be more in accordance with
the land use "Concept flan" or the 'Specific Plan" ideas. The key factors were not so much
the volume of traffic, but the weaving and turning traffic movements between different
properties in this area, and the cuvzhnear nature of Dartmouth Street. (See Exhibit 1W).
FINAL ORDER 93-..1fi PC - CUB FOODS SHOPPING PLAZA PAGE 1
EXHIBIT
PkGE w--~--`
i
1 meanwhile, construction of a three law Dartmouth commenced under a Local Improvement
District. The LID was building a sweet three lanes wide, with curbs and str:;et lights, but not
' sidewaLks. Further, the Dartmouth lu, dscaping plan called for the sidewalks to be set back
seven feet from the curb, with street trees planted between the curb and the sidewalk.
It became apparent that what was being built by the LID would not only be inadequate, but
that the curbs, street lighting, sit storm drdinage system and landscaping would have
be reN uilt or relocated or otherwise disrupted in order to widen the street. An obvious
better choice would be to allow the street to be widened now, and the curbs, sidewalks,
j street trees etc. be placed where they ultimately would.be when the entire road section was 4
widened. C
A plan was devised, therefore, to widen Dartmouth between 72nd and the site entrance with
an additional westbound lane, doing so through a change to the contract. The extra cost
would be charged directly to SuperValue, outside of the ~3 project. (At the same time, F
Costco asked, and the City weed, to alloy an additional lane along much of the frontage
of their property through the sauce mechanism).
For the rest of the frontage of Cub Foods, the sidewalk and landscaping will be located to
accommodate a future widening, which will most likely be constructed under a separate I.M.
(Cub Foods has already signed a non-remonstrance agreement guaranteeing their
participation in a funire I.M.
1
l The landscaping strip will still be seven. (7') feet wide, thanks to an additional two (21) foot
easement granted to the City by SuperValu.
The only problem with that approach was the condition of approval noted above. Condition
11 specifically omitted the westbound lane. !7be timing was such that the City staff could
not schedule a public hearing or otherwise involve the Planning Commission. Therefore, the
staff decided to allow the widening, and then request that the Planning Commission amend
the condition to reflect what has actually-been built.
PROCEDURE:
j
In order to amend the final order, the Planning Commission needs to open the hearing, hear
testimony, if any, and snake a decision on whether or not to amend the condition in the final
i order. Then the Chairperson will sign an amended final order.
RECD PaDATION:
It is recommended that the condition be amended to read:
"11. Standard street improvements, including concrete sidewalk separated from the curb,
driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, storm drainage, streetlights, and
FINAL ORDER 93: -Jk PC ° CUB FOODS SHOPPM PLAZA PAGE 2
- t.
t
PAGE
underground utilities shall be installed along the SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth
Street frontages. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to major Cilector r
- street itandards and shall conform to the alignment of ° ting adjacent
huprovements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. NO :
The street improvements shall be as described in the applicants' pre ` ° Y plan
submittal dated March 1, 1993 except that sidewalks shall be separated from curbs ~
and the additional Dartmouth Street westbound lane wrest of the site entrance shall
be omitted at this time. In the futaare, additional widening of or other improve scents
to Dartmouth may be required.
It-is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order.
PA.SS : This Z4, Prday of November, 1993, by the Planning Commission of the City of f
Tigard.
r
-7s K-M
Harry Saport,~ Acttrag President
Tigard Planning Commission
Sa 11ThoMY6 s✓
'n . S .
%
i ~c $J96 ~ L..~ 57113 ~ .
~ 1 1a i
I' s
.IY
xw. 4v IpP@w ~sTw$$P `
i • /
I a
SA'T'E
e RHINSLIA
a ,.T
FQ
.9 ttll> E$YS4fh@
t
FINAL ORDER 93-.1¢ PC - FOODS SHOPPING PLAZA' PAGE 3
- ~'~144e~1'f
I
I
~ F-
j' r F
1 .
F
CITY OF TIGARE),
A OREGON
Y
J
March 16, 1994 EXHIBIT
7
Don E. Pollock E
<a 1834 Sid 58th Ave., x#202
Portland, OR 97221-1436
i
RE: Dartmouth Street Concept Plan
g am sending you a copy of the Dartmouth Street
R .
Concept Plan for your information and re-rzevv This
plan will not be adopted by city policy boards; it will
be used by city staff in project review as will
information an applicant submits.
If you have any comments or questions, please feel free
r
to contact me.
Sincerely,
j Carol A. Landsman
Senior Planner
1 Enclosures (1)
a
i
Ex"I81T 6
13125 SW Nall Blvd.. Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684=2772 ;
i7; JC
SC ~t ' cc f~'C?' LrY' u pqr, GI C~'
y
- 7405 S.W. Beveland Rd. `
Tigard, OR 97223
November 3, 1994
t
City Council - - -
F
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
' Please accept my petition regarding the Tigard Triangle zoning plan and Phil Lewis
s
School. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 624-8276.
Sincerely,
Bill Erdle
s
0/-7*
r.
K
Petition To Save''he Beveland ~ Hermeso Nea hborhood
We, the undersiped, mquest City Council to implement the TigardTriangle zoning plans regarding Phil
Lewis Grade School and not allow Phil Lewis Grade School to remain zoned general commercial,
,i
} NAME ADDRESS SIGHA TUBE DATE k
17
• ~e=O
-7
, ~51
w
d~~,. ~ ~~rt~•so 1~l~ ~ P a~. X19 y
Y
{ f
f
1
1
3 f- _
3
f
12 Nei&hborhood
j Petition To Say be Beveland / e~•a~ao
t, t
We, the undersigned, request City Council to implement the Tigard Triangle zo:~iing plans regarding Pail
Lewis Grade School and riot allow Phil Lewis Grade School to remain zoned general commercial. i
a NAINlC ra.DDB SS SIGNATURE DATE f
r
s
°rl 61 cw ot,. l- a c? -7
Of M4
r
'i
i
:.j
s - -
i
f
f
1
RECEIVED
NOV 3 01994
MICHAEL BREWIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~
9955 SW Fable St., Tigard, OR 97224 [
Tel/Fax (503) 6:39-5016 =
November 29, 1994
Attn: Cathy Wheatley ;
To: Tigard City Council E
L. '
- Dear Mayor and City Councilors:
I am writing concerning an indepth and conscientious council review of all
considerable pending (and future) propo: als in the Tigard Triangle area.
As an East CIT facilitator since 1993, i have had to study on-going
development issues and facilitate meetings involving diverse groups with
different self-interests and agendas. Accordingly, I would like to share some
j observations with you.
Regarding the Gordon. Martin property plan, generally speaking, I support the
- ? private property rights of Mr. Martin to develop his land within the zoning
parameters, although the preservation of more trees and wetlands (in careful
compliance with official guidelines) might be preferable.
r
I am more concerned, however, with the certainty of critically serious traffic k
problems along both Highway 99W and SW 72nd Ave., at the intersection of
Dartmouth and Highway 99W, and at the 72nd-99W intersection. 72nd Ave
is already the source of major traffic jams, owing to the ramps off I-5, the
influx of new businesses and subsequent traffic south of Bonita Rd., and
{ especially the Act III cinemas, Cub Foods site, etc. near the junction with 99W.
j Highway 99W is also operating at capacity during a number of hours daily.
Given this situation, are present proposals and suggestions pertaining to this
specific area, once implemented, going to be adequate to handle and direct
traffic for the next few decades, or are the current ideas (including a signal and
some turning lanes) merely band-aids that will not effectively deal with a
projected increase of many thousands of vehicles daily in the immediate area,
as the direct impact of particular development?
An inadequate traffic plan will only serve to greatly exacerbate problems on
99W and 72nd, thereby harming local businesses and creating gross
inconveniences and commuting obstacles for local citizens. With significant
development projected for the Tigard Triangle, it will surely become
necessary to widen 72md Ave., at great cost, too. However, the TIF will only
cover about 25% of the cost. Should 32,000 Tigard citizens and existing
businesses be forced to subsidize (through taxes) the introduction of large,
out-of-state, private enterprises, and the community logistical problems and
i
costs entailed? [That's corporate "welfare" - socialism!] Additionally, to
what extent is the City of Tigard insisting (via ordinances) that large
developments be held accountable for adequate security on their premises,
y too, so that our police department is not unduly burdened by the creation of r
public nuisances (focussed areas of criminal activities) - and consequently
o hampered from serving the rest of our citizens? These are serious questions -
for which the Tigard City Council must bear accountability.
I would also like to share sorne observations about the Tigard Triangle plan
and possible zoning changes. Professional Tigard city staff members carefully
j researched and brainstormed this subject, before presenting their
:w recommendations to the planning commission. With the recent
introduction of huge conglomerate francl-ises/outlets into the Triangle, an
infectious epidemic of greed has apparently taken hold of some area t
residents' senses, with no evident concern for the overall good of the
community. Accordingly, I feel called upon to draw attention to overriding
civic concerns. For many months, concerns consensually expressed at East Y
CIT meetings revolved around traffic improvements, greenspaces, pedestrian
paths, business access, safety issues, gangs, etc.. Late last summer, when a
i mixed-use, planning revision was listed for discussion on the agenda, a very '
vocal and organized faction of some Triangle residents began to appear at and
dominate the CIT meetings. In the course of exercising their rights, they
expressed their opinions that no changes be made, because they wished to sell
' their homes and properties at the highest possible prices and move out of the !
area. Again, their plainly expressed views involved maximizing profits on
the sale of their properties, not any other civic considerations.
j
During the months when this group predominated at the CIT meetings, the
majority of the rest of the regular CIT members stopped attending the
monthly meetings altogether. This faction then voted and drafted letters, l
which might have given the addressees the impression that this group
somehow represented the entire East CIT, instead of a few dozen persons
intent on mercenary gain. This faction also attended planning commission
g meetings and succeeded in getting the original plan revision rescinded.
t
While obviously understanding the concern of anyone wanting to sell
property at the highest possible price (who wouldn'tM, I call upon the
council to consider the best, long-term interests of a community that will
have 5(},000+ citizens presently. No matter what happens in the Tigard
Triangle, it is for the good, of the entire community that there be some kind of
unified plan, that there be some mixed uses specified in designated areas, that
there be parkways, sidewalks, bikepaths, wetlands, parks, and plenty of trees,
and that the routing of future traffic be amply provided for. Surely, future
generations of Tigard citizens will judge the present ones harshly, if city
officials do not immediately ensure and configure present and future
- livability and quality of life factors into the equation of city growth
r
?i
i
The time is past when the City of Tigard could ignore the unforeseen and ~
undesirable consequences of haphazard growth. Is this going to remain a city E
'4
that responds belatedly, ineffectively, and infamously to challenges, or rather
become a city that finally and vigorously embraces a pro-active vision of i
quality of life - for the betterment and preservation of the entire community?
Thank you for your careful attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
i Al
Michael Srewin
~ f.
S
t
ti
{ .
C
j
i
F
c
tip- 54T. VA a
E
~ 12/16/94 ~
Dear Ms. Hawley,
I am a resident of the Tigard Triangle. I are very ~
concerned that the City Council may resurrect the re-zoning
plan the City planners unanimously rejected.
j I see the plan having major faults and potential
problems. Those being the re-zoning to R25 and R35 and the
the results of increased population that would follow if
such development did occur. Considering that land prices for
high-density development are one third to one half that of
commercial professional or commercial and even less than
j residential property, it is unlikely that Triangle residents
j would sell. We couldn't even of-Ford to relocate in
i comparable housing elsewhere. That being the case, why would '
sell? Therefore, we stay here and little developdaent
would result. Everything remains at a standstill. The same t
being the case with large landholders, they are less likely
to sell for such low prices. If some did sell, and large 'g
apartments moved in, our property would be worth less. What ~.3.
a mess' Worthless property surrounded by, what looks like,
unplanned neighborhoods. Eventually the housing around here
would turn into all rentals, we all know what that does to
1 the appearance of an area.
If all went according to the proposed plan, apartments
were built, people moved into then, and the population grows s
accordingly' 'here is what I see happening. T traffic
increases, the air quality decreases, the noise goes up, the
quality of life goes down. Here we are again in a place
where no one wants to live. A place surrounded by some of
the busiest freeways and streets in Oregon, where some, large
businesses are already located, and there will be no schools
I in the immediate area. People don't stay in places like
that.
Use the existing roads and freeways to support t
business. Turn this area into a center for commerce and {
i allow property values to escalate. Give Tigard a center, a
place to generate revenue, something that looks planned. Use
high architectural standards and planning. Include parks and
greenways.. Create a place where people want to shop and
work. Put residences in areas where people want to live, not
here. Allow us to recover enough from our property to
relocate incomparable, comfortable hosmes, and allow Tigard
to grow not just get bigger.
Si erely,_
" Steven M. White
Janice White
Kelsy White i
Ryan White L~ ~
f
i
122/ 16/94
Dear Mr. Scheckla,
t'
I am a resident of the Tigard Triangle. I are very
concerned that the City Council may resurrect the re-zoning
plan the City Planners unanimously rejected.
I see the plan having major faults and potential
problems. Those being the re-zoning to P_25 and R35 and the {
the results of increased population that would follow if ~
such development did occur. Considering that land prices for
high-density development are one third to one half that of F-
commercial professional or commercial and even less than
' residential property, it is unlikely that Triangle residents r
1 would sell. We couldn't even afford to relocate in
'i comparable housing elsewhere. That being the case, why would f
we sell=' Therefore, we stay here and little development
would result. Everything remains at a standstill. The same
being the case with large landholders, they are less likely
' to sell for such low prices. If some did sell, and large
apartments moved in, our property would be worth less. What
a mess! Worthless property surrounded by, what looks like,
unplanned neighborhoods. Eventually the housing around here ~
• would turn into all rentals, we all know what that does to
the appearance of an area.
If all went according to the proposed plan, apartments
were built, people moved into them, and the population grows Q
accordingly, here is what I see happening. The traffic s
increases, the air quality decreases, the noise goes up, the F
quality of life goes down. Here we are again in a place
where no one wants to live. A place surrounded by some of
the busiest -Freeways and street in Oregon, where some large
businesses are already located, and there will be no schools
in the immediate area. People don't stay in places like
that.
Use the existing road- and freeways to support
business. Turn this area into a center- for commerce and
i allow property values to escalate. Give Tigard a center, a
f
}glace to generate revenue, something that looks planned. Use
f high architectural standards and planning. Include parks and
j crsenwaa.'s. Create a place where people want to shop and
work. Put residences in a:rea_, where people went to live, not
hera. allow L:s to recover enough from our property to
i relocate in comparable, comfortable homes. and allow Tigard
to grow not just get bigger.
`y
;;+'e res y,
j
~ Steven M. White
ani_s :shits
I.
I.Elsy White
a - Ryan W hi to 1
I
Y
i i
11530 Sid 72nd Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223
December 18, 1994
'Mayor Jim Nicoll
1059x4 SW Windsor Ct.
Tigard, OR 97223
- Dear Mayor Nicoli:
We residents of.the Triangle are faced with a very serious i
problem. That problem is DOWN-ZONING. Our property values
will be totally destroyed if the Tigard Triangle specific
area plan is put into effect.
PLEASE LISTEN TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY!
To veep this on an objective level rather than on a person-
s al level, I will use my neighbor's property as an example.
They have a house on about a 15,000 square foot lot. Their
tax assessment appraisal is about $130,000.
Now it is proposed that their property be rezoned from R-3.5
(single family) to R-25 (multiple family residential). Do
you have any idea ghat devastating effect that change would
have on them?
I kid you not! They would only be able to sell their prop-
erty at a maximpm of $3.00 per square foot if R-25 were put
into effect. Note that 15,000 X $3.00 = $45,000. (Their
house would have no monetary value-whatsoever). NOW GET
THIS! Their $140,000 property could only be sold for
$45,000. That is a LOSS of about 95 OOO as a result of R-25
zoning. Furthermore, they tell me that $45,000 would not
r
a even cover their present mortgage.
What would be the long range effect of zoning some 56 acres l
as R-25? Homeowners simply could not afford to sell at such
a low price because their replacement home would need to be
much cheaper and far worse. Their homes in the Triangle
would steadily deteriorate because to put money into their
homes would be.like putting money down a rat hole from an
investment standpoint. The area would steadily decline into
a slum over tlhe years. So who would benefit from R-25 zoning?
! Absolutely no one.
I request a response to this letter, and I would particu-
i
larly like-far you to answer the following questions-
I,
3 1. Would YOU be willing to sell your present home at [
$3.00 per square foot of land area? (Just remember F-,
your house is worth nothing in this sale).
4
}
1
2. Would YOU tie willing to have your neighborhood rezoned
as R-25 for any "good', reason?
3~ If your answers to the above questions are:"no", then
could YOU in any good conscience force R-25 zoning on
our neighborhood?
Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. °
1
tt i;
9 Yours truly,
94
Dayle Beach
r
P.S. An identical letter was sent to each of the City Council
members.
- q-
t:
ii
t ~ y F
3
4
i
11530 SW 72nd Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223
December 18, 1994
Councilor Ken Scheckla
10890 -SW Fairhaven Flay ~
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Councilor Scheckla:
3 We residents of the Triangle are faced with a very serious
problem. That problem is DOWN-ZONING. Our property values
will be totally destroyed if the Tigard Triangle specific
1 area plan is put into effect.
PLEASE LISTEN TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY! ¢
To veep this on an objective level rather than on a person-
al level, I will use nay neighbor's property at an example.
They have a house on about a 15,000 square foot lot. Their
tax assessment appraisal is about $140:000.
Now it is proposed that their property be rezoned from R-3.5
(single family) to R-25 (multiple family residential). Do
you have any idea what devastating effect that change would
have on theca?
r.
I kid you not! They would only be able to sell their prop-
erty at a maximum of $3.00 per square font if R-25 were put
into effect. Note that 15,000 X $3.00 = $45,000. (Their -
house would have no monetary value whatsoever). NOW GET
TEAS! Their $140,000 property could only be sold for
=1 $45,000. That is a LOSS of about 12f.000 as a result of R--25
zoning. Furthermore, they tell me that $45,000-would not
even cover their present mortgage.
What would be the long range effect of zoning some 55 acres
as R-25? Homeowners simply could not afford to sell at such
a low price because their replacement home would need to be
much cheaper and far worse. Their homes in the Triangle
would steadily deteriorate because to put money into their
homes would be like putting money down a rat hole from an
investment standpoint. The area would steadily decline into [
a slum-over the years. So who would benefit from R-25 zoning?
Absolutely no one.
c
I request a response to this letter, and I would particu-
larly like for you to answer the following quedtions:
1. Would YOU be willing to sell your present home at
$3.00 per square foot of land area? (Just remember
- your house is worth nothing in this sale).
i
s _
j F
2. Would YOU be grilling to have your neighborhood rezoned
as R-25 for any "good" reason?
1 3. If your ansv6rs to the above questions are "no", then
could YOU in any good conscience force R--25 zoning on
our neighborhood?.
r
Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.
t
i
Yours truly,
`S Dayle Beach
j r
P.S. An identical letter was sent to each of the City Council
members.
_ s-
f
i
1 r
E
i i
i
f
{
- E
December 20, 1994
Dear Councilor Hawley:
' I d t know if you oar . I live in the Tigard 'T'riangle. overlooking the Tigard
3 Cinemas. I have owned this home since I moved the house; here in 1975. As far as I
know, other than a how that Anne Miser moved from the current Costco site, it is
Lbe most recent new single family residence in the Triangle. When I was in the
proem of rebuilding the house, I was told by residents of this =a not to fix up my
home. since the whole Triangle soon to go commercial. That was ahnod 20 ~
years no. After 5 years I decided to remodel my house anyway, and now have a
very nice home. `
♦ k
For years I wondered why the T dangle le was not. developing everything
of the Posturing, that
political
understand all
around it seemed to ba. I 5tTl don't fully
has gone on all these years. It wasn't until the meeting at Lewis School two
yew ago that I knew anyone plans for the Triangle. There were rumors
a
~
this zrea was in considered for the new Coliseum. There was a new thealu. but.
is was basicaHy just an upgrade of the exkft theater (drive-in).
When the 'I'ig° _ 'T'riangle plan was sued to us, it seem as if st2ff was
proposing an adeea to us, to find out what our auction was to it . ° y of us The ° & remdants were opposed to some or most of flee plan. I' know that is
Merent dmn what you say you remember. MA maybe you c I
said to yCU at that meeting. I said -If you want to bind ysa°w Disneyland, buy us Otd
and you can do whatever you p. I know others agreed because they applauded.
I ow staff wants toeliminate single family residences in the T6an& because it `
was stated i so in a draft of the pleas. I right bet now you ' we would just go
away. a wish we could. But reality is, we can t. We are financially tied to this place.
In order for us to go away, we need to have someplace to go. We would like to go
someplace comparable to where we are.
r
Setting aside the greed that some who don 7t know us are quick to accuse us of.
what do you feel would be a fair price for my home? I have a half acre Isixiscaped
front to back. with fish ponds, fruit Uem fir trees.-rock walls. three decks, ' kiwi
plants. a garden. and fenced. I have 2300 sq & of living area with 4000 sq. I total
cover, all nicely remodeled. Satre, maybe it is a bit overbuilt for the I
under w ranted ' prove my lot in life. It is tax assessed for $146,000. Apsay it
i'
i would be worth more if it wasn't across the street from a General CCommercial zo=
F
Do you think it is greedy for me to wint more than $70. for what I have? The
i ( land that was just purchased to peat in apartments on 72nd went for about $3.20 a
' ' sq. ft., and that was considered by the bank to be almost too much. At that grice
75 X 29o ft. lot would be worth le_ than $70.000. Do you think 1 could find to
.ho in -figad for " price' How about my neight . Bill Chase, whose lot is 75
- :a X 15M His would to $36.000. Would you willing to accept $3.20 a sq. ft. for
4
property?
Y
our
-Reality is. at those ' ess. we coul=dn't afford to sell. H our property was rezoned
i it would be develope& Not we greedy unconcerned citizens
were holding out. for an astronomical surn, but because many of us would lose our k .
life savings to do so. Sure, some hem in the Triangle are greedy and want $20.00 a
i sq. ft ney won't get I Most of ass just want to be stile to leave.
I wrilling to you to try to get you to change yew vote on the Triangle ply.
Honesdy, no. i belkve you nt to see the Triangle developed, and done in such a
way as to be good for 11gard and ° ty in gencraL At least i Igve you doe t have
Mft
a hidden aagenda. I jest want you to understand that unless we are
compensated for what we own, vdevelopment. good or bad. out of necessity. Will
not happen on our property. I don't believe that is a good plan for'Tigmd.
1 tb A what needs to be do is for Staff. City Counci, and the Planning
Conwitssion to sit down with representatives of the Tr gle. !deal Estate
de CiLy plarmem eery, and f consukuls. and
come yap ' an econ y workable solution for the plam Or maybe we caan
f page for the whole thing so we can all do whatever we
I it is in the best inteted for City Council to know the intentions the 'l` ' le
us far, have not been allowed to give testimony since most of us t.
discovered the impact of the plan on our own situation. By fate. we can not go
r away. By necessity. we have had to Organize to be hearrl. And by golly. it WM now
to slip ssomething by us. I want to thank you for taking the time to
be very
` f realize d2is is a busy time for all. N you feel a need to respond to this. I
read can be reached at 620-9642, or. by mail. 11550 72nd AEI., 97223.
I-
Quite SLly;
P
G' E
j eohn
L
1
~ r
1
.a
~ t
December 21, 1994
i
l Dear Councilor Schekla;
' I don't know if you know arse. I live in the Tigard Triangle, overlooking the Tigard f
Cinemas. I have owned this hoarse since I moved the house here in 1°75. A,:9 far as I E
know, other than a house that Anne Leiser moved from the current Costco site, it is
the most recent new single family residence in the Triangle. When I was in the F-
process of rebuilding the house, I was told by residents of this area not to fix up my
home, since the whole Triangle was soon to go commercial. That was almost 20
years ago. After 5 years I decided to remodel any house anyway, and now have a E
very nice horse.
C -
For }Years I wondered why the Triangle was not developing when ml~ everything
around it seemed to be. I still don't fully understand all of the political posturing that
has gone on all these years. It wasn't until the meeting at Phil Lewis School two and
a half years ago that I knew anyone had plans for the Triangle. There were rumors 6
this area was being considered f or the new Coliseum. There was a new theater, but j
{ is was basically just an upgrade of the existing theater (drive-in).
j When the Tigard Triangle: plan was presented to us, it seemed as if staff was
proposing an idea to us, to find out what our reaction was to it. The majority of us
Triangle residents were opposed to some or most of the plan. 3 know that is
different than what Councilor Hawley says she remembers. But I remember saying ~
to her at that :tweeting "If you want to build your Disneyland, buy us out and you
can do whatever you want". I know others agreed because they applauded.
I know staff wants to eliminate sin,le family residences in the Triangle because it
was stated so in a draft of the plan. I bet right now many wish we would just go
a away. I wish. we could. But reality is, we can't. We are financially tied to this place.
In order for us to go away. we need to have someplace to go. We would like to go
someplace comparable to where we are.
r
a
1 Setting aside the greed that some who don't know us are quick to accuse us of,
what do you feel would be a fair price for my home? I have a half acre landscaped
front to back., with fish ponds, fruit trees. fir trees, rock walls, three decks, kiwi
plants. a garden. and fenced. I have ?300 sq. ft. of living area with 4000 sq. ft.. total 4
under coyer, all nicely remodeled. Sure, maybe it is a bit overbuilt for the area, but I
wanted to improve my lot in life. It is tax assessed for $146,000. Appraisers say it
would be worth more if it wvasn't,across the street from a General Commercial zone.
Do you think it is greedy for me to want more than $70,000 for what I have? The
land that vas just purchaser) to put in apartments on 72nd went for about $3.20 a
sq. ft., and that was considered by the bank to be almost too much. At that price my
I
75 X 290 ft. lot would be worth less than $70,000. Do you think I could find a
home in Tigard for that price? l'-Tiow about my neighbor, Bill Chase, whose lot is 75 ~
X 150? His would be $36,000. Would you be willing to accept $3.20 a sq. ft. for
your property? #
a Reality is, at those prices. we couldn't afford to sell. If our property was rezoned
R25 it would nc= be developed. Not because we greedy unconcerned citizens
were holding out for an astronomical sum, but because many of us would lose our
life savings to do so. Sure, some here in the Triangle are greedy and want $20.00 a
sq. ft. They won't get it. Most of us just want to be ~-ble to leave.
.m I writing to you to try to get you to vote our way on the Triangle plan.
Honestly, no. I believe you want to see the Triangle developed, and done in such a
way as to be good for Tigard and society in general. At least I hove you don't have
a hidden agenda,. I just want you to understand that unless we are iustly F
compensated for ghat we own, development, good or bad, out of necessity, will
not happen on our property. I don't believe that is a good plan for Tigard.
I `
I think what needs to be done is for Staff, City Council, and the Planning i
y Commission to sit down with representatives of the Triangle, Deal Estate
developers and agents, City planners, Engineers, and financial consultants, and
come up Nvith an economically workable solution for the plan. Or maybe we can
find a billionaire that will pay for the whole thing so we can all do whatever we
want.
I think it is in the best interest for City Council to know the intentions of the Triangle
residents. Thus far, we have not been allowed to give testimony since most of us i
discovered the impact of the plan on our own situation. By fate, we can not go
away. By necessity, we have had to organize to be heard. And by golly, it will now
be very difficult to slip something by us. I want to thank you for taking the time to
react this. I realize this is a busy time for all. If you feel a need to respond to this, I
can be reached at 620-9642. or, by mail. 11550 S` 72nd AV.. 97223.
Quite Sincerely;
John Wozniak E
f
r
{
i
i Ken Scheclda ~
10890 S.W. Fairhaven Way
Tigard, Ore 97223
- .I
1 Deceinber 27, 1994
a_
- Dear Mr. Councilman: ~
j
I bought any home 1 I/2 years ago in the Tigard Triangle, I did not know about the plans for
'T'riangle and in escrow no one from the city ever contacted me about their plans, nor did the former
owners ever say any thing in the disclosure statement. I bought this home in a residential area because
I have lived in a apartment community and didn't like it. Now I am in a conflict with a city that is
not hearing what we are saying, If I have to sell my hoarse for apartment prices, I won't he able to
sell it since my mortgage is more than what I would receive for the house, much less afford a new
home that would be comparable to any home.
I was at the Planning Commission and Council working meeting when you decided to have a public
meeting to hear what we feel about this progtet, I was appalled when a councilor in a public meeting
actually stated that people are buying these homes to make a lot of money. I bought my home as an
investment and I did hope to snake a few dollars when I retired in 20 year; like any normal person
would like to do. I haven't gotten the Pri+ce/Costco bug either where everyone sold their home for huge
amounts of money. I would love to stay in awry home for the 20 years that I have planned on from the
first time I bought any hoarse and that is still the plan. What I would like to see is the city try to help
us improve the livability of nay neighborhood by creating a few cul-d-sacs. I live on Baylor Street and it
is being used as the Hyw. 99w Bypass, I would like to see my street closed off at 72nd Street to push
the tralfic on the roads built for it. Dartmouth and 72nd Streets. They could be reopened if the area ever
becomes the commercial center that all the developers are pushing for.
I v~ould like to mgt with you and di ,uss some of my ideas for the area, this will give the city a cbance
to talk to a person in the triangle who will be effected by their plans and decisions. Thank you for your
1 time and reading my letter since I know time is precious.
Regards,
Nike and Linda Lefebvre !
7040 S. W. Baylor St. F
j Tigard, Ore. 97223
i -
Phone (503) 624-3605
ll Work (503) 880-3008
1 t
i
j
F
I
♦ L
f
I
; r
a E_
Ken Sche la i
10590 S. W. Fairhaven Way s
a Tigard. Ore 97223
Demnaber 27, 1994
' Dear-Mr Councilman: k
'have ldved in the Tigard area my entire life since the £920'x. `JUhcn my husband
and I decided to build a home in 1960 we chase Baylor Stmt as we wanted a home to
raise our children with a large yard to safely play and to have a garden for fresh vegetables
and fruit on a junior half acre, Our hope was to live here when we retired and eventually
pass the hone and the
i property an to cur children to rain their families. These drw-ms have
been drastically changed by the propose plan presented. My husband recently passed away,
and I cannot handle this loss and the financial plan you pro f
Y Pose to displace rare from :ny
' home. I do not desire to sell my residence. Request you reject the 'T'riangle proposition as
extremely unsatisfactory in all aspects.
i
f f
Your tr ily
~ E
Ilerbert J. M-a
7 i0 SW Taylor Street
j Tigard, Or. 97223-2331
l
t
i
i
i
i
k
'i
v
1
i
f
S t t
t4
' ®Z
A4AI
Litz
f -
cat 7 `
i f
l
s i.
' • s
Al
oUt
4
Ave. . .
P _
9T
n
a ~
-.t ° ~ ✓ 'sue ~
< d 1
i
4
r
{
VA.
i 4
4
11530 SW 72nd Ave,
Tigard, OR 97223
councilor Ken Scheckla January 3, 1995
10890 SW Fairhaven Way
Tigard, OR 97223
a Dear Councilor Scheckla:
About two weeks ago, I wrote a letter to you and to each
member of the City Council. Since the holidays make great de-
manns on one's time, I can understand why you may not have
' responded to date. As a matter of fact, I am glad that I have
` not received a response because I now have an opportunity to
clarify some things. r.,
More than 120 Triangle property owners have signed peti-
tions opposing downzoning. These people are presently under-
going a great deal of stress and bitterness, not knowing if
their investments in their properties will be slashed to al-
most nothing as a result of Council action.
Only four of the 120- signers of the petitions own more
than one acre of land. The overwhelming majority own less E°
than a half acre of land. This means that downzoning to R-25
really hits the little guys the hardest.
The example that I gave you in my previous letter is not
an isolated case. It is typical of what would happen to small
property owners in the Triangle. You undoubtedly have read
JoAnne Nordling's soapbox article in the Tigard Times in
which she stated her tax-appraised property of $145,000 could
only be sold for $45,000. That is a loss of $100,000. This z
translates to about a 69% loss. Another one of my neighbors
has a house on a lot of about 11,000 square feet. Their tax-
appraisal is about $81,000. With R-25 downzoning they would
only get about $33,000. This represents about a 60% loss.
Now my question to you is: Would you be willing to sell
l your property for 30 to 40 percent of its tax appraised
figure? Please provide me with a straightforward answer to
this question.
In my previous letter to you, I asked if you would be
willing to have your neighborhood downzoned to R-25 for any
"good" reason. I did not clarify what I meant by "good"
reason, but I will now give you an example. As I understand
it, Metro wants every city to aim for at least 12 living
units per acre. Tigard presently stands at 10.3 living units
per acre.
j Now my second question is: To help achieve Metro's goal
would you be willing to have your neighborhood downzoned to
R-25?
As one of your constituents, I would greatly appreciate
! a prompt response to this letter.
Thank you.
Yours truly, J F
Dayle Beach
3 January 4, 1995
Ken Scheckla E
j Council Position #3
10690 SW Fairhaven Way
J Tigard, OR 97223
x Dear Mr. Scheckla,
I am writing in regard to the proposed zone change in the Triangle. E
There have been statements by some staff members and from the
' general public that we should go along with the staff F
recommendations to rezone the Triangle. f
? However, this proposal would create a severe economic hardship on
my family. R-25 property sells for $2.50 to $3.00 per square foot.
j If I were to sell nay property at $3.00 per square foot, I would
receive a small sum of $33,000. Moreover, the county has assessed
my home property at about $81,000. I find that an equivalent
residence would run between $115,00 to $130,000; this does not
include the cost of relocating, such as moving costs, etc.
r
If I were to sell may property at $33,000, I would not be able to
purchase a double-wide manufactured home, let alone a lot on
which to put it. Has the city staff prepared an economic impact
statement on the Triangle proposal?
I strongly object to Mr. Brewin's accusation that the families in the
Triangle are greedy. The investment in a home is the largest
investment the average American makes. To ask any homeowner to
assume that kind of a loss is unrealistic.
F
I urge you to reject the dawn-zoning plan for the Triangle.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Chase
Cam . P°r
a J0
Mayor Nicoli could have one of the most pro- ~
t ductive terms in the history of Tigard mayor
Eager to get into the commercial picture are
several very prominent and moneyed businesses who
are observing us with great interest.
They want to start construction. WE KNOW!
W zoned Commercial.
"When that zoning thing in Tigard in Tigard
is settled, we're ready to go!" they tell us.
in fact, our neighbors are ready with us -be
cause we're being sold in a package deal. That is
unless the proposers of the offices and stores fi- '
pally give up!
_ We must consider All of Tigard. From this be- ~
ginning could arise the TIGARD TRIANGLE-COMMERCIAL
i HUB! Easy shopping and going to the doctor, etc. for
e
all citizens!
Or Major Nicoli could face a street of decaying
houses and unkempt landscaping. Homeowners would not
sell at R-25 Apartment prices. They could not afford to
move. People will say- "How long will 72nd remain in k
this devalued condition? Whv doesn't City Coucil DO
something?"
Just dump R-25 Apartment downzoning. That is all. E
Just one stroke could it. The interests of ALL TI- _0
GARD citizens in this matter would probably be settled. s -
7 A
t \ S Zo -nJA~ ~
a ,0
r `2 2 3
r 1 + 0 5,;01
a...~uJ U i~...+d f
• C-
January 5, 1993
s E'
Ken SchecU% Ti$ard City Councilman
10890 SW Fairhaven Way
Tigard, OR 97223
g
Dear Mr. Scheckla.
I am send" you a copy of a letter I sent to the Soapbox column in the
Tigard Times. I have tried in this letter to explain the economics of the
situation for how nets in the Triangle area. I hope you will take the time
to rend it because I think it will help you to better understand the concern of
Triangle residents regarding the city proposal to zone our area R-25, and the
t
resulting devaluation of our property.:
Also. as a result of the publication of that letter. I found out that the Tigard ~
- City Code already expressly permits R-40 residential to be built above
commercial units in the Triangle area. I am including a copy of this section
of the code for you to we. If the city council feels strongly that residential
~
units do belong in the Triangle. it seems to me that using the present code
would provide ample opportunity for the city to negotiate with commercial
interests for the addition of some residential units when go' through the
site development plan process. Such a process would, if I understand it
rightly, permit land to be sold as commercial which could financially still
afford to support some apartment units. This would protect the values of
even small-lot hom ers, enabling there to afford to buy a house of
similar quality elsewhere.
Somehow, we need to combine good planning with economic reality and the }
demands of the marketplace. I hope you will consider my ideas when you
make your decision at the city council meeting on January 24.
f
Sincerely,
r
JoAnne Nordling
7103 SW Elmhurst SL
Tigard, Oregon 97223
684-4060
r
- r Ving theiz. 6` y Lim
"AW
I have never °
understood why the
eleme.~a1ffiy school, and the ever ti- l~l'cxt
' Tigard city planning staff is ~ inter- ~ opticni: if I (m ,t afford to
ding traffic on 72nd avenue buy another place and rent m my
sated in keeping residences in the } male the Triangle a highly un- Triangle luau, tlsert I ruts stuck.
io Tigmd
that this aea seems or ob-
v desirable place to live, which is wiry 'T'hen I have to live out the rest of
violas that Tlriattgk area = I want to sell in the first place. I CM my life in a oralirsg rssid~°tdal .
deretl by IY6g6r 217, I'acifsc Probably sell my lusr, but at a area surrounded by fee-ways, noise,'.
Highway and Interstate 5) has the ®AO X price considerably below its maket and cramme,1 with tz ic.
potential to the prime commercial Val= If on the oltisr haa'.d, I =Ad till k
E
hub for the whole region. - ~ ~ - ,
Then, to add inssslt to injury. a " ' - t 3 S € t option. if my mortgaje is . my property to a commercial
r8ceot Soapbox contributor cslle d paid Next off, ff, or oires onl a low developer for $10 s square fcayt, I
the residents of the Tigard Triangle trouble obtaining filtancing for his monthly payment, and if I have would get $150,000, which wxsld
some savings so I can afford a do" be roughly the value of my hour. If
" y" because they want m be projOcl and making a profit on his paymenE on a new hom I can I Could also get a little extra tab pay
zoned commercial instead of high- venters. 'I1ais means Y can sell to an move out, teat out ray hour; and use me for the disruption and moving
density msWatial. It is obvious he , apartment developer only if I am the rent payment to buy a place in costs, I would certainly tabs it. This
needs a basic lesson in the rimlities willing to take $45,000 for a house some quiet neghboA
pond acmes- it why the residents of the Triangle
of the marketplace. valued at $145,1 00.
? Let's use my own situation as an Next option: I can pest my house whm 010' My rental ham will tine asking third the city al anch s
example lily husband and Y own a . on use market and try to sell it as a Probably det ft" but at least I residential areas to develop as a com.
will have the land in cam the city mercial area when approprivie com. l
single-family ht on one-third of single family residence. The even decides to allow higher use mtxcial devefopsnents are pror
1
an acre, the equivalent of a 1 S, - problem is there are not many development. Unfortunately, if for their sectic a of the TrWigle. msed
square-foot lot. A developer of a peoplestanding in lute wanting to many of my neighbors exercise dig ibis is not gmed. It is economic W.
high-density apartment complex bony a residues in the mangle, The Option, the single family residential vival for the home owe. And it is B
could afford to pay me $3 a ltquaes rarer of the surrounding freeways, auras in 1110 Triangle, which are now SoW planning fbt an as which ties ! f
foot for my property. If he pays me the high carbon monoxide levels, well kept and attractive neigh- the potential to be the
Y
more rheas that he will have Beat the Wobable removal of our local I~ coin-
borhaods will become slam areas.. m=iai hub for the stiles region. L t ;
{
' I
F
f b
I
i
s
1. Research 80rvic0s; and
W. The following uses, separately or in combination, shall not
i exceed a total of 20 percent of the entire square footage within
the development complex*
J Yf ti
j (f) convenience sales and personal services;
(U) Eating and drinking astabli,shmerts; and
(iii) Retail sales, general;
i
F3. Residential use typos:
a. Multiple-family residential units as as mixed use in conjunction,
developed at R-40+ standards, with a c rcial development,
only in the CP District within the Tigard Triangle and the Bull
:-5 Mountain Road District, an or above the second floor of the
structure;
b. Home occupations subject to provisions of Chapter 18.142;
i
C. Family day care;
' 4. Transient lodging/restaurant (on the same parcel);
5. Temporary use;
6. Fuel twmk; or
7. Accessory structures. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08; Ord. SS-32; JL_
{ Ord. 84-73; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52)
"18.64.040 Conditional Uses (Seed Chapter 28,23G)
A. Conditional uses in the C-P district are as follows:
1. Heliports, in accordance with the Aeronautics Division (ODOT) and FAA; ~
2. Hospitals;
3. utilities;
I 4. Religious Assemblies; and
5. Construction Contractor's Professional Offices. (Ord. 93-28; Ord. 92-
1S; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-32; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52)
~ k
18.64.050 Dimensional Requirements
E
A. Dimensional requirements in the C-P district are as follows:
1. The minimum lot area shall be 6,000 square fast;
2. The average minimum lot width shall be SO feet;
3. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130,
they minimum setback requirements are as follows-
a. There shall be no minimum front yard setback requirement;
however, conditions in Chapters 18.100 and 18.102 must be met;
Revised 10012/93 Page 132
Mr Gene Jackson c s
7045 SW Clinton St
Portland. OR 97223 t
i~
January 6. 1995
a
Councilman Ken Scheckla
10890 S.W. Fairhaven Way
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Sir:
We have lived in the Tigard area for over 30 years, having moved
from Beaverton to be closer to my place of employment. We chow
this area so we w®uld have a nice place to raise our family. When
we mowed to Tigard there was no multi-lane Highway 217, Pacific
Highway was a regular street, and the Tigard Triangle was yet to
be named. t
We watched the area change. Fred Meyer's was built, and of course i
we watched all the other improvements develop, up to and including
Costco.
During the last few years we have been concerned with the proposed
planning for this area, because it changes our future hopes for
our home. Over time our house has increased in value along with
all property in the Metro area.
Our concern is that the value of our home maintain it's worth at
" the same rate as all the homes in the area. Wher, the plans were
presented to the public for view, and for public input, we were
not made aware that changing the zoning to R-25 would devalue the
property.
We since have been told that the property would be worth only
S3.50 per sauare foot. our neighborhood is concerned that they
- j will not sell their house at a fair market price.
i
Our home is assessed by Washington County at a land value of
S39,750, and structure value at $56,410. Our lot is 701 v 2CO'
which is equal to 14.OOC square feet. We estimate, based on
other home sales in our area, that our home could sell for over
5135.000.00.
1 Let is be noted - we ac not want to zal _ - we plan to remain in
Our home. All estimates' indicate o;...: house wor -h muc : more
than any devalued attempt to keep us from recd`• ina full mar'•~e
price for our home.
1 enclosed my suggest _cr s for alternatives. Than]-. -cu f:r I
i
Ot:_ `_i :':e and consideration .
jTours e r y truly,
Gen Ja c9.
T
1
t
P;hat are the alternatives? i'
1. Leave the zoning alone! Le*_ what happens' take place! That
would be okay - for now, but the community could become a mess with "
no direction. We could live here as long as we liked.
2. Zone R-25. Devalue the property. The property is not sold.
The area is not improved, and soon becomes poorly maintained. With ,
in 10 years this area of Tigard becomes an eye sore. The R-25 zone
I demands less assessed value and hence less taxes. It could, in t
reality, require more police and fire protection.
t
3. Look to the future and expect the area to become a Lincoln
Center, a Kruse Way, or an equal development. The zoning should F'
consider the masonry buildings that are offices in these area.
The zoning should reflect the type of improvements which would
increase property value. Taxes go up. Police and Fire protection
remain at a minimum. Expect high rise apartments and well bu:'d
t
offices.
r;
The City of Tigard has the opportunity to guide the future of the
area. Presently, the proposed future for the zoning plans only go
part way. The City of Tigard can help the property owner maintain
t The Clt.-1 can n . he!?. o
,.r?1r invesi ~ment. ~l Of Tlga_r_ the deJ.el G_%_~ too.
The City of Tigard must look to the future and do t',e most for the
area. '
Please review your plan. Use what is good. and revise where it is
needed. Get property owners involved. Owners like O.E.A., Farmers
Insurance Co., Landmark Ford, the Martin's and other owners big or
small. Expect that in the year 2040 the "Triangle" is something
that our children and the community will be proud of. j-
1
i
cc: All City Council members
Tigard Times Newspaper
}
1
e
j
j
3
1
77
January 9, 1995
a.
t -
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Fall t
Tigard OR 97223 - -
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I hope to be able to attend your upcoming council meet-
ing when you review the Triangle land use and zoning. €
To save your time I would like to have this correspond-
ence serve as my•iestimaony.
Attached are two.previous letters which express my
opinion against A25 zoning and request for zoning
changes and a conference with the Planning Department.
I've never received a call or reply to either letter,
but may request still stands.
1 Tigard has the opportunity to help create an area
unique to the Portland Metropolitan area for commercial
and commercial professional use. If design standards
and a quick design review process are implemented, ;
future evelopment can be accomplished in a manager
the city can be proud of for both function and appear- E
I ance.
Very truly yours,
T TD-ILARX FORD, ANC.
am Corli.ss
resident
E
~ I
.JCOb3k
i
i
i
G I.
1 ~
"Sri ss is .our main concem'
12000 &W 66th Ave. A P.O.Box 23970 ® T igaM. Oregon 972813970 ® (503) 639.1131 a FAX (593) 59$-8M
i
June 16, 1994
i
Tigard Planning Commission
131,25 SW Hall Blvd. i
Tigard OR 97223
Ladies and Gentlemen,
i I _ had hoped to attbnd your June 20, 1994 meeting to discuss my
views and requests for the Triangle land use but I am going to be
a out of town. In place of testimony I hope you will consider this
communication in your decision process. =
I am a Tigard resident living at 9750 SW Inez, plus I own or
lease 10 acres of developed land which is the Landmark Ford.
`a dealership, and I own approximately 2 acres of undeveloped land E
on the west side of 68th across the street from Landmark Ford.
j I am not in favor of the proposed extensive. zone changes to R25.
I am in favor of the proposed changes to Commercial Professional.
I was a member of the Tigard Economic Development Committee for a
number of years and our discussions then were a vision of mixed
commercial, professional and general commercial use. We also
discussed the critical element of the development of the
transportation network, especially Dartmouth and 72nd Street.
' The possibility of a large portion of the developable land in the
Triangle going to R-25 was not given, and if it was, I am certain
that committee would oppose it,.
'I Additionally, the last East CIT group discussed this potential
land use change. There was a large turn out for the discussion
even though it was only a small portion of the land owners. We
took an "unofficial poll" of the group which overwhelmingly
I opposed the changes to R-25. Please review the minutes of that
CIT East meeting.
1
I-do believe that some R-25 zoning in the Triangle is OK if it is
favored by the land owners but I don't want - to see a "Murray
Road" apartment city. With enough input from the residents and
landowners perhaps a better plan can.be developed.
{ Additionally, since you are considering land use changes I have
enclosed my letter to you of May 20, 1994 concerning the area
around Dartmouth and our business.
i
O is our main concern"
12000 S.lh. 66th Ave. P.O.Eox 23970 ~ Tigard. Oregon 97°231-39703 0 (503) 639-1131 ~ f-"AX (503) 598-g.368
1 r`
Tigard Planning Commission
June 15, 1994
Page two _
I would like to officially request that the zoning changes in
1 that letter be granted during this land use review. The area
in quA:tst.ion is on what is designated a major collector street
and naturally favors commercial general use.
If you would like to discuss any of the-above issues with me
V`.3 personally just let me know.
{ Very truly yours,
L MARK FORD, INC.
Jim Cor xss
President
JC/b jk
.
i
i
- - - - - - - - - -
`r j~
1 E
May 20, 1994
City of Tigard Planning Department
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
;ard OR 97223
Gentlemen:
I received a copy of your case number 94-0007 site
development review. I have no problem with the applicants:
development but the notice makes me question the zoning
for that area. The Dartmouth extension was rezoned
C - G but' the original Dartmouth was left C P. e
I believe the C - G zone should be given to additional
property which would include the current case number
94-0007.
For your review I have highlighted on the attached
map in blue an approximate area which should be C
' G. Within that area I own the property highlighted
in pints and green. As an additional request I would k
like a conference with someone to discuss how we can
use our property between 68th and 69th, highlighted
in green. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience. k`
r
Very truly yours, t
i FO INC.
iss t. i
TC/bjk
i -
- i
i
"SatL91wdon is our°main tone '
{ 12000 S.LV 662h Ave. ®P.®.Box 23970 Ieg rd, Oregon 97231-3970 • (50) 639-1131 • FAX (503) 538-8368
r
r
f
i~
t
r -
m®a s> } O
SITE
r~l i ~ t i 9
t-L L,k'S 1 a w
~
~ i 1~ 1 9 S.i 9 NO.
ese . ~ CASE -
VICINITY
SITE D P'H?~ R-17WIEW
MAJOR MODIFICATION
EXHIBIT MAP
#94-0007
f;
i
Proposed Changes to Land Use Map and Zoning Map in the 'T'riangle
t
kc-
L.Fr
,1 ~ tf
I ' 1
C P t
C
I F1
J ~ XT
1 i
l Lanai Use. Charge to Comrflerclal Profew1onal 'and change Zone to C-p
Lanai Use Change to Medium High Density Residential and Change Zone to -25
L
i f
r. 7
1 ~
h'
C,
{
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
(June 20 & July 18, 1994 Meetings)
i - k
i
t
,F
l
i
I
i
I
_ k
f
i r
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION E? Regular Meeting Minutes - June 20, 1994
P
'.j 1. CALL TO ORDER: President Fyre called the meeting to order at
77:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center
:l Town Ball - 13125 SW Ball Boulevard. i`
2. ROLL CALL:
- Present President Fyre, Commissioners Collson,, DeFrang,
Holland, Moore, Saporta, Saxton, Schweitz and
Wilson
` Staff John Acker, Associate Planner; Michael Anderson,
Engineering; Pamela Beery, Planning Commission
Attorney; Planning Commission Secretary, Leslee
(A Gemmill; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Mark
Roberts, Planner; Randy Wooley, City Engineer. r
' 3. APPROVE MINUTES
t'
e Commissioner Holland motioned to approve the June 6, 1994 work
session minutes as submitted and Commissioner Wilson seconded i`
the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion was
approved unanimously. President Fyre and Commissioners
Saporta and Saxton abstained.
0 Commissioner Holland motioned to approve the minutes of the
May 23, 1994 training session as submitted and Commissioner
Wilson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the
j motion was approved unanimously. President Fvre and `
Commissioner Saporta abstained.
i
e Commissioner Holland motioned to approve the-.;lay 9, 1994
regular meeting minutes as submitted and Commissioner Collson
seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion
was approved unanimously. Commissioner Saporta abstained.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a John Acker, Associate Planner, informed the Commissioners that
three additional items of interest were distributed to them
before the meeting, for their review.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
f
5.1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0002/Zone Chance ZON 94--
0002 Triangle Land Use This proposal is to amend the
Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 95 parcels totaling
approximately 44 acres. The proposal would redesignate 14.6 E ;
i acres from low-density residential (R--3.5) to medium high
density residential (R-25); 19.5 acres from commercial
profession (C-P) to medium-high density residential (R®25); €
2.5 acres from low-density residential (R-3.5) to commercial.
i
i
professional (C-P); 6.1 acres from commercial general (C-G) ~o
commercial professional (C-P); and 1.5 acres from commercial
general (C-G) to medium-high density residential (R-25). Also
-a proposed is a zone change only for two parcels totaling 11.9
acres from C-G to C-P. LOCATION: Generally east of 72nd
avenue and west of 68th avenue between Atlanta Street and
Hampton Street in the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Also
west of 72nd avenue south of Beveland Street. APPLICABLE
APPROVAL CRITERIA: The relevant criteria in this case are j
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13; Comprehensive
Plan Policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3,
12.1.1, and 12.1.2; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22,
-i 18.32, 18.48, 16.56, 18.62, and 18.64; and the change or
mistake quasi-judicial plan asap amendment criteria of both the
r
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code.
e Associate Planner, John Acker, reviewed background information
on the Tigard Triangle and the request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 93 parcels totaling 6
approximately 43 acres and to change the zoning map on 2 R'..
parcels totaling 11.9 acres. In conclusion, John Acker that
the proposal was in compliance with the applicable Statewide
Planning Goals as outlined in the staff report.
e dir. Frank Knight, 9545 SW Brentwood Pl., Tigard, OR 97224 an
interested Tigard citizen and Surmnerfield resident, spoke in
support of the plan.
a Danny Garnor, 7020 SW Clinton, Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to
speak but did not. He said his questions were answered
earlier in the meeting. E
f
o Bill Erdle, 7405 SW Beveland, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke in favor
of the plan. Mr. Erdle said he lived and worked in the Tigard
Triangle and was concerned about changing the school to
i General -Coamaercial. and it being the cause of the slow death of
the neighborhood. He said the proposal offered a unique
opportunity to create something neat.
a Rece Bly, 3500 U.S. Bancorp Tower, 111 SW Fifth Ave.,
Portland, OR 97204, an attorney with Miller, Nash, Wiener,
Hager and Carlsen representing the Tigard-Tualatin School
District, spoke in opposition to the do,=zoning of the Phil
Lewis Elementary School. He sited mistakes in the draft
Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan. He said the proposed
changes would have adverse financial consequences for the
District and urged the Planning Commission to reject the
proposal. Mr. Bly said if the Planning commission could not
do so summarily, he would ask for a 60 day continuance to
supplement the public record with traffic, safety, economic,
marketing and other studies.
Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - June 20, 1994
1
- - - - -
i ~
- 3
0 Pat Higgs, 13137 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard, OR 97223, chairman ;
of the Tigard-Tualatin School Board, addressed the Planning E
Ccmadssion opposing the downzoning of the Phil Lewis School
property. She said a change now would create a loss in
potential value should the district determine it was in the ;
punl.ic's best interest to sell the site and this would be a
loss to all taxpayers who live in the city within the school
district. Ms. Higgs asked the Planning Commission to reject e
the proposal.
0 Richard Carlson, 11475 Venus Ct., Tigard, OR 97223, Tigard-
Tualatin School Hoard Member, asked the Commission to leave
the zoning as it now exists. He said the majority of the
students attending Phil Lewis School live closer to other
elementary schools and parents object to their children being
bussed. Mr. Carlson informed the Commission that the
-"i attendance at Phil Lewis continues to decline and only 39
students actually live in the Triangle. He said the proposed
changes would suggest only an additional 80 students and at
its current enrollment of 388, Phil Lewis would still be a }
small school and poorly located for the district's greatest f
growth needs. Mr. Carlson said downzoning of the school was F,
not in the best interest of the school district or the
taxpayers and asked the Commission to reject the proposal.
a Merrily Haas, 20887 SW Willapa Way, Tualatin, OR 97052, Vice-
Chairman of the Tigard-Tualatin School Board spoke on behalf
j - of the school students and city taxpayers. She said she
thought the City of Tigard had failed to show a clear and
compelling financial or community reason to make tLe zone
change on the parcel of land currently occupied by Phil Lewis
School,. She said to change the zoning on this parcel was
'.unnecessary for the future economic viability of the Triangle F
and the zone change would negatively impact the taxpayers of
Tigard and the School District.
o Russell Joki, Superintendent of the Tigard-Tualatin School
District, 13137 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard, OR 97223, echoed the
sentiments expressed opposing the proposal. He said the
proposal failed to produce reasons that are of economic
benefit to the City and to the District. Mr. Jok! addressed
specifically Goal 9, Economy of the State; Goal 12,
I Transportation; and Comprehensive Plan 6.1.1, Housing
Diversity.
f
o Dayle Beach, 11530 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard., OR 97223 expressed
his concern regarding liveability and a quarter mile section
of 72nd Ave. (a major collector street), extending from
Clinton Street north to Red Rack Creek. Mr. Beach suggested
` an alternative that the proposed boundary line separating
residential from commercial be moved to the east 150 feet
Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994
1
1
a
making the quarter mile section of 72nd Ave., commercial on
both sides. Hr. Beach also suggested the Commission consider
moving the boundary line over 250 feet and not build a street '
'a but rather a walkway or promenade enhancing the liveability of
the residential area.
e George Hansen, 11515 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard, OR 97223, an
j attorney representing the Oregon Education Association
informed the Commission that OEA had occupied its 16 acre
r tract within the Triangle for over 30 years. Mr. Hansen
addressed the Commission regarding the proposed downsizing of
2-112 acres to multi-family residential. OE.A's masterplan, as ,
presented to the City on numerous occasions, called for the
land to be developed into Commercial-Professional and so far,
a great deal of money had been expended in acquiring,
developing, and the planning of 10 acres and OEA sees no
reason to change the zoning of the property.
In addition, Mr. Hansen referred to the Notice to OEA. He
j stated it was defective in accordance to Oregon Revised
Statutes. He said the Notice did not describe OEA's property,
that it identified Atlantic Avenue as the northern boundary. a
Also, Mr. Hansen said the City, when making this request, was
required to produce all documents at the release of the Notice t'
as described in ORS 197 and the City only addressed 5 of the
19 State Wide Land Use Goals. Mr. Hansen introduced Mr. r
!f Griffith, Land Planner, hired by the Oregon Education
d Association.
® Jim Griffith, 10915 SW Fairhaven Way, Tigard, OR 97223,
explained the proposal GEA previously submitted for
consideration and talked briefly about the open space. Mr.
Griffith said OEA disagreed with the position of the
consultants indicating the site was u.nbuildable in accordance
with open space requirements. He said OEA in its proposal,
indicated an open space/wetland area on the site adequate for
1 continuation of the bicycle /pedestrian pathway between 72nd
and 68th. Mr. Griffith also addressed the transportation 4
issue of the proposal and demand traffic control between
Haines and 1-5.
f
A Bob Toazmsy, 7120 SW Gonzaga St., Tigard, OR signed up to
address the Commissioners however didn't respond when his name
was called. f
i
o Joe Willis, Attorney with Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, 1211 SW
Fifth. Ave. Portland, OR 97204 addressed the Commission
opposing the proposal. Mr. Willis, representing clients who
own a substantial portion of the land in the Triangle,
summarized the handout distributed earlier in the evening to
the Commissioners and asked them to review it. Mr. Willis
Page 4 - Planning Coamzission Minutes - June 20, 1994
i
a
asked the Commission to look back at the overwhelming
opposition to the proposal and not ignore public process and E
input sections of the Statewide Land Use Goals and.. Guidelines.
In conclusion, F2s. Willis stated his objection to the process.
He said those present tonight were presented with the notion s
that the City Council accepted the proposal by resolution and
directed the planning Commission to go forward with it letting
staff and technical people drive things, defeating public
input.
a President Eyre clarified for Mr. Willis that the direction
from City Council was to move forward with the concept of the
-j
proposal.
E:
0 Don Pollock, 1834 SW 58th Ave., Portland, OR 97221, said he
had been buying and owned Tigard Triangle property for 30 r:
years and had been waiting for the completion of Dartmouth
before doing anything.
0 Gerald Cach, 15170 SW Sunrise Ln., Tigard, OR 97224 submitted
for the record, two letters and a petition signed in March
i 1993 by 98% of the property owners between 68th and 70th
opposing the zone change. A
Mr. Hall Erdle informally addressed the Commission regarding
the petition indicating he took exception to the presentation
of the petition as he felt alot of residents were confused E
about the issue when they signed the petition.
Mr. Cach commented that Far. Erdle was the only citizen that
voted to not retain the zoning.
a Gordon S. Martin, 12265 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard, OR 97223
highlighted for those present, what he thought was the
economics of changing a single family residence to a multi-
family residence or commercial property. He asked that the
record reflect that he and his father are in the process of
consolidating a 10-12 acre site east of 72nd St. and own or
under ootion ten acres and they oppose multi-family or
Commercial Professional zoning on their properties and
j requested either the zoning stay Commercial General or
converted to Commercial General.
i
® Ed Christensen, Director of Engineering, 9600 SW Oak St., Ste.
9 230, Tigard, OR 97223 said his company represented
approximately 17-1/2% of the currently General-Commercial
developable portions in the Tigard Triangle. He said the
Triangle area was one of the most commercially viable in all
of the Portland area market and there was no single location
that was more accessible in the metro area than the Triangle.
Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes - June 20, 1994
I
Mr. Christensen said he felt rezoning the Triangle area would [
put extreme pressures on the urban growth boundary and Tigard
had a responsibility to the entire metro area.
a Mr. Christensen said he believed the orientation of the I
commercial site between 72nd and 68th would be viable in its
configuration and should be left as it is presently
designated. He said he agreed with Mr. Gordon's comments
regarding the economic return of a multi-family site and the f .
property in the Triangle was very expensive and barely
commercially viable. He said multi-family designation would
be out of the question on a single family site. p
Mr. Christensen responded to Commissioner Saxton's request to
clarify his comments regarding the commercial viability of the .
' Tigard Triangle.
0 JoAnne No''wdlin 7105 SW Elmhurst St. Tigard, OR 97223 said `
she said she served on the first NPO Board in the 170's and
J remembered that as a result of the many NPO sessions, one of r
the concerns was that each individual residential area be kept
liveable. Ms. Nordling said her family had resided on
Elmhurst St. for almost 39 years and regretfully, they feel it
is now time to relocate as the neighborhood was very noisy and t
1 there were no ammeni.ties for upscale development.
o Debbie Scott, 7085 SW Elmhurst St., Tigard, CN 97223, talked
on behalf of the Scott family, residents of Elmhurst St. for
29 years. She said the family doesn't want to be surrounded
by apartments or commercial buildings and would be willing to
relocate but for it to be worthwhile, needed the zoning to be
Commercial--General.
® Sharon Moore, 11710 SW 69th, Tigard, OR 97223, said she had
worked and resided within the Triangle for 24 years. She said
they were told the area was zoned commercial before purchasing
their home, and now, if given a choice, would prefer the
! commercial zoning. Ms. Moore said if zoned commercial, the
traffic and occupancy would be during the daytime and she said
the Triangle was not suitable for upscale development.
a Bill Horne, 7160 SW Baylor, Tigard, OR said he was a happy
owner, loved the area and opposed to the plan in general. He
said the majority of the group he represented, prefer, for
now, to leave the zoning as is. Mr. Horne urged the Planning t
Commission to use its influence to let the proposal rest at
least 60 days.
® Calvin Barrett, 7175 SW Beveland, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke
opposing the change. His home is currently on the market, i
advertised as commercial property. He said all homes on the
Page 6 -.Planning Commission-Minutes _ June 20, 1994
I
i
street but 3, have gone commercial and he summarized for the
Commission the commercial residents of his neighborhood.
i ® Joe Hughes, 7035 SW Hampton, Tigard, OR 97223, a busyness
owner located in the Tigard Triangle along Hampton Street,
west of 70th Ave., submitted for the record a letter F.
addressing his concern regarding future transportation
planning issues as they relate to the Tigard Triangle. He
t
said the letter suggested an alternative to OTAR's suggestion
that 70th Ave. be developed as a collector road.
a Rod Canet, 7460 SW Beveland, Tigard, OR 97223 said he was i
a unaware under NPO-4, the Phil Lewis school site was zoned as
commercial property and asked John Acker for clarification.
John Acker, Associate Planner, responded that the City has a
two map system; Land Use classification for public
institutional and Zoning classification for Commercial-
General.
Mr. Canet said he endorsed maintaining Phil Lewis as a school
_ site and then addressed other related issues including the
recently defeated school bond issue. Referring to the colored
'i map of the Triangle, Mr. Canet asked John Acker if there was i_
a provision to protect the wetlands along Highway 217.
_ John Acker said what Mr. Canet was referring to was for land j
use designation only and didn't identify potential wetlands or
wetland areas and that those would be determined if and when E
a development is proposed.
e Bill Chase, 11580 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, a Tigard
Triangle resident for over 20 years, referred to 72nd Ave. as
"j a freeway. He said the noise, lights, traffic, etc. made the
area less than desireable for raising a family and was opposed
to the proposal on that basis.
1.
The Planning Commission took a recess from 9:20 p.m. to 9:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o City Attorney, Pamela Beery, advised the Commission that
additional research may be necessary as it appeared new
i evidence was heard during the Public Hearing.
A Commissioner Saporta expressed his concern about the Notice
being referred to as defective.
i
Attorney Beery said that in her opinion, the statutes were
properly complied with in regards to the Notice.
i
Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes - June 20, 1994
r
a The Commission discussed briefly mandatory continuance and
i; whether new evidence was heard.
0 Commissioner Saporta responded to allegations that the plan
had been a secret process. He stated that the process had
been open and very long and. public meetings were held - some ?
with very little public input. Commissioner Saporta, said the
comments heard were taken into consideraton when developing ~
the plan, including liveability and transportation. He said
a significant amount of thought was given to the residents and r
the Commission was sensitive to the issues.
e Commissioner Holland commented that after hearing the public '
testimony, he was concerned that the proposed zoning changes
may be premature. He said he didn't see any sufficient reason
to change the Comprehensive Plan, especially concerning the
school v where testimony heard made sense that it be general-
commercial. Commissioner Holland said he was beginning to
have doubts about having any multi-family or any more
residential areas in the Triangle and then said the best use
of the Triangle as far as a tax base for the citizens of
Tigard would be General-Commercial.
d_
3 e Commissioner Wilson asked staff for economic justification of is
housing in the area and whether it was economically viable to
_ build upscale or any kind of apartments in the area.
Associate Planner, John Acker responded that a market
i evaluation was done a year ago that addressed the market for
multi-family development.
f
a Commissioner Saporta reviewed briefly the background of the
;
Tigard Triangle plan and suggested that perhaps a mistake was
made early in the process.
Commissioner Saporta responded to President Pyre's question
about the mistake he referred to. He said there appeared to
be no interest for development in the area for a long time and E'
nothing happening to encourage development. He then mentioned
the Dartmouth extension stating its completion may be one
reason for the increase in interest in the Triangle.
0 Commissioner Schweitz stated he had similar feelings in some
areas. He said it looked as though the market may drive the
Tigard Triangle on its own without any help from the Planning I
' Commission. t
j e Commissioner Saxton said it seemed to him that the primary
motivation heard during the public hearing was economics and
he wondered if creating a new zone in the entire Triangle with
a development size minimtun of one acre would be an answer.
Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes - June 20, 1994
- F
i
i
a Commissioner Fyre said what he heard was concern about losing f
money due to being downzoned from a higher property value to f
a lower property value.
e Commissioner DeFrang said she agreed with other Commissioners
=1 and was leaning towards keeping the zoning as it exists and
perhaps addressing each situation as they come up.
a Commissioner Moore said only four of the original
Commissioners remain that were present at the beginning of the
process over two years ago. He referred to the open meetings
.j and the public testimony and said adjustments were made as a k
result of those open forums. Commissioner Moore said clot of
work was done by consultants, staff and Commissioners and
a their combined knowledge should be used to make an informed F:
decision.
E"
a The Commissioners discussed briefly that the objections heard
at the beginning of the process were the same concerns
expressed tonight, specifically the downzoning.
a President Pyre said another concern addressed at the first
public hearing was why the Comprehensive Plan was being
changed after the NPOs worked long and hard developing it.
0 City Engineer, Randy Wooley, addressed Co .i.ssioner Wilson's
T questions regarding the delay of the Dartmouth LID and
discussion followed.
® John Acker responded to Commissioner DeFrang's question
1 regarding the City's reasoning for the zoning change of Phil
Lewis Elementary School. F
i
i a Commissioner Wilson questioned staff about why the Local
Improvement District took eleven years to do Dartmouth and
also, what was promised to those individuals who contributed.
Randy Wooley, said the challenges were regarding whether the
design of the roadway was adequate and whether it would have
the capacity to handle the traffic and the issues resulted in
a series of lawsuits and subsequent appeals. He said also
there was a challenge against the permit for access to the
state highway at 99W and the City is still in the midst of
lawsuits trying to settle the issue of right-of-way.
Randy Wooley responded to Commissioner Holland's question
regarding promises made when the LID was formed. He said he
wasnit aware of any promises made to residents about the
zoning remaining General-Commercial.
President Fyre said the process had been a long one and staff
Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes - June 20, 1994 f.
i
i
t
had done a good job in putting together a good plan for the
Tigard Triangle which was the intent and then expressed his
concern about the practicality of the plan. He said one of
his concerns was that the Comprehensive Plan developed by the
REPO was going to be changed, a plan that should have given
people a long range look at what was going to happen in the r
neighborhood. President Fyre continued stating the concerns
heard tonight were the same as heard before. He said one of
the notions at one point in time was to develop an overlay
that would allow a downzoning development to take place should
r the market dictate it.
Prsident Byre said it's time for the Planning Commission to
make a decision and outlined available options for
consideration. i
j
o Commissioner Saporta motioned for a continuance until the next
l meeting date of July 18, 1994 to allow the Commissioners not
familiar with the plan to become more informed; to give the
] City Attorney the opportunity to research other issues; and
for an opportunity to review the written testimony distributed
at tonights meeting. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved
unanimously.
i 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93-0022 HOLLAND/RURGERVILLE
LOCATION: 11680 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM IS1 36CD, tax lot
1700). An appeal of a Director's Decision approving a request
to redevelop an existing 0.8 acre commercial site with a
drive-thru restaurant with 2,570 gross square feet.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.90, 28.96,018.100, 18.102, 18.106,
18.108, 18.114, 18.120 and 18.150. ZONE: C-pG (General
Commercial) The C-G zone provides for a range of retail goods
s and services, including drive-thru restaurant sites.
Mark Roberts, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report. On r
j May 10, 1994, the Planning Division recommended approval of
i the Burgerville Restaurant proposed for the north west corner
of SW Pacific Highway and Surd Dartmouth Street. The applicant h
appealed this decision on May 23, 1994 due to the requirements
of four of the Conditions of Approval..
Conditions of Approval 8 and 9 relate to limitations to direct
site access from SW Dartmouth Street. Conditions of Approval
13 and 14 relate to an existing drainage line on the site
which drains storm water from SW Pacific Hwy. along the site's
easterly property line.
1
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
r page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes - June 20, 1994
i
{
i
Michael C. Robinson, Attorney for Stoel Rives Boley Jones & f-
{ Grey, 900 SW Fifth Ave. Ste. 2300, Portland, OR 97204,
representing The Holland, Inc., (developer and operator of
Burgerville), explained in detail specifics of the appeal. He
3 referred to Mark Roberts memorandum dated June 13, 1994 and
the Conditions of Approval 6, 9, 13 and 14.
Mr. Robinson said he was in agreement with revisions to
' Condition of Approval S and recommended that Condition of
Approval 13 be revised as per "Tune 17, 1994 memo to Pam Beery
:specifically #S on page 3 (document entered into record). Mr.
Robinson verbally confirmed with Pain Beery that per their
discussion, both were in agreement with recommendation of
changes. ,
Regarding Condition of Approval 14, Michael Robinson said
Burgerville agreed to provide an easement to the City for
sewer maintenance.
Air. Robinson then outlined for the Commission, his client's
reason for appeal of Condition of Approval 9 - access to the
site. Specifically, Burgerville's concern was how and when
the City Engineer may determine the left turn northbound lanes
on Dartmouth be restriped (which would end Burgerville's left
in/left out access on Dartmouth) and asked that objective
criteria be included in Condition of Approval 9.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
F,
i 0 Michael Anderson, Engineering Department, explained to the
Commission that the City should have the perogative to utilize
all available information and not be limited to any specific ;
item.
e Air. Robinson commented further on Burgerville's request for ~
revision of Condition of Approval 9 and the five minute queing
and higher than normal accident rate points.
i
I
e Pamela Beery explained the City's reluctance to insert the two
criteria in the Condition and suggested inserting a "for
example" in the wording. She said that code does grant the
' City Engineer the authority to modify hazardous intersections
and driveway access at any time for safety reasons.
0 Randy Wooley explained the City's reasoning for not inserting
specific criteria in the Condition of Approval 9. He said he
was concerned about including conditions that were too
specific as the City may not be able to anticipate all the
conditions.
o Commissioner Holland said he agreed with both parties.
Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes - June 20, 1994
f -
1
4
a Commissioner Schweitx said the City must have the right to t
determine what was a problem.
0 Commissioner Wilson said he agreed with the City and that the
City would not purposely be arbitrary.
i
a Commissioner Collson said the City shouldn't tie it's hands
with specifics and he prefered to keep it open for the City
Engineer to use his discretion.
Q Commissioner Saxton said he'd like to see conditions listed as
examples to be taken into consideration with some provisions
included to make changes.
® Commissioner DePrang said she'd like to see a "for example" s
included and not exact wording.
® Commissioner Moore agreed with other Commissioners. He said
he didn't feel City government was unreasonable and agreed
with the City.
a Commissioner Saporta said that since Durgerville would like r
time to build clientele, he suggested leaving the wording as {
is. Then, if within a certain, specified timeframe, with
option that if two conditions were met (queing and accident
rate), during the timeframe, then affect the change - but
i beyond that change would be up to other conditions.
a President Pyre said he didn't have a problem with the
applicant's suggested wording and that the City Engineer
should have the authority and responsibility to take action.
a After a brief discussion, Commissioner Holland motioned to
include in Condition of Approval 9, using examples in the
wording as suggested by the applicant. The wording shall
include criteria of: when the queue extends past the driveway
during more than five minutes of any hour of an average day or
when accident reports indicate a higher-than-normal rate
involving turning vehicles and in addition, other unforeseen
circumstances shall be included in the wording. Commissioner
'j Schweitz seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the
j motion was approved unanimously by the Commissioners present
with Commissioner Moore abstaining.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. AD.7'C)HHMMEVT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
- ~ ~ Lesle Cemmill
Planning Commission Secretary !
ATTEST.
; aden
1g/p=tg620.M3.n
! Page 12 - Plannin ommission Minutes - June 20, 1994
is
F
7 t
-A TIGARD PLP- NING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 18, 1994
1. Call to Order ~
'j President Pyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Mall at
131:25 Seri Hall Blvd.
2. Roll Call b
Commissioner's Present: President Pyre, Commissioners
Collson, Holland, Moore, Saporta,
Saxton, Schweitz and Wilson
y Commissioner Absent: Commissioner DeFrang
Staff Present: John Acker, Associate Planner; r
Pamela Beery, Planning Commission
Counsel and ]Leslee Gemmill, Planning
Commission Secretary
3. Planning Commission Communications
a John Acker reported that at the last Planning Commission
1 Meeting, a public hearing was held and then closed. The
Y Commissioners received written materials and deferred
deliberation to review the material. John Acker said the
Planning Commission should plan tonight to continue
_ discussion and receive no further public input on
. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0002/Zone Change Z®N
94-000: Triangle Land Use. f
e Pam Beery, Planning Commission Attorney, advised the
Commission that she reviewed with staff, correspondence F
from Rece Bly, counsel for the Tigard-Tualatin School
District. The correspondence addressed procedural
objections to the Comprehensive Plan amendment pertaining
to the Phil Lewis School site. Ms. Beery outlined for
the Commission the procedures followed and stated the
City was in compliance with no procedural errors.
Ms. Berry then mentioned the additional legal claim
1 brought up by Mr. Bly regarding staff's failure to
demonstrate that the two criteria in the Comprehensive
Plan were met - i.e, change of circumstance or mistake.
i She informed the Commission that what was proposed for
t the Phil Lewis school site was a zoning map amendment and
those criteria were not applicable.
Attorney Beery then commented on the vested rights of the
Dartmouth LID area. She said she found no basis on which
the Planning Commission wouldn't be free to make zone
change decisions on those properties because of the LID.
F
i
9
.1 h
Ms Beery responded to Commissioner Wilson s question
F
regarding why the school property was different from the
other Triangle properties. She said there were two maps
1 - the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Nap. She
outlined for the Commission the differences between the
j two maps and said the Comprehensive Plan Asap had
different criteria required before amendment and there
i was no proposal to amend that map. In the Comprehensive
Plan, the school site was identified as public
institutional overlay and the Triangle Plan proposal is
to amend the underlying zoning map.
a Commissioner Saporta asked attorney Beery to comment on
' Section 5 of Exhibit A attached to the letter dated July
5, 1994 from Karen K. Law, Attorney, Schwabe Williamson
6 Wyatt. ~
o Attorney Beery said the assessments for the Dartmouth LID
have not been levied against the properties yet so there
were no liens of record and the amounts of the
assessments and the actual liening will be determined
based on the zoning at the time the lien is applied. r.`
a Commissioner Saxton asked Attorney Beery to clarify that
r- since Phil Lewis School is public institutional, was it
( correct that to put anything other than a school or
institution at that location would require a change to
the Comprehensive Plan.
4
0 Attorney Beery responded affirmatively and said the
y applicant asked and had received a written interpretation
from the City regarding this matter.
4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0002/Zone Change ZON 94-
0002 Triangle Land Use: This proposal is to amend the
comprehensive plan snap and zoning map on 95 parcels totaling k
approximately 44 acres. The proposal would redesignate 14.6 i`
acres from low-density residential (R-3.5) to medium-high
density residential (R-25); 19.5 acres from commercial
professional (C-P) to medium-high density residential (R-25);
2.5 acres from low density residential (R-3.5) to commercial
professional (C-P) ; 6.1 acres from commercial general (C-G) to
commercial professional (C-P); and 2.5 acres from commercial F
general (C--G) to medium-high density residential (R-25). Also
proposed is a zone change only for two parcels totaling 11.9
acres from C-G to C-P. LOCATION: Generally east of 72nd
Avenue and west of 68th Avenue, between Atlanta Street and t
Hampton Street in the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Also
west of 72nd Avenue south of Beveland Street. APPLICABLE
1 APPROVAL CRITERIA: The relevant criteria in this case are
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13;'Comprehensive
Plan Policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIN=S - July 18, 1994 - Page 2
I~
i
12.1.1, and 12.1.2; Community Development Code Chapters 16..22,
19.32, 18.48, 18.56, 18,62, and 18.64; and the change or
mistake quasi-judicial plan map amendment criteria of both the
Comprehensive Elan and Community Development Code.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION g'
ass Comneissioner Moore commented briefly about the history of
the Tigard Triangle studies and public testimonies. He
said that many of the existing Planning Commissioners had
,.a not been involved since the beginning of the process and
he voiced his concern that they had no initial input and
3 background knowledge. Connussioner Moore then asked hoer
the newer Commissioners felt about having to make a E
-i decision on this important issue based on the review of
the written materials distributed at the last meeting and
the testimony heard at that same meeting.
a Commissioner Wilson responded that he didn't think the
history of the study should be the basis of a decision,
that a decision should be based on the criteria set out
in the Community Development Plan and specific criteria
regarding a change to the Comprehensive Plan. He said he
personally felt some of the arguments shade by Attorney
i Karen Law on behalf of Mr. Pollock were compelling.
f Commissioner Wilson then addressed some of what he ~
thought were the City's weak areas. Regarding
4
downzoning, he said he saw the trend to be away from
residential in that area and not towards and if was the
City's intent to reverse a trend, it'll meet with
marginal success. Commissioner Wilson continued and said
the Tigard Triangle is surrounded by major arterial and
not really appropriate for residential and the City
hadn't demonstrated adequately that the area was
appropriate for residential. Regarding the economics of
the City, Comma. 'slioner Wilson stated that the City of
Tigard is already half residential and the masterplan
stated a need for more commericial property and he
thought there was no better place in Tigard for auto-
oriented development as the Triangle was surrounded by
the biggest arteries on the west side of the Portland
area. Commissioner Wilson said that he understood there
had been alot of citizen involvement and based on what
he'd heard from the other Commissioners, the same
objections were heard then that were again raised at the
last public hearing.
® Commissioner Holland commented that the original
Comprehensive Plan for the Tigard Triangle was applauded
by the citizens of Tigard and he didn't see the need to
' change the zoning except maybe on a case by case basis.
He said wholesale changes would probably be detrimental
to the nei.ghbcrh.oods and the way the citizens look at the
PLANNING COMMISSION 14EFTING MINUTES - July 18, 1994 ° Page 3
I F
- - - - - - - -
r
City and its officials. He affirmed Commissioner
Wilson Is comments about the responsibility to carry out i..
citizen wishes and in general, agreed with Commissioner
Wilson's other stated comments.
® In response to Commissioner Collson's question regarding
the rationale of the Tigard Triangle Study, John Acker
explained that approximately 2-112 years ago, the City
Council felt there wasn't much development occurring in t'
the Tigard Triangle and there was an abundance of
developable or redevelopable land there. The City
Council individually talked to developers in the area and E.
came to the conclusion that planning for the development
of the area was a good idea. The Planning Commission
worked with professional planning consultants, staff,
citizens, chamber of commerce, etc. to develop a land use r
waster plan where the primary goal would be to allow the ~
creation of a community in that area for people to live, j„
work, shop and play. With that as a goal, the Planning
j Commission approved and the City Council accepted the
master plan. After the land use master plan was
= accepted, the City was awarded an Urban Growth Management F;
Grant from the Department of Land Conservation and i
` Development, and with assistance from a steering
? committee comprised of ODOT, Tri-Met, DLCD officials and
an advisory committee of land owners and residents,
developed the specific area plan with the intent to
provide for planning for the development of the defined
area surrounded by Interstate S, Highway 217 and Pacific t -
Highway.
In conclusion, Mr. Acker said that from the beginning,
the idea was to take a different look at the Triangle
from a planning and community standpoint and not from a
profit maximization and property owner standpoint.
a 0 Commissioner Saporta said he also was involved from the
beginning of the Tigard Triangle planning process and
agreed there wasn't any movement in the development: of
that area at that time and Cub Foods and Costco weren't
in the picture during that planning process. He said the
area was being maintained as G-C and he saw the character
of the area clearly changing. He said he thought it was
important about whether the., re was a mistake made and that
back then, he would have said yes but today, it was still
a question for him and he wasn't sure anymore. He
responded to an earlier comment regarding the area not
` being appropriate for residential and said he clearly
heard from individuals living in an area within the
Triangle that said they wanted the residential
neighborhoods preserved. He said that during the
planning process, citizens of the Triangle were asked
what they'd like seen done in that area and there was
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 18, 1994 - Page 4
r
~s
r 1
r
neither overwhelming support or dissatisfaction with the
plan but a concern about the downzoning was evident. 6.
Commissioner Saporta said also that school distract
officials didn't express their concerns at that time
about the Phil Lewis School site, a school he understood
j to have dwindling enrollment with the possibility of
"j revitalization by the encouragement of more residential
in the area. In conclusion, Commissioner Saporta thought `
it was a unique opportunity to plan and those 4
opportunities were not always presented and stated again ~
his question about whether a mistake was made and whether
a change was needed, either popular or unpopular.
a President Fyre said the City saw a need for development
a in the Tigard Triangle, they received grant funds and the
Planning Commission was asked to participate. He said a E ,
i number of public hearings were held and opposition in his E,
mind was there from the very first meeting; opposition to
downzoning as it could cost the residents. As the
process progressed, a series of meetings were held, and
a then there was a period of time with silence. The City
Council was talked to and they conceptually liked the
'z area and wanted the study continued. President Fyre then:
mentioned the 80 signature petition opposing the zone
change received today and distributed this evening to the
Commissioners.
a Commissioner Schweitz said he thought a change was being
heard and the plan in itself was good. He mentioned
seeing that the direction Metro was wanting to take in
the area was well and good but he felt this particular
area was not ready for that and because of Costco and Cub
Foods, the area was showing development, an area with
good access that would get better as development i
proceeded. in conclusion, Commissioner Schweitz said
perhaps it was time to let the market continue to drive
ghat happened in the Tigard. Triangle.
0 Commissioner Saxton said it would have been nice to do
something creative with a piece of Tigard and come up
with an innovative solution to the Tigard Triangle area.
He pointed out that he felt what the Planning Commission
heard from the people that either own property or live
there, was their interest in maximizing the profit
potential from selling their property. Commissioner
Saxton said one side of him thought it best to zone the
entire area G-C and let the people do whatever. However
he was also disappointed that alot of people had put clot
of time and effort into something creative that may not
be realized. He said he thought it was interesting that I`
in the last two years, the school district had changed
its position on the Phil Lewis site as district officials
had earlier told the Planning Department it had no plans
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HINI7TES - July 18, 1994 - Page 5
j i
k
to eliminate the school. Commissioner Saxton expressed
' his concern about the fact that the State had decided not
to do anything with the Highway 217 and Interstate S
interchange and questioned the potential problem f
associated with the addition of more cars in that area.
In conclusion, Commissioner Saxton said he felt if the
people wanted to sell their property as commercial, then
make it commercial and let it go at that. ~
® President Fyre commented that the City entered into this
process of trying to determine what to do with the Tigard
Triangle when the area wasn't developing. He said the
City dad a good faith move to try and do something with
the Triangle, something good and innovative and a benefit
to the residents within the Tigard Triangle. He said the
Planning staff led the Planning Commission and consultant E'
j in that direction however, during that time, the market
took off, and development started taking place. President
Pyre said unfortunately, people put alot of stake in the
Comprehensive Plan as a long range planning document. He `
said it would have been nice to do something innovative
in the Tigard Triangle however when the majority of the
j neighborhood would take an economic hit, and then to do
t something with the viability and longevity of the
i r Comprehensive Plan, in his mind, it would be really hard
to justify not to see a significant change there. He k
also said he didn't see a mistake from the start. In
conclusion, he said unfortunately, it was a learning i
experience to have gone through this process and he
complimented the citizens on their presentations at the
last meeting saying their thoughts were articulated well
;i and their points organized.
i
0 Commissioner Holland motioned that the Planning
Commmission deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-
0002/Zone Change ZON 94-0002. Commissioner Wilson f
seconded the motion.
a Commissioner Saporta asked whether each Commissioner got
i the opportunity to voice their opinion. E
0 Commissioner Moore stated he thought the points brought
up by the other Commissioners were good. He said he
agreed there had been a change and it was too bad there p
was so much time taken on the Dartmouth extension.
There were no comments on the motion.
e A voice vote was taken on the motion and the motion was
approved unanimously by the Commissioners present.
PLANNING COMMISSION METING MINUTES - July 18, 1994 - Page 6
t
4. a President Pyre suggested to the citizens present that
they save their input for the City' Council and encouraged
them to attend the public hearing. t
i The Con ,i.ssioners then discussed briefly sending supplemental
comments to the City Council and decided not to that each
situation should be handled on a case by case basis.
6. Other Business
bone
i
7. Adjour=ent
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
i
Leslee Gemaill,
t Planning Commission Secretary
_ A~ T: Pr w re
/1g/gcaetg719.do
~ f
i
a
j ,
{
I
r.
1 ~
r
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 18, 1994 - Page 7
E
f
N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TXOARD CITY COUNCIL, AT ITS MEETING ON I.-
TUESDAY,.7anvarv 24 1`495, AT 7r30 Pro. IN 9•H£ TOWN HALL OF THE TSGARD CIVIC
SW MALL BLVD., TIARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER TKE FOLLOWING
CENTER, 13
APPLICATION:
FILL NO, CPA 94-0002/ZON 94-0002
FILE TITLE: Triangle land Uaa t
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNERS, Various
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 87223
REQUEST, CO_MPREHB.SIVE PLAN AMEND140'" CPA_94-0002/ZO_NE_CHANGE _ ZON 94-0002_
_ IANOLTR E t.At±D_ IISE Thia propo a Lo aka-- and th ...prehe..lw
Plan map And toeing mAP on 97 parcels totaling approxiaataly 49
acres. The proposal Would redesignAta 17.5 acrea from 1 -density
residential (R-3.5) to -di--high density residential (R-25);
20.7 acres from coaearcial profesmional tC-P) to medium-high
density ram idential (R-25); 2.5 acres from low-density residential
(R-3.5) to coamarcial professional (C-P); 6.2 aeren from
coamarcial general (C-G) tp consaarcial professional CC-P); and 3.7
acres From gsnaral eo'c" oial (C-G) to medium-high density ~j
residential (R-25). Also propoasd is a zone change for two
t^ parcel. totaling 11.9 acres fsan C-G to C-P.
a CATIOM, Generally east of 72nd Avenus and .cast of 68th Avenue, netwean
Atlanta Street and Ha;sPton Street in the area known as the Tigard Triangle, f-
J Also West of 72nd Avenue south of Devoland Street. See attached mep. I,
1 APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: The relevant criteria in this case are
.i Statewide Planning Goals 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policiaa c'
1.1.1. 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.3, 8.1.3, 8.2,2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, and I2.1. 1; Conmunity
D.v.lopment Coda Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and the change or mistake qua. i-
-1 judicial plan map amandxent criteria of both the Coraprehansive Plan and E-
-:1 Community Devalopaent Code.
THE PUDLIC HEARING ON '1'HZS MATTER WILL 8E CONDUCTED IM ACCORDANC^cWITH THE
j RULES tlF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVSAPHENT CODE AND RULES O Y
FROC'DUP,F. ADOPTED DY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVA;LADLE AT CITY HALL, OR
RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH. IN CHAPTER 18.30.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING.
j THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE
INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL
639-4171, EXT. 356 (VOICE) OR 684-2772 (TOD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR
THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN CHE WEEK. PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO HAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TZSTIM014Y ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO
A1,1r rf~/4N(~-5 /;fix ~~Ts 3'2G7o
aclc
1 - 1 1 J~C A) //v C' f DT Cal AFR/~ ~ L
fk ~-i /G i' C/v Ar~T ~t=dPl> % /f
/
AID
SA/~ /¢.4VE B6CA) PAYING
N-
Cy-Dl~7MG.rCJ,l~t, l~i~fE:jZT`f:
_ /~K B/U / /~,z SF Ted S/TGS' t/-X.9'u"~ ~'C~~'~d.G~'✓L.,,,~
{ ~ajtt 6'd. 1 lq f- neCa1-~ //72-0
/5L C ?lG~y 7-1pk-i r> ~1 E~a~ 572.2 3
1020 SW TAYLOR. SUITE 555
PORTLAND. OREGON 97205 L
503) 248-1 185 E
503) 227-7221 -FAX
4. 503) 250-0386 - MOBILE
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PUBLIC AFFARS CONSULTING January 2 , 1995
STRATEGIC PLANNING
City Council
City of Tigard
I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
ICE: Tigard Triangle 'transportation
Dear Council Members:
I represent Waremart, Inc., the owner, developer and operator of the Cub Foods Center. As the '
Council considers the question of the Tigard Triangle Land Use Plan, I would ask you to also consider
the transportation implications of your action.
When we carve before the Planning Commission for our development approvals in 1992, our
y transportation analysis concluded that Dartmouth Road and the entire Triangle area would
experience Increasing traffic congestion, particularly at key Intersections on Highway 99. Quite r
simply, as the Triangle developed under either the present zoning or even under the "Triangle
Concept Plan" which the Commission had just accepted, there would be Insufficient capacity at the
'!portals" to the "triangle to handle projected traffic.
In our development request, we asked to be allowed to construct the Sdi lane on Dartmouth in front
of our stoi-e and eventually, both we and Costco were approved to do so In recognition of the
1 pending traffic congestion.
well, the pending traffic congestion has arrived and while the major Dartmouth property owners will
probably participate in a second LID to finish the widening of Dartmouth, Install a signal at
Dartmouth/72nd and perhaps do some Improvements at Dartmouth/99, these will only take care of
today's problems.
In the long term there needs to be a new way of getting traffic In and out of the "triangle without
using 1-5, Highway 99 or Highway 217. There have been several proposals In the past for a parallel
road to Highway 99, crossing Highway 217 connecting with Dartmouth and Hall. The Oregon
Department of Transportation, while acknowledging the value of such a crossing, has historically
- Tigard City Council
,anuary 24, 1495 k
Page 2
s
rejected any consideration of this option because Its proposed Highway 99 Corridor Study was s
pending and because the proposed 1-5/217 Interchange design precluded most of those crossing
options.
However, things have changed. ODOT stopped its Highway 99 Corridor study and now Indicates
that It will not be renewing the study effort. The original 1-5/217 Interchange design has been F
abandoned and OD®T Is just beginning a new study and design process.
_ W M the new 1-5/217 Interchange study, the City of Tigard has a timely opportunity to request
ODOT to seriously consider both Interim and long term solutions for new access Into and out of the
Triangle. Waremart urges the Council to adopt a resolution (see attached) making such a request.
Regardless of the land use plan the city adopts for the Triangle, development within the area is finally
_ taking place. However, for property owner and city goals to both be achieved, a long term
transportation solution must be found. The City Council's leadership on this Issue Is urgently needed
and you have an opportunity to take that lead with this resolution.
Thank you for your consideration and your on-going Interest for the future of the Triangle.
Sincerely,
Gordon E. Davis, for
4
Waresnart, inc.
- (Cub Foods) r
j
1
{ i
i
i
f
-1
f
f
j i
k
i
j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDE IN ITS TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OF
THE PROPOSED I45MIGHWAY 217 INTERCHANGE, SHORT AND LONG f
TERM ALTERNATIVES FOR ADDITIONAL. ACCESS INTO AND OUT OF
THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA. f.
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Transportation is about to begin a new
transportation analysis and design study of the I-5/Highway 217 interchange; and
WHEREAS, that interchange has direct impacts on access into the Tigard Triangle area;
and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Triangle is a relatively small area completely surrounded by 1-5,
17-
Highway 217, and Highway 99, which are all state highways; and -
WHEREAS, access into and out of the Tigard Triangle is controlled by the Oregon
Department of Transportation through its state highway access controls; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Triangle is rapidly developing and redeveloping, but with
considerable future development potential; and
3
WHEREAS, traffic projections all indicate that the key intersections between the Tigard
Triangle and the adjacent state highways will not have sufficient capacity to handle the
full development of the 'T'riangle area; and
i WHEREAS, there are already significant traffic problems on the three adjacent state
highways; and '
NOW TIJEREFORE, TBE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD
RESOLVES TO REQUEST THAT:
i
1. The Oregon Department of Transportation include in its transportation study of the I-
j 5/Highway 217 interchange, a full analysis of the long term traffic impacts at the
following intersections:
I-5/Haines Road Highway 99/72nd Avenue
217/72nd Avenue Highway 99/Dartmouth Road
217/Highway 99 Highway 99/68th Avenue
I-5/Highway 99
i
RESOLUTION No. 95-
Page I
3 ` 4
V
2, The Oregon Department of Transportation include in its transportation study of the I-
a 5/217 interchange, possible interim solutions to traffic congestion at the Triangle
portals; and
3
3. The Oregon Department of Transportation include in its transportation study of the I-
i t
5/217 interchange, possible long term access solutions to the Triangle including
entirely new access into and out of the Triangle.
1
PASS1rD• By vote of all Council members present after
• being read by number and title only, this day of
1995.
,j
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1995.
i
Jim Nicoll, Mayor
Approved as to form:
i
City Attorney
I
i
i
Date C
E
i ,
f
j ^
1 'RESOLUTION No. 95 -
Page Page 2
f `
January 16, 1995
Tigard Planning Commission
City of Tigard Civic Center
13125 S.. W. Hall Blvd. ECEOVED
Tigard, OR 97223
/ JAN 2 3 1994
t
Attention Planning Commission: coilm+ jay DEVRO PMEN1"
A PROPOSAL FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM RESIDENTAL TO COMMERCIAL
b We, the undersigned property owners, seek rezoning from single
family residential to commercial for the following reasons
1. Property to,the South (Phil Lewis School) is already a
zoned-"commercial.
f'-
2. Property North (Gordon Martin) is also zoned commercial,
thus surrounding the subject properties.
3. Increased traffic on SW 72nd Ave. creates hazardous entry
and exit from 72nd, neveland and Hermosa way, especially °
for residents along 72nd Ave.
4. Multifamily residential units now under construction directly
East of 72nd further compromise accessibility to, and from,
subject properties. These"problems will only increase upon
completion of these units
5<: Comfraericzalization -(Cub" Food, 'Pet'sMart, Cosy co, Tigard`
Cinema,) and other approved projects have destroyed residential`
property values and amtence of our area.
6.: Further, there are at-least rive known commercial" enterprises
currently being operated out of residences.within Hermosa Park.
it;appears.that this request/proposal for zone. change is well
within the direction that the Tigard Planning Commission and the
Tigard City,Council are already allowing or promoting the entire
triangle toward.
It-is clearly evident to all of the present residents that desir-
able. liveability is rapidly becoming a condition of the past.
L
F
CO., JAPE 2 4 1995 ~
0 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
f:
•12700SW72NDAVENUE • P.O. BOX 23684 TIGARD, OREGON 97281-3684
• (503) 620-2632 FAX (503) 684-7523
January 23, 1995
C', C.Cv r0
Mayor and City Council l j t
City Hall
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
{ r`
We own property at 12700 S.W. 72nd Avenue described as follows: +
` j PARCEL I. Lot 13, BEVELAND No. 2, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and
State of Oregon, EXCEP'T'ING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon,
by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division by deed recorded f
April 13, 1982, as fee number 82009015, and
PARCEL 2. Lot 14, BEVELAND NO. 2, Washington County, Oregon, TOGETHER WITH
-a
a portion of that unnamed 50-foot roadway inuring thereto by reason of vacation in
' Resolution & Order No. 77-107 ("The Property").
j Our builidng was designed for a professional commercial use. We object to the rezoning to medium
density residential as shown on your planning maps. We chose to construct our office building on
this property partly because it was adjacent to other offices and because the property was large
enough to allow for expansion of our facilities. Currently, our building use is at its full capacity.
:i
a When we decided to make a major investment in these properties, we were assured by City staff
members that our use would not be altered in the foreseeable future. Based upon their
representations and encouragement to locate here, we invested in a building that was awarded a
design award by the local Chamber of Commerce.
s
Any rezoning of the adjoining two properties we own will cause significant long-term economic
damage. We believe this "down zoning" of our property constitutes an illogical application of land
use law due to the age of our builidng.
We have shared our comments with staff and Council members over the last several months. On
no occasion have we found anyone who agreed to the rezoning of our properties. We are therefore i
perplexed as to why we continue to be a part of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
We respectfully ask the City Council to exclude us from this action to prevent a staff mistake from
creating undue legal action. f
Sincerely,
,
E-
PAULY, ROGERS AND CO., P.C.
1"l 7? !L
Roy R. Rogers v Sherman . Pauly _
ATTORNEY AT LAW -
1 ~
j TELEPHONE 509 245-9938 11515 S. W. PACIFIC HIGHWAY
i PoRTLAND, OREOON 97223.8000
FAX 503 245-0777
i
January 24, 1995 1
`I
a
City Council ;
City of Tigard k
'i 13125 S.G. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223 i-
Re: Comprehensive Plan, Map Amendment - CPA 94-0002
and Zone Change ZON 94-0002
Ladies and Gentlemen:
3
The Oregon Education Association, a
property owner within
the Tigard Triangle, OEA wishes to go on record that it opposes
the adoption of the above-referenced Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zone Change, and feels that the OTAK Tigard Trian-
f gle Specific Area Plan should be dropped in its entirety.
OEA therefore requests that the Council deny the Comprehen-
sive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change.
Very truly yours, f
GEORGE I. HANSEN, P.C.
1
i A nsen
i
GIH:ed
cc: Oregon Education Assn.
i
f j
January 22, 1995
City Of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd. ~
Tigard, OR 97223
File 0: CPA. 9 2/ N 94-0002
RE: Triangle Lard Use.
r
Dear City Council Members:
The Scott Family has lived in the Tigard Triangle on Elmhurst Street for 30
years. The Scott Family has also owned and operated our own business in .
the City Of Tigard for 25 years. _ r
{
Due to the changes that have taken place, in the Tigard 'T'riangle area (ex:
Cinema, Cub Foods, Petsmart and Costco), we feel that the traffic congestion
1 and upcoming developments, that are being proposed, the Tigard Triangle is
_ no longer a desirable place to raise the third generation of the Scott Family. ~
However, due to the proposed zoning change to Medium High Density
Mousing, our property valve would be greatly diminished. It would be such a
- uncial loss that we could not afford to relocate for many years to come. AL
Market Value or Commercial Price for our land is the only answer for us.
j We have worked hard for many years to gain an equity m our home. To have
it taken away with the proposed zoning change is a hard thing to swallow.
r
Tease take our concerns into account wee making your decision in this
matter.
i
Thank you.
ohm Scott Debi Scott
7085 SW Blanhurst St. A,
Tigard, OR 97223 L.
r
q
~c~L(1 'l y f
Personal Statement >
January 24, 1995
P
1
` My name is Bill Chase. I reside at 115580 SW 72nd Avenue, ry
i c.
Tigard, Oregon. I have lived here for 22 years. E
We have watched the Triangle change dramatically in the last
few years. The old drive-in theater was changed to an eight-screen
cinema and within a couple of years, it was expanded to a 13-screen
cinema. This has greatly increased the traffic and noise in the area. E
Cars come and go from 9 am until 1 to 1.30 am. Car alarms sound for ~
one to two hours at a time. Parking lot sweepers clean the lot at 3
am. The garbage trucks dump the dumpsters at 4 to 5 am. 'T'here
are also times when it is almost impossible to get into or out of our
driveway.
With the opening of SW Dartmouth, Cub Foes, Costco, and
72nd Avenue to Pacific highway, we have seen a dramatic increase
' in traffic in our neighborhood. The Tigard Times has taken the paper
route away from the paper boy because they deemed it unsafe.
I am aware it is unsafe to raise a family here. If it is unsafe as
a single family dwelling with children, how much more so would it
be with many families with many more children living in apartment
housing?
I therefore, recommend that you deny the proposed zone
F
change to It-25. Should you choose to grant the proposed zone
change, I would ask that you grant a six-month continuance.
I ~
;
I
f
C". Cam '
January 10, 1995
Please consider this request to zone the property in the Tigard
Triangle to commercial. F
As a long time resident in the Triangle, I have worked to keep this
area a pleasant and livable place to live. But with the type of commercial p
development that has been allowed to encroach this area., the livability has €
deteriorated rapidly. With the bright lighted parking lots, the sound of the
a lot sweeper in the middle of the night, the blare of Landmark Ford's outside
speakers and the increased traffic of cars and trucks making it difficult to
get out of our driveway and streets, this area is no longer a safe place for `
children and pets.
t
With the Triangle situation of location between major thoroughfares, f
d it would be to the best interest of the city to zone the entire Triangle
commercial to encourage the area to develop into high taxable development.
.i
i
It is to the best interest of the City of Tigard and to the residents of
the Tigard Triangle, not to be down zoned to IZ25 or R35, thereby
devaluating our property. When the livability deteriorates to the point that
the residents will have to move, we need to obtain a price for our property
that will allow us to at least purchase a residence in your neighborhood.
Sincerely,
'F
1 Ely Wilder
12260 SW 72nd
Tigard, OR 97223 r t 1
j cc: Mayor J. Nicoli f
Council-person W. Howley
J
fely
Council-person P. Hunt
j Council-person B. Rohn`
`J? Council-person K. Scheckla `
i
i
:i
Mayor Nicoli 10 January 1995
o 1 10494 SW Windsor Ct.
' Tigard, Oregon 97223
s r
3 Dear Mayor Nicoli
I am writing as a concerned home owner in the Tigard Triangle. The issue at
hand is the up coming meeting on 24 January 1995 in which the comprehensive
a plan for the Tigard Triangle is to be reconsidered by the City Council. The
' Planning Commission has recommended that this plan be rejected for the reasons
that they stated. No doubt you have heard and understood their positions.
'j My concern specifically is that the proposed re-zoning of my property and that
of some of my neighbors to multi-family residential. I have been warned that this
would significantly lower our property values. We would be unable to replace
these homes with ones of similar size and with a central location for the amount
that an apartment developer can afford to pay for the property.
a
Add to this the major retail and commercial development that has occurred west
of 72nd street and this proposed use (1225 or R35) seems impractical from a
economic and from a best and highest use of the property stand point. '
E
a -
I purchased my property in Tigard because it was a quality home and that I felt
that it was a reasonable investment. This property represents a good share of our
net worth. Please realize that the decisions made in your offices affect those of us
with property in the area as well as the out ciders.
Any practical plan needs to be economically feasible as well as practical from a
land use stand point. As a group, my neighbors and I feel that the original plan
needs to be discarded and a new plan developed with the input of the area
property owners as well as development experts.
Thank you for considering our view point when this comes to issue:
4 l
James and Melissa Buehler)
7175 SW Baylor St. r
Tigard Or, 97223 ,n ,
1 E ~~1cC. f-~s vein
' C)A i C J
1 January 24, 1995
To: Tigard City* Council Members
j From: Jo Anne Nordling (Triangle resident and property owner for nearly 40 years.)
7105 SW Elmhurst St.
Tigard. Oregon 97223
I live in a single family residence with a one-third acre lot in the central r
section of the Triangle. Because of the high levels of noise from the surrounding
freeways and commercial development, as well as the ever increasing traffic on 72nd ;
avenue, my house has already lost value as a single family residence, I no longer want
to live there myself, so I can't expect to find a family who wants to pay a price that
would allow sne to buy a comparable house somewhere else.
If you approve this plan to zone the single family residential areas as R-25. my
house will lose even more in value. I'd like to explain why:
~ E.
My 15,000 square feet of land is worth. $2.5043.00 afoot to an apartment t
developer. That means I could soft ray house to an apartment developer for, at most,
k $45,000. But my house has been appraised at between $140,000 and $150,000.
A commercial developer, on the other hand, can pay around $10 a square foot,
which would allow nee to sell at $150,000, very close to market value. I am concerned,
by the way, that the staff report to the council contains as error in the pricing of land i _
for commercial use. I believe it gives $2.83 as commercial price. That is definitely an
error.
At any rate, the bottom line for me, therefore, is that if I can't sell it os
commercial property, I can't afford to sell at all. Which oceans either my husband and I
live, out the rest of our lives in a deteriorating residential area, or perhaps we can react
the house out and try to find another place to live. Neither prospect sounds very
attractive.
In closing, I think the Triangle is too small a geographical area to accomedate
both a fsveable residential area and the huge commercial complexes which the city has
already approved for our area.
The Triangle has large, stable residential areas just to the east of acs, (other side
of 1-5) and to the north of us din the Metzger area.) It is also my understanding that the
i city of Tigard already has plenty of high density residential areas and a fairly high
vacancy rate in its apartment units. If however, it seems important to put more
apartments in the Triangle area, the city already has a zoning ordinance on record
which allows for living units to be built above commercial buildings, which I gather
woul4 be negotiated through individual site plain developments.
I served on the very first Neighborhood Planning Organization for the Triangle
in which one of the major recommrnendations of the plan was to protect each
residential neighborhood until such time as the neighborhood agreed to sell to an
appropriate commercial develpment. We met for a period of nearly two years, as I
recall, and had high citizen input at those meetings, something I Lhink has. not
occurred with more recent plans.
i
j I urge you to decay or, at least, to defer this latest staff proposal.
i
_i
bI
9 Darlene Wozniak 11550 SW 72nd Ave.
have lived in the Triangle across from Act 3 Theaters for almost 15 years.
During this time I have witnessed the 't'riangles development and needs. Being r
across from the theaters construction and then expansion has brought several things
clearly into play.
1. Engineers and staff have not listened to our imput. Case in point. We told
them at hearings that the exit from the theater was going to have a visibility problem
onto 72nd. It did. I called 911 a number of tinges because of severe accidents. When
y they added on to the Cinema, they then required them to lower the road, at least 4 ft.
at our driveway. The road at that time should of been made 3 lane, but was not.
Now there are times that we barely can get in or out of our driveway. With Martins
development 72nd should probably be 5 lane. Note that there are 2 lanes turning
d from 99 onto 72nd already. '
2. Noise has increased from many directions. 217 became very noticable when Cub
foods was built. We have garbage and metal sounds early in the morning, Car
horns and a roar from cars exiting the theater late at night. And then early wake up
calls from 3a.m. to 5a.m. when they clean the parking tots. The only restful time left
is early Sun, ?Morn. I can't imagine anyone living in an apartment complex here and
leaving their windows open in the summer to cool off. Not that many apartments
have air conditioning.
3. Safety. An apartment complex would be a great place for thieves to case car's to
be stolen or broken into at the theater or the Tri-met lot when it is built. That has
already been a problem at the theater. We have been witness to several break-ins
and stopped 1 car from being stolen. There was a television news report about this
problem with Tri-Met lots a while back.
My last area of concern is on Pg. 38 of the Triangle Flan. This 15% of land taken
a away sounds very much like the A-Boy situation. The Feb. issue of Country Living
a magazine addresses this very issue in a national way,, If the city wants open spaces,
let the people vote on it and supply the money to pay a fair price for the land.
Wouldn't money spent for Parks be better than for lawyers and lawsuits. On this
issue alone the Specific Area Plan should not be app oved. 9
-1- ct q'ki ng , 0-F I gncf
is aY1 Q C--1-ioo Po)lb) dA b j
,q wrQti~c~ra~
J' My name is John Wozniak. I live at 11550 Sid 72nd, due East of the Tigard i
= Cinemas, and have for over 17 years. I am currently preparing to move to the
i western edge of Tigard at the base of Bull Mountain, to get away from the
increasing congestion in the Triangle. To make the 'move, I will need to sell arty
' current home on 72nd. I am convinced that a zone change to R-25 will make it
economically impossible for me to do so. Because of this, I stand opposed to the
Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan. F_
But what I came here tonight to say is that I am even more opposed to the way in
which this whole plan has been brought into being. It started Sept. 9, 1991 with a F-
visioning exercise. .A handful of people sat down to decide what to do with the ?
"Triangle. That eventually turned into a Development Scenario that gave us a sort of
"city within a city„ plan that was presented to us residents at Phil Lewis School
about two and a half years ago.
Some folks liked the plan. But contrary to the memory of Councilor Fawley, the
~
't majority were opposed to it. And many were quite vocal about it. We felt that now
that our input was heard, the plan would be changed and re-presented to its at a later
date. We were shocked and dismayed about a couple years later to see the City of
j Tigard wanting to implement the plan with almost no change and virtually no more ~
input from the residents. When we started attending meetings so that we could share ~
our concerns, we found no forum with anyone of political significance. t,
_y
.n Finally, In June of 1994, the Planning Commission agreed to here our concerns,
and voted unanimously against implementing the-Plan. But since the City Councilors
were not willing to drop th6,plaq on the Planning Commissions recommendation, ~
another- rrieeting was called to interrogate the, commissioners on what possessed
° therm to make such a decision. And since Commissioner Hawley believes everyone
was at one time in favor of this plan, the decision to decide its fate was postponed F
until tonight, at which time you are s&7/considering to adopt a plan that only a I;
i
dwindling handful of people want.
To me, something does not seem right when the people asking for the zone
change are the same people that hold the power to approve or deny it, in this case,
i the City Council. Where are the checks and balances? And why have we been
i denied access to those who govern its? I could understand that if I were asking for a
zone change, that my contacting the Councilors could be considered ex-parte c
contact. But if rtry neighbors were concerned about my property being rezoned, it
j would not be considered ex-parte since they were not the applicant.
From everything I have seen, read, and heard these past few months, I think that F
their are those in city government who have their own agenda, and who have done
everything they can, legally, to keep us Triangle residents from finding out about it,
or doing anything about it. I believe that all of this hassle that all of us have gone
through could have been avoided years ago if us residents would have been asked
about, and listened to, regarding these zone changes.
i
E PACWESr CENMR, SUITES 16ON1950
O N1211 SOLTTHWE sr FIFM AVENUE 0 PORTLAND, OREGON 97?A4-3795 as Loea
. TELEPHONE. 503 222-9931 * FAX* 503 796-29W • TELEX, 4937535 SWK UI
F.O.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5
SAREN R. EJaW ;
i; n '.ll~J G
January 23, 1995
Ms. Kathy Wheatley
Tigard City Hall
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
i CPA 94-0002, Zone Change
ZON 94-0002, Work Session F'.
bear GIs. Wheatley:
j p
Enclosed is a copy of the Pollock and Carpenters'
recommendations to the City Council regarding the proposed i
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 940002 and Zone Change 94-0002. We
have provided copies of this proposal to each city council member
and the mayor.
Very truly yours, r.
r
Karen K. Law
i
KKL/ is
`.j Enclosure
j ~
4
FORTEAND SPATtLE VANCOUVER. WAMNaMN
OREGON • WASHWOTON • WASHwarON • VWMCT OF COLUMMA t...
SW 2224931 206621.9163 206 dP4-7sst (3WW2/6808a7273/KLU/589418.1)
LJC1W1ABEPACV1FSr CENTER, suni7'S 1600-1950 4
p g~ WHMANNO1211 SOLrW.% FS`r FIFM AVENUE o PORTLAND, OREGON 9720¢.3795
A TELEPHONE: $03 222.9981 s FAX: 503 796.2900 TELEX: 4237535 SWK U1
+;z P.C.
j - ) ATTORNMYS AT LAW F-.
KAREN K. LAW
q
January 23, 1995
f
i
f
Tigard City Council F
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223:
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA 94-0002, Zone Change
ZON 94-0002, Work Session
4
Dear Council Members:
This office represents Donald E. and Julia Gail
Pollock, and Richard L. Carpenter, who own a substantial portion
of the land in the Tigard Triangle! which'is proposed to be r
rezoned to a less intensive use by the planning staff at the City
N j of Tigard in their application to the Planning Commission. As
you are aware, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny
the staff's application for the proposed zone and plan snap
amendments.
The bollocks and Carpenters strongly urge the City
Council to follow the Planning commission's recommendation not to
approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 94-0002 and
Zone Change 94-0002 ("Alternative 211 of the Agenda). However,
? Pollocks and Carpenters do not believe it is appropriate or
desirable to follow the other portion Planning Commission's
recommendation, that the City Council direct staff to
prepare
design, transportation and open space standards to implement
j Triangle Goals. ("Alternative 391). If City planners seek to
implement changes in the development standards in the Tigard
t Community Development Code, planners should seek to effect those
changes through the proper land use planning procedures, such as
periodic review.
i
'The Pollock and Pollock/Carpenter land is situated on
either side of Dartmouth Road between 72nd and 70th Avenues.
FORT4AND MTME HANCOUVM WAS1{ aMN
OPZGON • WASMNG ON • W1S711NaMN • DIMMCT OF COLUMBIA j
503 222-Ml 206 6Z.9168 206694-7351 M227r, a (SWW216808QM73/ICLU/589707.1)
1
i
i r
i
r
V
j
s Tigard City Council
January 23, 1995
Page 2 r
1. The City Council Should Take the Planning F,
commission's Recommendation to Deny the Ar3pliratiog.
E
i
After numerous hearings before the Planning Commission, `
the City of Tigard planning staff's application to I'downzone" the ,
Tigard Triangle was rejected by the Tigard Planning commission in
an 8 to 0 vote on July 18, 1994. The Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council to likewise deny the planning
staff's application to change the zoning to a less intensive use
inside the Triangle.
The Pollocks and Carpenters strongly oppose any plan
amendments or zone changes which change the zoning designations
in the Tigard Triangle to a less intensive use. The direction -
that development has taken in the Tigard Triangle since the
building of the Dartmouth Road is purely commercial. Thus, if
'j anything, Pol.locks and Carpenters support an "upzoning" of land
in the Tigard Triangle, from residential or commercial
+ professional to commercial general, in accord with the Triangle's'
current commercial development<
t
a. Grounds for _Denial of the Application.
- f
The application submitted by the City of Tigard
L-1, Planning Staff is for a quasi-judicial zone change and
comprehensive plan amendment. Section. 18.22.040 of the Tigard
Community Development Code provides that this application may
only be approved if: (1) the application is consistent with the
applicable comprehensive plan policies and the change will not
adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community;
(2) the application is consistent with the state-wide planning
goals; (3) the application is consistent with the standards of
any applicable provision of the Community Development Code or
other implementing ordinance; and (4) there is evidence of a
change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or
inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it
1 relates to the property which is the subject of the application.
Oregon case law requires that the applicant demonstrate
j a public need for the zone change and comprehensive plan
amendment and that such a need will best be served by changing
j the classification on the properties in question as compared with
other available property. The burden of proof for proving these
two elements is placed upon the applicant seeking the change.2
f_ -
The applicant for the proposed changes fails both prongs of this
test. k
i
asano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washifl ton
unt , 254 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973).
ScHwwABE WuIjAALUN & 'WYATC (SbV~i7J68Q8417Z73/KI U/589707.1)
I
{ f
i
Tigard City Council
January 23, 1995
Page 3 E
f
,i The staff attempts to show a public need for these
changes by asserting that it was mistaken with regard to the
designation of the original parcel. The staff asserts that in
1973, when the Comprehensive Plans was adopted, the staff did not
anticipate the logical result of its planning activities which
segregated residential uses from commercial uses. Such !1A
assertions of mistake or changing circumstances are not credible.
The City of Tigard has consistently treated the Tigard Triangle s
as commercial real estate. It was this designation which formed
the bedrock of the agreement with the landowners to build the
Dartmouth Road and was the basis for the offering of the Bond
documents to the public for the interim financing of the Road.
r
Even if staff were correct that "increased demand for ~
j housing near employment centers and neighborhood services i
constitutes a change in circumstances," sufficient to rezone the
Tigard Triangle, the appropriate time to raise such issues was in
the recently completed period review process. The City of Tigard
completed periodic review under the 1989 process. At that time, t'.
ORS 197.640(3) provided that p~.~.
Through the review, the City or County shall
determine if any of the following factors
apply and take any action necessary to bring f
is the plan and regulations into compliance with
the goals or to make them consistent with
state agency plans and programs: f
3 (a) There has been a substantial change in
circumstances, including, but not limited to,
the conditions, findings or assumptions upon
which the comprehensive plan or land use
regulations were based, so that the
i comprehensive plan or land use regulations do
not comply with the goals.
There is evidence before this Commission that the
Planning Staff was aware of the alleged change in circumstances
while the City of Tigard was still undergoing periodic review.
The City was considering the current Comprehensive Plan and
zoning changes to the Tigard Triangle, but did not include those
changes in the periodic review. ~ Exhibit 1, pp(33-34).
However, the Planning Staff failed to comply with the statutory k
-i mandate by bringing these issues forward now rather than during
.3 periodic review. This application should be denied because it Y
should have been brought through periodic review and not through
the post-acknowledgement procedures.
Further, there is no need for medium-high density
` residential housing 'n the Tigard Triangle. in its application, a
the staff compares the Tigard Triangle with the Kruse Way area of
Lake Oswego. Were the property on the other side of 72nd Avenue
SCHWA= WMIAMSOM & WYA'i'S' ~gYlVtL68p8L+lT2731SQ,U/$8YIG7.1)
t
d
a
Tigard City Council
January 23, 1995
F page 4
zoned and developed as commercial-professional, this might be an
apt comparison. However, the property west of 72nd Avenue has
already been developed in a general commercial fashion, including
many "box store developments" such as Cub Foods, Costco, j
Petsmart, and Office Max. In addition, there are rumors that the F'
Martin's property will be purchased by waremart for another box j'
store development on Dartmouth Road.
The Cub Foods development, approved by the Planning
commission on March 22, 1993, actually allowed for the vacation
of a residential street and the demolition of a large number of
residential homes. To the northwest of 72nd Avenue is the ACT
III 'T'heater complex. To the east of this proposed high density i'
residential area is the large automobile dealership, Landmark
Ford. This is not the stuff of which Kruse Way is made. Had
City Staff envisioned a Kruse Way-type environment 20 years ago,
prior to zoning much of the Triangle general commercial and
before the establishment of the automobile dealership and the
warehouse-style developments, the Staff's arguments might have
1 some merit. However, the property on nearly all sides of the
proposed high density residential zoning has already been
developed, or is currently being developed, in a manner entirely
inconsistent with a mixed--use development, ~ _ .
In addition,.just a few years back, the City allowed
i the property, now owned by Western Investment, to be changed from
residential zoning to commercial general. As Ed Murphy stated in
sworn deposition testimony, "Yes, Western Investment's property
had been zoned residential before. It was a, single family
subdivision. That was changed to commercial, mostly at the
i request of the property owners."
Thus, the applicants' assertion that there has been a
change in the Tigard Triangle is not supported by its own actions j
to rezone residential property to commercial, to allow the
vacation of residential streets, and allow demolition of homes.
Rather, the evidence supports the conclusion that there is no
need or desire for housing in the Triangle. The Triangle has
been developing, and, but for the restriction preventing p
commercial development prior to the building of the Dartmouth E
Road, the Tigard Triangle would have been commercially developed
i by now, in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The residents of
the Triangle clearly do not seethe Triangle as a viable place to
live. Many have petitioned the City to rezone their property
commercial and moved elsewhere; others have faithfully attended
the neighborhood planning organization meetings and planning
commission meetings to oppose all changes in the zoning in the
Triangle to residential front commercial.
3 The applicants must show both that there is a need for
the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan, and that the
1 changes are most suited to this location. As demonstrated above,
ScxwAz F Wai trttsou & WYATt ( 1W2/dBC O72731KZU/389707.1)
' e
Tigard City Council
January 23, 1995 F
Page 5
a
the Tigard Triangle does not, exhibit a need for more residential
housing; every indication is that such housing demands are
} leaving the Triangle for other locations. The most telling
indicator of this is that the only school located in the Tigard
`i Triangle., Phil Lewis Elementary School, is closing as a result of
:j dwindling attendance as the area becomes more commercial. See,>
"Rezoning Could Cost Schools in Tigard", The pregonia (March 25, k
1994). Phil Lewis School estimates that only 20 school age
! children currently live in the Tigard Triangle to attend their
school. If there are any changed circumstances in the Tigard E
Triangle, it is a change from a residential neighborhood to a
j large commercial development. The school property is currently
zoned commercial and the school would like to sell its property
in accord with its current zoning designation.
t-
-i Thus, there is no support for the applicants'
'j proposition that general demand for housing near urban centers,
is a changed circumstance to support a rezoning of the Tigard E
Triangle for residential and professional development. By f
comparison, the Tigard Triangle contains the last of large
parcels of undeveloped commercially-zoned land in the Portland .
metropolitan area, located so closely to downtown Portland and
- with excellent freeway access, by I--5, Highway 217, and Highway
99. A housing demand may exist in Tigard, but there is no
3 evidence that such development is suited to the Triangle. In
fact, every indicator is that it is not. The Tigard Triangle is
not, and will never be, Kruse Way. There are no changed
circumstances in the Tigard Triangle to support this dramatic
change in the Comprehensive Plan, which, by its terms was
supposed to provide planning guidelines until the year 2000.
Thus, the Triangle is not the best location for such rezoning
efforts.
This application is also inconsistent with several
Statewide Planning Goals. Planning Goal One, Citizen
Involvement, is not met as the majority of landowners in the s
Tigard Triangle have consistently objected to the Planning
Commission's proposed changes in zoning and Comprehensive Plan. r
In one handout from a council meeting on April 20, 1993, Jerry
Cash stated to the council that, in a poll he took of landowners
within the Tigard Triangle, 97% supported retaining the existing
zoning in the Triangle. Ex. 9. While there may have been the
j requisite minimum number of meetings held regarding this proposed
downzoning, such a planning goal is only a sham if no
acquiescence or agreement of the community is received at such F
meetings. See, for example, the attached letters, marked as
j Exhibits 2, 3, and 4.
For example, in a January 20, 1992 letter to Ed Murphy, ~
Director of Community Development at Tigard, Mr. Freeman of
Western Investment Properties writes: r'[W)e were shocked to find
that planning was going on involving our property without being t
i
SMWABE Vs MLLVASON & WYART (sw'ar2/la9~om13/iQ.Ul584707.1)
1
7
Tigard City Council
Uanuary 23, 1995
Page 6 !
formally notified, we were also very distressed to find out that
the plan proposed major changer to ours, Martin°s, and Cub's
properties. These changes would surely allow the Martins to file`
additional lawsuits, while at the same time certainly diminish
the economic viability for us and Cub to the point where we are
not able to justify the bond cost for the L.I.D.11 Ex. 2, p 1.
Mr. Gordon Martin writes to the Chairman of the NPO 04, "1 would
like to applaud NPO 04°s notion and recommendation to the Tigard
City Council that the current General Commercial, zoning for the
j Tigard Triangle be maintained as currently depicted on the
Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map. 11 Ex. 4, p. 1. This application
is not in accord with the input of the community, the landowners
in the Tigard Triangle, who overwhelmingly support the commercial
development of the Tigard Triangle.
This application is inconsistent with Planning Coal
Ten, Housinq. That goal provides that buildable lands for k-
residential use must be inventoried and plans shall encourage the
availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price
ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial 6
capabilities of Oregon households. Linder Coal 10, buildable
lands refers to lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are
i suitable, available and necessary for residential use. Due to
the fact that the property west of 72nd Avenue has already been
developed at general commercial intensity, the property that is
the subject of this application is neither suitable, available
nor necessary for residential use. What family, especially one k
with small children, would want to dove into a home that borders
on a newly widened 72nd Avenue, a five lane Dartmouth Avenue, and
which is next door to huge discount retailers like Costco, Cub
Foods, and perhaps Waremart, whose traffic generation will be f
extremely high? The residents who currently lave across the
street from such commercial development seek to retain the same
zoning and sell their property, so they can move elsewhere into
more suitable residential neighborhoods. This application is
therefore inconsistent with the State Housing Goal.
i
This application is also inconsistent with the Planning
Goal Mine, Economic Development. Although the Staff asserts that
this application will "provide an attractive mix of land uses
thereby helping spur commercial and industrial development in the
area," as discussed above, living neat to warehouse-style
supermarkets will be anything but attractive for prospective r-
residents. The Staff points out that the area presently has
vacant areas; however, the reason for most of this vacancy is
that the City has thwarted efforts at commercial development.
The City failed to provide an adequate street system for
transportation to service commercial development in the Tigard
Triangle. Under the Cify;s Comprehensive Plan a collector road
was required before any commercially zoned property could be
developed. City of Tigard Comp. Plan at vol. 2, Sec, 11.4.2.
Landowners such as Donald Pollock formed an LID for the
:NWAsH BS.LSAA456M & WYA7T (SWW7J6gOSOr/273/KLU/5597(/1:1)
r
i
I
Tigard City Council
January 23, 1995
r Rage 7
development of Dartmouth Road in 1983 so that the collector road C
could be built. That commercial-general zoned property is
largely vacant today because the City took over 11 years to build
the Dartmouth Road, all the while maintaining the freeze on
commercial development until the road was built. This y`
application is inconsistent with the State Economic Development
Goal because it removes 18 acres from the City's developable
commercial land inventory and replaces it with land designated t.'
for multi-family housing which is totally inadequate for that
purpose due to its proximity to three major highway interchanges,
the automobile dealership and warehouse--style developments. In
conclusion, this application must be denied because it is
f inconsistent with the State Housing and Economic Goals and
because the applicants have failed to demonstrate a need for the
change. On other grounds, the City of Tigard should be
prevented, or estopped, from downzoning any property, such as Mr.
J Pollock°s, which falls within the Dartmouth LID. The City of
Tigard prohibited development of the commercially zoned lands in
the Tigard Triangle until a collector road was built. In 1983, a G
small number of landowners in the Tigard Triangle forded the
Dartmouth LID. These landowners, including Mr. Pollock, waived
l their right to remonstrate and agreed to be burdened with the
' cost of the road for the s lie purpose of lifting the freeze on
development of their commercial-general zoned properties.
.i
In deciding to form the LID, the landowners relied upon
the Comprehensive Plan. As the Plan states, "the Tigard.
Comprehensive Plan is the plan on which land use decisions will
be made for the area within the Tigard Urban Planning Area during
the planning period (1980-2000).►► Tigard Comprehensive Plan,
Volume II-1. Landowners relied upon the Plan and the
understanding of the City that the sole purpose for :forming the
LID was to lift the City's moratorium on commercial development
and allow the development of property in accord with its zoning
designation under the Plan as commercial general.
In Ordinance N. 84°17 attached as Exhibit A, the City f
of Tigard ratified and established the City Council's Resolution
for form the Dartmouth LID. That Ordinance provides in Section
l 5, "Benefit for the purposes of LID #40 is hereby determined to
be derived according a property's ability to.develop as set forth
in the Comprehensive Flan for the City of Tigard." Ex. A, p. 2. t
i
The Engineer's Report which supported the formation of '
the Dartmouth LID stated the landowners and City's understanding
of the formation of the LID, to further commercial development of
the Tigard Triangle. For example, the engineer notes,
f ►►(u)tilities will be sized to serve'the ultimate development of
the Tigard Triangle in conformance with existing planning for the
area. . Ex. 5, p 2.
I
.S
SC7MASS WRIJAt.SMN & WYATt (SWW216808077'2 r<LU1589707.1)
,i
Tigard City Council
January 23, 1995
k Page 8
in the Public Offering Document for the Limited Tax
General Obligation Bonds that the City offered to raise money to
fund the interim costs of the building of the road, the City
represented to the public: that the notes would be repaid from
assessments against benefitted properties, stating that "Note r
proceeds will be used to fund infrastructure improvements for the y
- development of this prime commercial property. Ex. 6, p. 16.
Thus, the essence of the formation of the LID was that
landowners would be allowed, finally, to develop their "prime
commercial property" in accord with its zoning designation under
. ; the Comprehensive Plan. Only the development of C-G property
could support the high cost of a collector road such as the t.'
' Dartmouth Road. C-P and high density residential land values
could not support the assessment and Aar. Pollock, and the other R.
landowners in the LID, would never have supported the LID, agreed
to be subject to its assessments and waived right of E
remonstrance, if the City had disclosed its plans to downzone
after the LID was completed. Likewise, knowing that only
commercial development could support the LID, the City r
represented to the public that the development of the "prime
'j commercial property" would fund the LID so investors could C<..'
recover on their Notes.
Thus, the reliance of the landowners in the LID on the
future development of their commercial property to fund the LID
` was well know to Tigard City Planners, and relied upon by the
planners in acquiring the financing necessary to build the
Dartmouth Road. See, for example the sworn testimony of Ed
Murphy, where Mr. Murphy commented on some of the memoranda he
? had wrirten at the City of Tigard about proposed zoning changes
within the Tigard Triangle:
"Q. Then on the second page of this
document, you I'm quoting your words. I
quote, 'How do we keep the support of the
major participants in the Dartmouth LID and
still consider changing the zoning
designation: or their design standards in ways
they find unpalatable?' Who were the
major participants you had in mind when you
wrote that?
A. Four major participants to the Local
Improvement District for Dartmouth. . . Would
have been Don Pollock and Gordon Martin and
Super Value and Western Investment."
1 ~
Ex. 1, p. 7.
Landowners in the LID, such as Mx-. Robert E. Freeman of
Western Investment Properties wrote to the City's counsel
I '
SCHW✓BEWMLA'~f."iG7d$'~6YATT (SVVWI158A3(V72'73/1{Y.(J/589?07.1) i_
Tigard City Council
f January 23, 1998
Page 9
stating, "Unfortunately, just last month I heard quite by E
j accident that the City had hired a planning consultant to review
the entire plan for the Tigard Triangle. In complete disbelief
of this rumor, I called Ed Murphy and was informed that in fact
not only was it true, but a meeting was set I attended this
meeting a was completely shocked that the consultant was
proposing rezoning not only our land, but also the Martin's land.
Further, the proposed plan concerned us since it would greatly 4
diminish the ability of Cub and Pollock to develop their
properties by changing zoning and/or development standards. . .
by changing the zoning and/or development standards on Cub's,
Pollock's and our property you are as risk of losing the economic i
engine that was, for a large part, responsible for moving along
4 the construction of Dartmouth and the ultimate development of the p?';
Triangle." Ex. 3, p. 2 (emphasis added).
The landowners' reliance upon the City's promise and
Comprehensive Plan that development of C-G zoned land would be
permitted as soon as the landowners paid for the City's road,
must prevent the City from immediately downzoning LID property
from C-G to C-P as soon as the road is completed and assessments t
to go out.
In addition, the City has consistently delayed the F
building of the road, which has served to continue the moratorium
on commercial development in much of the Tigard Triangle. The
{ City and the landowners agreed on the formation of the Dartmouth P,
LID, which had a single purpose of building the Dartmouth Road,
j in 1933. The Road was just completed earlier this yaar, in 1994. `
Thus, landowners have been sitting with vacant, undevelopable
land for -11 years waiting for the City to build the Road. The `
cost of the Road has increased dramatically, as time wore on and
the City shade unauthorized changes in the Road. Randall Wooley, i'
Engineer for the City of Tigard stated in sworn testimony that
never, in his 2 to 21 years of practice at several different
cities, had he seen an LID which took that long to complete. Ex.
£f, p. 2-3.
't Now, when the road is finally completed, the City seeks
to deprive that landowners of the carrot the City held before
them for years, to entice these to agree to pay for the road. It
weeks to change the zoning of substantial portions of the Tigard
Triangle, many of which fall within the Dartmouth LID, to a more
3 restrictive, less profitable zoning designation. There has been
no mistake or change in circumstances. The City has finally
gotten its road at the expense of the landowners; now it seeks to
1 expel the commercial development which was always intended to
follow the Road and fund the assessments for the Road. The
applicant's proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
in the Tigard Triangle should be denied.
4
ScHwA$s Wu i#-mwN & WYATC (5W W2/6EO$01~1Y731dCd.U!$89'707.1)
i
Tigard City Council I
January 23, 1995
Page 10
w
Finally, the proposed downzoning, if passed and
Implemented, would be an unconstitutional taking of the
- landowner°s property and reasonable investment-backed
expectations under the Oregon and United States Constitutions,
and/or prevent the City from assessing the landowners for the
cost of the LID. The City's downzoning of the Dartmouth LID
I property, just after completion of the LID project, prevents the
landowners from reaping their expected and promised benefits of E
the Road. Landowners in the LID were told that they could
develop their land according to the commercial zoning as soon as
the collector woad was built. The road is now completed and
open, and before many landowners can begin to develop their
property, the City plans to take away the economic benefit of
agreeing to build the road for the City. This taking of
landowners expected uses must be compensated for, or
alternatively, landowners in the LID cannot be forced to pay for
a road they were mislead in paying for the City, and will never €
be able to reap the full benefits of.
2. The City Council Should not Take the Planning f.
Commission°s Recommendations to Direct Planning Staff to ~
! Dement Triangle Goals.
The planning staff just completed periodic review
through LCDC, and made no efforts to amend the plan maps or
:i zoning for the Tigard Triangle to implement its Triangle goals in
that arena., where the implementation of such changes is
appropriate. In fact, the staff at the City of Tigard have
consistently operated to enforce their plans for the Tigard
i Triangle without going through the proper channels of periodic
review or other land-use planning.
l
For example, the planners took many steps to implement
this proposed zoning change east of 72nd Avenue, long before the
application was ever made to the Planning Commission to have a
public hearing on the matter. See, for example, the letter of s
Carol Landsman to Donald E. Pollock, "I am sending you a copy of
the Dartmouth Street Concept Plan for your information and
review. This elan will not be adopted by city policy boards: it
i will be used by city staff in project review. Exhibit B.
I Essentially, certain staff at the City of Tigard determined that
it wanted the property east of 72nd Avenue to be rezoned into a
mixed use residential/professional development, and the staff i
' developed plans to support their decision. When the Dartmouth
Street Concept Plan was created, the engineers used the proposed k„
Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan as if it were fully adopted,
in order to base its projections on traffic circulation and
street use. The Specific Area Plan, in turn, was based on the
proposed traffic circulation patterns in the Street Concept Plan. F`
Thus, the staff implemented its desired changes in the
development of the Triangle, by using unadopted plans to guide
development.
ScHwA o WmLwAsox & WYATr (SNvW2/6803017273/KLtJ/5997(7.1)
i
;j
t
1 Tigard City Council
? January 23, 1995
i Page 11 E
For example, these plans were used to change the width F
and development of portions of Dartmouth Road, to the detriment
of Pollocks and Carpenters. In that case, the planning staff,
without notice or hearing, allowed Dartmouth Road west of 72nd F
Avenue to be widened to five lanes, in accord with the unadopted
Specific Area Plan Tigard Triangle Concept Plan (commercial
development to the west). When a representative for Donald t
_ Pollock asked that the road be widened to five lanes east of 72nd
in front of the Pollock/Carpenter properties, the staff at the
City of Tigard said that such a widening would not be allowed s
because it was not in accord with the Tigard Triangle specific
Area Plan (residential/mixed use to the east), even though the
land was zoned commercial general.
The Tigard Planning Commission later entered an "after G
7 the fact" on the widening of the road west of 72nd. As noted in
that order:
It became apparent that what was being built
by the LID would not only be inadequate, but
that the curbs, street lighting, sidewalks,
storm draining system and landscaping would E
have to be rebuilt or relocated or otherwise
ti disrupted in order to widen the street. An
s ? obvious better choice would be to allow the
street to be widened now, and the curbs, G
sidewalks, street trees, etc. be placed where
they ultimately would be when the entire road
section was widened.
- n - was devised, therefore. to widen
i Dartmouth between 72nd and the site entrance
with an additional westbound lane .
f
i i
The timing was such that the City staff could
not schedule a Dublic h.earjr4g or otherwise
i_
;evolve the Plannina Commission Therefore,
the staff decided to allow the widening, and
t era reauest that the Planning Commission
amend the condition to reflect what has
actually been built.
i
As a result of this maneuvering, which deprived the
Pollocks and Carpenters of notice and a hearing on the issue of
whether Dartmouth Road should have been widened to five lanes
west of 72nd Avenue, Dartmouth Road is now a five-lane road west
of 72nd and a mere three-lane road east of 72nd. This
discourages traffic from traveling on the road directly in front
of the Pollocks' and Carpenters' property, and thus will reduce
j its commercial value. Clearly, the actions of the planning staff j
csim2t69i8orMInUiss97m.a>
SCHWASE WM11AMSOK WYA'TT
I.
_1 fh
Tigard City Council
January 23, 1995
1 W Page 12
1 to approve read widening without notice and hearing and the
Planning Commission's "after the fact" approval violated the due
process rights of the Pollocks and Carpenters.
i In addition, Potential buyers of property in the
Triangle have been info-med of the plans to change the
development in the Triangle, and that land use decisions for
{ developments would be bared upon the unadopted plans.
It is this type of behavior that the City Council
should not endorse by directing staff at the City of Tigard to
implement undefined Tigard goals for development. The staff
` should have expressed all of its desired changes in planning
goals at periodic review; alternatively, it should wait the
twelve months prescribed in the Community Development Plan and
`j make another planning application to the Planning commission. it
should not be allowed to take those actions now.
3. Conclusion.
In conclusion, the City Council should take the i_
Planning Commission's recommendation, "Alternative 2,11 to deny
the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
portions of the Tigard Triangle. The applicant has not carried
l its burden of proof that changed circumstances exist to support
such a change, and that such changes are best suited to the
Tigard Triangle. The Comprehensive Plan changes are not in
accord with Coals 1, 9 and 10. In addition, the. City should be
precluded by law from changing the zoning of the property of
i landowners, such as Donald Pollock, within the Dartmouth LID, as
the commercial development of that land was the sole motivating
factor for the landowners agreeing to build the road for the
! City. Finally, the loss of reasonable investment backed
expectations of profit from the downzoning of property within the
LID may render the LID assessment void, and may subject the City
to claims for unconstitutional taking of property. The City
should not, however, take the Planning commission's
recommendation to allow the planning staff to implement "Triangle
goals" in land use planning in the Triangle.
j
Very truly yours,
. LO
i ~KaWren X. Law I
' KYL/ l s
SCHWABE WLLLLAMS014 & WYAi7 (SL'Jg:J2168680/'Y773/KI.U/589707.1) V
f_
e
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON [
ORDINANCE NO. 84-J2 `
AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ti
FEBRUARY 27, 1984, WITH RESPECT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DARTMOUTH STREET
3 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID f40) ESTABLISHING THE IDISTRICT; APPROVING,'-
RATIFYING AND ADOPTING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
STREET IMPROVEMENTS; DECLARING RESULTS OF THE HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE
INPROVEMENT• AND DETERMINING THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED.
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 84-14 was passed by the City Council of the City
of Tigard at its regular meeting of February 27, 1984, which described the
f
;J boundaries of a proposed street improvement assessment district, and which
declared the Council's intention to construct a street, including curb,
I sidewalk, streetlights, traffic signal, storm sewer, waterline, sanitary sewer
and appurtenances thereto, and to assess 'the costs for the inprovements
against the property within the boundaries which have been found to be
specially benefited; and
WHEREAS,-pursuan> to the resolution, legal notice of the hearing scheduled
for March 12, 1984 was given by publication in the Tigard Times for
a consecutive publishings on Furth 1 and S. 1984, prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, by the terms of the resolution a hearing was held in Fowler
Junior High School at 10865 S.W. Walnut Street in Tigard, Oregon on March 12,
1984, at 7:30 p.m. and was continued to March 26, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. for the
- - purpose of affording an opportunity to any parties effected by the proposal to
f make objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvements. The plans and r`
specifications for the improvement and estimates of the work to be done and
the probable costs- of the improvement together with the percentage of the
total cost of the improvement which each lot should pay were available to the
f public at the meeting and prior to the meeting; and F
WHEREAS, by the terms of the resolution and published notice, written
objections or remonstrances from not less than 66 213% of the owners of
s property within the boundaries of the area were invited as provided by THC
13.04.050, and all objections and remonstrances presented prior to the hearing
7 and at the hearing represent less than 66 213% of the owners of she property F.
in the area within the improvement assessment district and that the percentage
of remonstrances is not a ban to further proceedings in the making of the
improvements; and
_ l
WHEREAS, all proceedings to date have been in conformity with Scare s
- i Statute, the Tigard Charter, Chapter IX, 538, and Tigard Municipal Code, Title
13, and all procedures were regularly and lawfully conducted.
E
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Resolution No. 84-14, adopted by the City Council on February 27,
1984, and attached and marked as Exhibit "A" shall be adopted as
{ a part of this ordinance subject to the amendments set forth in
Section 5 of this ordinance. The amendments are a result of the
{ public hearing proceedings, and the defended resolution is hereby
approved, ratified, and confirmed, and the boundaries of the area
known as DARTMOUTH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT as described in the
resolution, are declared and fixed in accordance with the
description. EXHIBIT-A-
PAGE
E,
-i Section 2: The City Council having acquired jurisdiction to order the
improvement to be made, does hereby authorise the formation of
the local improvement district and directs the Finance Director
to prepare the Preliminary Assessment Roll, i,
t`
Section 33: The City Council further authorizes the acquisition of land as`
provided by State law and the Tigard liunicspal Code and the
construction of a street improvement within the boundaries of the
DARTMOUTH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT in conformity in all reasonable
particulars with the plans and specifications adopted as part of k
! Resolution No. 84--14 and hereby ratified and adopted by this
ordinance.
Section 4: The estimated costs and expenses of the improvement assessed
_ against the specially benefited properties is $1,995,700.00. The
estimated cost includes the cost of construction and installation s
of the improvements; advertising, legal, administrative, survey,
engineering, notice, supervision, materials, labor, contracts,
equipment, inspections and assessment costs; financing costs
including interest charges; the costs of necessary property,
i right-of-way or easement acquisition and condemnation
`s proceedings; attorney`s fees and any other necessary expenses.
Section 5: All lands situated within the boundaries described on the G
g attached Exhibit "A" are determined and det::lared to be a street E
1 improvement assessment district, and it. is further declared that
each lot, part of lot *and parcel of land within said boundaries
will be especially benefited by said improvements, and that the
estimated cost is $1,995,700.00 for the improvements including
1 land acquisition costs, the assessable cost are estimated to be
$1,995.700.00 which shall be assessed in full, according to
} benefit against all lands within said improvement district.
Benefft for the purposes of LID 040 is hereby determined to be
derived according; as propert~yys ability to develop sas set-f®gtlaifl_-_
~fie'l;omore-tiensiv Pi~'n for tts~ C1ty of Tigard. Pour"~r`o;ierties
in part or whole --as-'provided below are_excepted_ from the District
'i and they are the Alexander property (Tax Map 4151 36 CD Lot 01800 i
S 1900), the Hedgepeth/Stevart property (Tax Map #1S1. 36 DC Lot
#4402) and the Vasey property (Tax Map #2S1 1AA Lot #2800) w#2800) which
are substantially developed and therefore receive no benefit,
also the Probstfield property (Tax Map # 1S1 36CD Lot x'#1700)
EXCEPT the southerly 10,000 square feet which is substantially
developed and therefore receives no benefit.
Section 6: The Tigard City Council: finds that the DARTMOUTH LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT improvements are of the character described
in ORS 223.205, and that they therefore qualify for financing by
general obligation improvement warrants pursuant to ORS 287.502 -
287.515.
EXHIBIT
PAGE r
j
1
Section 7: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 30th day after
t" - its enactment by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.
j
PASSED: By Une, niW ctS vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only. this day
of 1984. ~ -
lYeputy City Recorder -City of Tigard f "
APPROVED: This day of . 1984.
Mayor pro tem - City of Tigard
APPROYED AS TO FORM:
sty Attorney
k
E 1
i
i
i
i
c
a lv/1425A
i
1 -
EXHIBrre,.,&- Y
PAGE
i
F:
E
a - CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
March 16, 1994
} i EXHIBIT
k~
Don E. Pollock
1834 SW 58th Ave., #202
Portland, OR 97221-1436
E
RE: Dartmouth Street Concept Plan
I am sending you a copy of the Dartmouth Street f
Concept Plan for your information and review. This.
f plan will not be adopted by city policy boards; it will
be used by city staff in project review as will
information an applicant submits.
If you have any comments or questions, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Landsman
Senior Planner
Enclosures (1)
41:13eRNWW~6avwe9JN ~
+ S
1
i.
ll
•Jt
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TU® (503) 684-2772
F
_ ~ _ :•i u ci ii ,a:, '`S:i is 1. ri i b , l : ~ ~ _
if 6
1I ED MURPHY
t'f 2 was thereupon produced as a witness in behalf of the
3 Defendants and, having been first duly sworn on F
4 oath, was examined and testified as follows:
{ 5
6 EXAMINATION i
7
8 BY MR. WILLIS:
'a 9 Q. Mr. Murphy, my name is Joe Willis. I'm an t-_
10 attorney that represents Mr. and Mrs. Pollock and
11 also Mr. Carpenter in cases that the City of Tigard
j 12 has filed against them. You have general
13 familiarity with those?
14 A. I do.
E
15 Q. I don't recall, were you in court along
16 with Mr. Wooley when Mr. Corrigan was presenting
i
i
17 this matter earlier?
16`i A. I was in the room. I didn't testify.
19Q. Okay. I remember having met you before. I
R
20{ don't know if it's this matter or some other-
21~ matter. I don't recall.
22 You do understand that I'm the lawyer for
23 those people?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. And have you had your deposition taken
y GEESMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-3222
16tT
PAGE
1
ED MURPHY MARCH 26, 1994
13
1 beyond my depth in land use planning and lingo, so
i f s 2 tell me explain to me what periodic review is.
3 A. What's every once in a while, every few'
4 years, cities are required to look at the
is
5 comprehensive plan to make sure it still meets all
i
6 the state planning laws, and if the laws have
I:.
7 changed in the meantime something changes
F:
;j 8 relating to housing or the transportation system or
j
j 9 energy or something else then you have to bring'
10 the plans up to date
j 11 Q. Okay.
i ~
12 A. and amend them as necessary to be in
13 compliance with the new rules or the new laws.
1
14 Q. The source of that requirement is found in
15 a state statute?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And then is there a specified period set
18 forth as to when the cities or counties are required
I
19 to do that?
20 A. There is, and I don't remember what ours
21 is. It's about every five years. we just completed
22 our periodic review. Often it takes two or three
i
23 years to go through periodic review. We just
24 finished ours, so now about five years from now
25 we'll be going through it again.
{
GEESMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-322H8131Y
PAGE'
i
E El` MURPHY MARCH 28, 1994
E 3:
1 plan change than it is just a zoning change?
2 A. Yes. .
f
3 Q. To your knowledge, since you have been
4 there, has the City of Tigard proposed any
+ pin
5 comprehensive plan changes that you're aware of?
6 A. Within the triangle or F:
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. I guess that would be the word. We have
5 i
9 proposed some changes that have not taken effect
+
j 10 yet, one through sort of a concept plan that would €
11 suggest that we should change the comprehensive pla a,
12 bi-tt hasn't been done yet. We decided to go through
i 13 tli.e development of a specific plan that goes into
'w 14 more detail. Also suggests that the comprehensive
15 l•'An should be changed.
16 Q. Now, let's focus outside the triangle.
17 i ing your period of time, has the City of Tigard
~ i
j ( 18 made any such counterpart proposals for plan change
i~ 19 oui,side the triangle while you have been there?
- i 20 A. Talking about initiating the proposal
MI 21 r.- rther than - -
+ 22 Q, Yes, not just
23 A. accepting
24 Q. considering them and passing on them b`
25 somebody else where they have actually initiated
GEESMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222=3222
ExHlBlT
~ , PACE
' ED MURPHY MARCH 28, 1994
E
32 E
1 them,
2 A. I c..:tn't think of any at the moment.
3 Usually whea,the city initiates comp. planning
4 changes, it deals more with the text, not the
5 designation of the land, like commercial or
f
6 residential, but rather the text and whether more r?
7 trees or wetlands should be saved in a particular
8 area or how wide the road should be or things like
9 that, but not the land use designation.
1
10 Q. Ha.:-~ that been your own general experience
11 in the City of Tigard and elsewhere where the city
12 is initiati-ag some type of comp. plan change, it's "
I '
13 for more 'b,: : id textual. type changes as opposed to
' 14 individual specific land uses within a particular
15 area?
16 A. often, unless there's a specific study of
{ 17 the downto:•:, area. T11-re was some special study
i
18 which didn',. necessarily get into land use. Well, I
I
19 guess it did. We.actually initiated some changes to
20 the text ti,,i: affected the land use, like what you
i
j 21 could do wi.'.it existing buildings. Didn't change the
22 zone but it changed the text, and that affected what
23 you can do ..,:th the property in the area around the
24 Lincoln Ceil;-..:r. We initiated an urban renewal plan
25 which would have changed the zoning had it been
j
i
GEESMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-3222 F
EXHIBIT
'PAGE
EO Mi7.~PHY MARCH 28, 1994 3.
ulti,.i..;:ely accepted by the voters. `
4 2 . That was not accepted?
A
3 That was not accepted, but that was one k
f:
a 4 that Lhe city also initiated very broad scale. h
ri 5 Q. Focusing on the Tigard triangle, you're s
t
! 6 familiar enough with the proposals there to agree
7 that if accepted or if formally adopted that they f`
hi
t
8 would actually have the effect or result of actuall,
j
9 chancing the zoning designations on specific parcel
;i to within the triangle; is that correct?
11 T,. If the specific plan recommendations were
12 accEk!~ad K
a 13 Yes.
la A. and implemented it would change the
15 spe• i.c land use designations on specific
16 prct.. pies. i'
17 So we're clear, but since you have been
16 witf,, she city you have no recollection of that
~ F
19 occ-, -;:in<3 by a city-initiated proposal anywhere els
'
I
20 in t city?
'j - 21 Na. No, not not in that fashion.. It'd
22 more Lext changes.
23 Okay. With respect to Your periodic
j _ 24 Vet :::asrs, or what I call five-year periodic reviews,:
- 25 ano 'te one you said that you just completed, did k
s - - -
"3222
2-
ASSOCIATES (503) 72
GEESMAI~3
_:i
EX141BIT
PAGE
1 ; ED MURPHY MARCH 28, 1994
3.
4 1 this proposed change to the Tigard triangle, was
2 that sent up to LCDC as any part of that proposed
a E ~
3 five-year update?
' 4 A. No.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
.
n' BY MR. WILLIS:
j 7 Q. Mr. Murphy, I'm aware that LCDC is a
e repository of various master plans and those things
9 that are sent to it.
10 A. Uh-huh (positive response). f
11 Q. Do you want me to stop while you're making
12 notes?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. I want to make sure I have your
15 undivided attention so you understand my question.
i 16 Then if you want to stop and make notes, just tell
17 me, and I will make sure I give you the opportunity F,
_
18 to do that.
` 19 I'm aware that the LCDC would be a
--•r 20 repository for the various plans that the City of
_J 21 Tigard has had sent up there for review since it's
c 22 been required to, but does the city also keep those
I !
23 things in an organized, chronological-type file
{
24 somewhere?
25 A. That would be kind. I suppose. It keeps
'a GEESMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-3222
IS(~
PAGE
F
l ED MURPHY MARCH 28, 1994
42
I E
- s 1 parking spaces per thousand square feet or
could have adopted just some interim i
2 something. We
'1 6 ~,y t
3 regulations dealing with that item, or an interim
rya I-
' 4 regulation saying all streets have to have the k
k ~
5 street trees on them, or even on the positive, maybe r -
' 6 an interim regulation saying that within a within:.`
r
7 an office zone you could build multi-family. You
8 know, there would be I think I mentioned a bridge
i
9 to get us through for a few months or even a year or
10 two until the full package was adopted. we decided
l 11 there was no need to do that. r;
I r
12 Q. Then on the second page of this document, t
T~11 f
l j
13 you I'm quoting your words. I quote, "How do we
k • _s - P mom, X'-_ n- ~
A) 14 keep the support of th z'tici'qants in the
~
15 Dartmouth LID and still consider .changing the zoninc
- 16 designation or their design standards in ways that
17 they find unpalatable."
18 Who were those
' 19 A. Does it say "zoning designation or design
e-} 20 standards"?
"Or.", Did I misstate that?
21 4
l ,_q
22 A. I thought you said "and."
23 (Q. I didn't mean to if I did.
1 \
24 Who were 'the major participants you had in j
25 mind when you wrote that?
`j GEESMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-3222
a ' ~ EXNIBiT ~
PAGE s.-
3 t J ED MURPHY MARCH 28, 1994
{
1 A. Four major participants to the Local
1 - 2 Improvement District for Dartmouth. i
3 Q Who are they?
E..y 4 A. It°s changed over
the years, but probably '
5 the same as when I wrote that. Would have been Don i
6
Pollock
and Gordon Martin
and Super Value and
7 Western Investment. Super Value being Cub Foods an
8 Western investment being Costco.
# 9 Q. That would have been the same as where it t;
10 said "owners" earlier?
~ f
3 11 A. That's right.
' - 12 Q. Had you heard the names Bob Randall or
J
t
13 Homer Martin?
_t
%E 14 A. Williams.
7 15 Q. I'm sorry. Bob n.andall and Homer
15 Williams.
17 21--ad then when 3r .t were considering chapg ne
i ~ i _
1 m
18 the zoning designation oi the design standards in
i
19 ways that they find unpalatable, when you wrote
L 20 this, had you already concluded that they would find
{
I 21 what you were proposing unpalatable?
22 A. When I wrote that I think, we were referring
23 to alternative D there. :'here was maybe five major
i
24. alternatives and a lot of spin-offs off of those.
25 So depending on the.alternative, some property
- GEESMANT & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-3222
EXHIBIT
PAGE J__
i
l
i ED MURPHY MARCH 28, 1994
54
- 1 for. Martina, Cub and Western Investments, before
1
1 2~ Exhibit 120 was written and afterwards, with respect k
3 to the latest version of whatever is contained in i
{ 4 the concept plan, can you compare those for me? -
'a 5 A. Say that again. I didn't understand the
6 question.
7 Q. Cumbersome question.
E `
8 You have told me that at least with respect 4
1 s
9 to Martin, before you received Exhibit 120, they
F, .
10 were talklag about even some notions of changing the r
s
11 plan and plan designation and zone to some type of a f M
12 multi-family residential. Now, that had been.;'
i
13 predomina. y gener•j1. commercial, had it not?
a
14 A. Martins' property was already zoned general
i
15 commercial..
i 16 Q. A71d with respect to this Western Investment
17 property, :s it ales,, general commercial.?
18 A. Western Investment's property had i
' i 19 been zone.' --esident .al before. It was a
20 single-faniliy subdivision. That was changed to
21 commercie-" mostly at the request of the property
'i 22 owners.
1 ! 23 Q. - that bne!k in 183?
d
24 A. 'on't know when that was.
i
25 Q. then with respect to Cub's properties, f
t GEESMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222 - 3222
ExHiBrr
PAGE-_f
_m
r
t
JJ ~y 100.0 Nr.-d. hvolftRosd + Suice 3310 m Cupertsno,Califor 'a 9501-2597
7 Va .rt Ear .a .icisl Center o (408) 996-0700 • FAK (403)'6-:117?
l
. .a f
Ja•.a afy 30, 1992 VIA F .y 5031684-7297AND US.,VAIL
? !r. Edward I Murphy
r of Comrntlnity Developrnentr ~
! CITY OF TIGARD E X H 9 ]IT
E. 13 L25 S.W. Blvd. t a F
Tigard. OR 97223
Hue-phq
1E: Tigard Triangle
Renkendorf 1.%n
a
Dear Ed:
Thank you for informing me of the January 6, 1992 work session L'lcering with th % Planning
Cdoasnaission to discuss the rezoning of the Tigard Triangle in time i -ir one to be able •o attend.
a
{ As I told you after that meeting, we were shocked to find that planning was going on involving E
our property without being formally notified. We we m also very distres.'ed to find out the
- plau proposed major changes to ours, Martini's and Cub's properties. The---. changes woula surely
1 allow the Martins to file additional lawsuits. w bile at the same time cerltain:v diminish the k
economic viability for us and Cub to the point where we are not able to jusd!y the board cost for i
the I...I.D.
{ As you know, for our property, Benkendorfs plate is promoting the rezoning frog i g=oal ~
' cx?zxarracrcial to a combination of professional so cial. park and wetlands. Wt have been
involved in this site since 1988, specifically because it was zoned to allow a retail %(xnmercial
project to be developed.. Had we known that there was ever even a remote chance tit this
Property would be zoned professional commerciaL we.. never would have become involved with
it In discussing the professional commcrcial zone after this meeting with numerous office
developers we found that we could not give our land away for office deve:lopment., evert if we
paid for the I JLD. In fact. one developer told us that there was enough office product alread/ on
i the market to pct demand for next tart v e an. Secondly, Bcak rf's play proposes a park
directly on the major curve of Dartmouth. Certainly, this non-centralized park located as the
most dangerct slocaxion on a high speed mad makes poor planning logic. This poor planning is
certainly eTbe std by the fart their ever, if the Citgr would be willing to acquire our land, they r
then zvdulced with the very high I..I l~. assessments. since the park is proposed
irnusediat showing a m.-a jor portion of our
uthly dy also shows poor planning
dnait ,does not lend rcself to the potendai
ty thauth cotcld someday extend o~rer 217 to Hall Boulevard.
As we also disccu'ssU I tit greatty mAicezne d with Mr. Benkendmfs proposed development
st4rduds for commicrciat which in stay opinion would legislate his outdated prejudices against
commercial instead of-encouraging logic ly planned and architecturally compatible
projects with integrated landscaping and signing criteria. I cgislating the elimination, of strip
commercial buildings and f =standing pads in this market area awakes absolutely no planning or
economic sense.
EXHiBaf
000616
RAGE / F
I
4110ppin? C:cntc:-Dt:cloprncnt Commr-c:al Kral Fstste Partnersh;P's
k
Mr. Edward J. Murphy
City of 71gard
January 30, 1992
1
Thus, dd, we encou22-ge you to work with Mr. Beakendorf in developing a 1•lan for the Triangle
that %A ould recognize both the realities of potential Martin lawsuits, as well & the need to allow t
the ps Werlies which pay for the development of Dartmouth to be econotrdc .11,- developed
Addi' ionally, your help in eliminating some of Mr. Beaakendorfs outdated prejt.3icrs and ~
substituting tasightful planning, architectural and landscape design standards wo-U be greatly
appn 4,iated, not only by us, but I am certain by a great many of Tigard's citizens.
Unf irtunately, I will not be able to attend the joint Pla..-ming ComanissionJCity Coumil work
ses! ion on the Benkendorf plrn., but in my place my partner, Chuck Marsh, will be an°nding. At ~
Lhs time, Mr. Marsh will voice our concerns on the Beakendorf plan. f
11( ok forward to wod3ng with you in revising the plan for the Triangle to recognize the coutical
ani economic realities of this are- Please let the know should you have any questions.
j Yo rrs very truly,
WESTERN 1:NV'eSTME`*FT PROPERTIES VII
i
ROBER'T' E. FREEMAN c-
General Partner
o-
cc: Timothy V. Ramis. Esq.
Charles L. Marsh, Jr. `
f -
J
i f
1
i
i
i
i i
1
000617 EXH1131T
PAGE
i
gnc a? Nm a iNotrc ttald • 5utte 3115 + C„uPerttna° .C S11fnceei, tdbR.897 ' i E x N l l
Sisltt,°u t-7raxnziat ~tcttee. • {4ttt3,5 ~Jr3d-ai`atha • °rary.;: j X96-~A3f
LIM
Jantaty 3fo, im VIA PAX SOP2434M AMD tj.S. Rxl.4IG
F Pi "moth V. Izartis. Bsq.
DDON ELL, RAMIS. t ftRW CORRIOAAl
j 1777 N.W. Ito t StrC,-,t
Portland, OR 91209
• P• •+L, P , t -
M: 't'BrAn1 Triangle
Western Investment Properties. as YOU know, had sett acdvtly Involved In the Tigard Tr3anglo
since 19$8 when wt met With you to discuss out proposed developracrst adjjamnt to Dartmouth
Road and the pending Martin Ltwsult, which had t lowtd o~nstructlon of this road. At-that timt,
we were incoui-aged to hear from you and various city staff nxrnbers that one of the ty'ty
highcst priorldzs was to complete the cobstrut:tion of D=Vnouth and to promote high quality
development in the'rtattgia Vith this encoutagetnesit, we optl6ned a nvm'ber of p eat to the ° €
Tiangly anArought Cub Food Stores into our ptopotod dtvt opn`~ont U our anchor tenant. . I'
Safer that Initial nfttinf, the cettlctncnt of the &Urd lawsuit had begun to drag on. In dh etfatt e
to try to settle the IRWStt!t, I had ttumtrout cotivet~ fins with Gordon BYlartin and hIs attorney,
Chuck Rattan. to draft a developtntnt agttertnt which gould, In-effect, save as a stttlctrtecrt <i
agreer art btstv✓eotr tWe Maarrtims and the City. Ydu monhotu; our pmgress lb drafting this
€3evolofSraleaVsctttctracrtt tsgte't rent; but,. unforturtatedy the aga^Ct-tttent was never slgntxt by the
Marllns. As you ov11Itage:nr, this ttgreerrtdnt , In fact, all tubsequetat agents)
gumnt titc devaloprt of of our pmpcrtlts utilizing the extstlug toning and devclopmmt F
stand In cxchtnge forMartins ~topplttg thole lawsuit and gu&MAtcetng to pay their L.I.D.
share.
- A.gcr ihis ag~roacnent failed, we atone offered to gut>ranke, Mart:Ws shaft; of the LI.D. should
their lawsuil prcvtall. You had Informed us thra2 with this guarantee the City would then be
j witting to move forward with the construction 6r butrnouth. Attar eve drafted this Agt'c.emcnt,
we were Informed that the bond coun=l rlt:eded taddidonal secitstty in order to move forward
with DaAawuth lmrrodiately• One way to provide this additional acurity was to add tub Vood
Stoms' Signature. At this point, we were able tocottAnce Cubto join urith us In signingg the
guarantee, thus allowing Dartmouth to stmova fot~ard. Unfortunately. after ruching flirt
ngreerraent wath.thc Katy. the P.O.P.'s Initiative was passed.. This Initlatlvo clouded the entire'
Issuo of W.D. financing arid, thus, on66 again slowed the construction of DartmovEll.
In spite-otall of these problem,, you, Chuck t;orAgk.n and various city staff m0mbM wee stiti
positive that tb; Cagy wasted D rtnaouth to be c6nAtucted and our project to be devetope-d. lYlth
this Irt anted,cctcsrs Investterertt P~perties Went afrestd ultit tat: purcia>3st of ataproxltnate}y 16 r
acres In the °k riatagte° Utc last year we onus again encouraged the City to rnovv forwW with t
Dwimouth by offering e moll decd guiranletr, which would not only guamnice the City Against Ahe
potential Martin lawsuit outwrne.tut also against the P.O.P.'s initiative, As late as only a tttiv '
months ago, we w= Wormed by Chuck Conigae that the newly rt odifled Uare;ntce a rent
would no hanger bo nerestary wince, the CRY was willing to rttove "full spt ahead' wit i the
f ,
_'i1rr,~ttttnl:T°,•n!,•rit,:•,•1,ei:,ts,•ta _ ('nrterurtj•petit,•.911cta{e•1'atltw•,~1,iia
EXAIBq
PAGE
000618
Tirnothy.' . Ramis. Esq.
i O'Donnili. Rarnit. Crew Rc t+'nMS n I;
January 311, i°Jy~ E'i
- :j 1 p$ga E
,rota without any guardnteet+ In lace. At that tttt96. I asked about the development of tho s
Triangle and way told brat the Clty'tt attitude toward ottr pan of the Triangle ad not ohange"d•
that It, they w1AW duality retail development In-this as= tmc: Dartmouth was eonsuucte d.
I 71ils new pledge to move bartmouth AlonZ Was Very baMurtaging Ed mg. At this point, wC felt we
could-,gide a oommitment to is major retall tehdAt th& our erojtct at long Iast would bt movin
ul fwd. Unfertunately, Just Iast math I hWd qulto~ by accident that the City h$d hlmd a glunnin,
consultant to revlew the entire. plan for the *ngard TrUAgle. In eonipicte disb-.1ltef of this rumor, I
galled Ed Murphy and was int6rtned that in (set not Orly was it true, but a mcctln was set f-of r
Yanutu'y 6th to review the prellwJdar~t results of this ticw planning effort with the Manning F
Commission. As I told you. I attended this tr,ceting arld wits completely shocked that the
consultant was proposing ttezoning not only our land, but aliso the Wrtans' laird. further, the +
proposed plan coneerned us since 1t would greatty diminish the ability of Cub and Pollock to E
develop their properties by changing zoning and/or development standards. My shock And great
eoncorn at seeing this proposed planning change tt;volves around t*o basic issues. Flat, any
charges to the zoning of the'I'ciangle Its ggeacral slid to the. Martin pro . rt speclficaily, will
clearly allow the Martins the abilityy to €ile additlonel lawsults. 5ecoadly~, by changing the zoning i
andfor development standards on Cuba, Poli"k's and our property, you ere at risk of osIns the '
economic engine that was, for a large part, responsible for moving along the oonstruction of ~
Da mouth and the ultimate development of the `I'tiaglt. Finally. wc. were greatly ama=d to ;
Find thnt this ml~jor planning action was Bourg on , which would directly Impact the value of our s
T° property, wtthoutbur being infot tQ. _
~
Together with the City, we have fought long slid hard to first millo tho Martin tawtull9 and when
that was not possible, to then gusuantee the construction of Dartmouth. During this entire battle
wa were alwayt on tho side of tho City. Now I ftLar out Joint efforts In waging this battle could
be. wasted by this ill-conceived ptannin actton,.It should tx ctea sty understood by the City that
any -action It 2 ,-which modules the Atingle, will: (I) be u- by Martin in subsequent
lawttails to once agaln stop rho development of the; Triangle; and (2) drartiatically'Impact the r
ability for the Dartmouth L.I.D. to be t'undetd, since tht plan would make much of our properties f
unlcasablo and vrsaleable,
I urge you to remind the City Council of our efforts to work with therm in pronvting the
i construction of Dulntbutlr and the development of the Triangle. tylcase encourage them to not
in ourJohit efforts go to waste. In order to ensurt that ourJoint Crideavors we not squanderui, I
think the City Council must provide clear direction to the planner to either go back to the origtatal
zoning on ours, Martin's, Cub's and Pollock's land, or to delay the implementation of this
plannin effort until someti= after Dartrivuth Road has beta constructed and out developntetus
undert ea. t
Thank you very much for your help.
Your; very truly,
ROBERT h. FREEMAN
Gencral Pwncr 3*i•q%t
EXHIBrr
000619 PAGE
i F.
4
4.
3fH la #Y iv°tienai M i vbPC~~vei~iE~~iv
i
r ; 12265 S.W. 72ND AVENUE ~
TIGARD. OREGON 97223
TELFFKONE a,„'y 620.2477
April 20, 1992 F
Mr. Carl 3ohnson
NPO #4 Chairman
CITY OF TIGARD l
1312.5 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
. RE: Zoning in Tigard 't'riangle
' Dear Carl:
C
I would like to applaud NPO #4's motion and recommendation to the Tigard City
Council that the current General Commercial zoning for the Tigard Triangle be
maintained as currently depicted on the Comprehensive Plan zoning map.
The Martins are in utter disbelief that the planning of the Tigard Triangle has
reached this level without direct input from the property owners. We are also very
{ distressed that this meeting on April 20, 1992 is the first chance we have had to f
officially testify against the proposed zone changes.
The Martins have made their position clear at earlier NPO #4 meetings that they
adamantly oppose the rezoning of their 27.5 acres of General Commercial property
to residential. f=urthermore, the Martins find it scandalous that the.City is now -
trying to hide the traffic capacity problems in the Triangle by down zoning the
property to a use that generates less traffic.
I The present problem of slow commercial retail development in the Tigard Triangle
has not been caused by lade of demand for retail uses, but by persons and entities
with special interests that have been able to influence and control debate on a E
comprehensive transportation plan for the Tigard area. They seem to be motivated
by either saving their pride or not being required to spend the time necessary to
properly design and implement a workable transportation system for the Tigard ?
Triangle and the highways surrounding it. Too often the decisions of one or two
people are represented as being the City or ODOT backed decisions when in fact -
they are often undocumented political decisions contrary to the factual reality of
i the area and its highways.
° The Planners that are advocating reducing the amount of commercial land should
realize that property near and with access to highways with high levels of traffic is
a diminishing resource and should be preserved for its highest and best use which is
commercial.
®0®628
EXHIBIT--7,
PAGE .
i Carl Johnson NPO iY4
4/20/92
4 s page 2
The Martins have retained the most qualified engineers in the country to develop a
completely workable transportation plan for the T'ig' d Triangle and the
surrounding highways. The plan provides sufficient traffic opacity for a 100%
buildout of the Triangle without sacrflcing the commercial land uses. Futhermbre,
the plan which is the extension of Dartmouth as a five lane arterial collector that
interfaces with Highway 217 and ultimately connects to mall Boulevard, will
eliminate the need to widen Highway 99W to six lanes. Unless this transportation
plan is adopted into the City of Tigard's transportation plan immediately, the plan
alternatives will be foreclosed upon due to design limitation originating from the
- } construction of the 1-5/1-iighway 217 interchange project. R.
Property owners in the Dartmouth LID boundaries originally decided to pursue the
project based on the fact that they could develop their property as commercial
retail, thereby absorbing the expensive street assessments with a high end land
uses. Robert Freeman of Western Investment Properties put it eloquently in his
January 30, 1992 letter to Edward Murphy when he wrote: "These changes would k
surely allow the Martins to file additional lawsuits, while at the same time
certainly diminish the economic viability for us and Cub to the point where we are
not able to justify the bond cost for the LID."
It has become increasingly obvious over the last seven years that the City of Tigard
will stop at nothing to get the Dartmouth LID built regardless of whether it will
provide the required traffic capacity'for all properties that are paying for it. A
clear example of their attitude is illustrated in the OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF
THE CITY OF TIGARD relating to Limited Tax General Obligation Bond
Anticipation Notes aeries 1992 for the Dartmouth LID. On page 16 under
Economic Development it states that: "Note proceeds . wsil be used to fund
infrastructure improvements for development of this prime commercial propert
(emphasis added).
It is unconscionable and deceptive for the City to advertise in an official document
3 the sale of $2,643,945.60 in General Obligation Bonds to the public while
representing that the Note proceeds will be used to fund infrastructure
improvements for development of prime commercial property, when in fact they
s' are simultaneously promoting a change in zone of said property from commercial
to residential.
The Martins urge the NPO #4 to maintain its present position that commercial
zoning in the Triangle be retained as currently displayed on the Comprehensive
Plan Zoning Map. Furthermore, we request that the NPO #4 redirect the City's
misguided planning efforts for the Triangle away from zoning, and concentrate on
solving the traffic capacity problem by adding the Dartmouth Extension / Highway
217 Interface proposal to the Triangle Master Plan and the Tigard Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Map. f
i
Sincerely,
/Gordrddon S. Martin kf
Enclosures. f '
EXHIBIT
0®0529
PAGE
,i
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
3 r
t
i
ENGINEERS REPORT ON E
DARTMOUTH EXTENSION
STREET KCAL j
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
)j 'So.
A I
i
A Vi
j [
' o-
i
j
~f
I
' February 8, 1984
(Revised February 14, 1984)
j
Prepared by
R. A. WRIGHT ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1340 S. W. Bertha Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97219
i
(503) 246-4293
EXHIE;IT
PAGE
786.10/200.35
ENGINEERS REPORT
y INITIATION
Property owners representing 32 acres of under _
representing approximately developed land in the Tigard Triangle petitioned the City of
? Tigard for formation of a street local improvema nt district F;
for' construction of the Dartmouth Extension and agreed to
pay the cost incurred by the City in prepar;t t ion of an
engineers report on the project. ~3ased upon this i
demonstration of property owner interest, the City of Tigard
sought proposals from consulting engineers for preparation
of a feasibility study and engineers report. R.A. Wright
Engineering, Inc. was selected by the City and retained to
provide the required engineering services.
r
DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITED AREA
The area judged to be benefited by the. proposed street
;i i improvement includes all parcels ,that, by direc access or $
common ownership with a contiguous parcel ha•,:ng direct
access, connect to the proposed street improvem(.nt and are
not contiguous with. and better served by, another public _
street. The boundary of the proposed L.I.D. is shown on
Exhibit A. Parcels between S. W. 68th and 69th A-!enues will
be excluded from direct access to the proposed street and
have, therefore, been excluded from the proposed L.I.D. The
project is located in Section 36 of T.1S, R.1W and Section i F
of T.2S, R.lW, Washington County.
J PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The basic improvement includes construction of a 44-foot
wide paved and curbed street within a 70-foot wide
right-of-way extending approximately 3.250 feet from S. W E
68th Avenue at its intersection with the new I-5 access ramp
to Pacific Highway at its intersection with S. W. 78tH
Avenue. In addition to the street improvement, the project
will also include a 200-foot street stub fora future street
extension to the south, traffic signal improvements on
Pacific Highway, street lights, storm drains, waterlines,
sanitary sewers, and other underground utilities as required
to minimize future excavation within the pavement of
Dartmouth Extension. Utilities will be sized to serve the
ultimate development of the Tigard Triangle in conformance
with existing planning for the area, and will be extended-
beyond the paved roadway of the Dartmouth 'Extension. f
Sanitary sewer service will be extended to serve existing
dwellings along the proposed Dartmouth Extension.
i~
786.10/206.36
EXHIBIT
PAGE
Sidewalks will only be constructed adjacent to E
is-, already developed. property that
This would include the commercial
! establishments on each side of the
l Pacific Highway and the residential proposed street by
<4 Louise Hedgepeth Stewart and by Lucille E.Vasey properties owned by
COST ESTIHATE
a An estimate of the probable cost of street and related
utility improvements is as follows.-
Move-in and insurance
Clearing and earthwork 15,000
79
1,900 '
3 Grading and paving 4
Curbs and sidewalks 341,800
I 43,000
- "Traffic signal improvements ;
S0, 00
Street Lights 7
Storm drainage , 000 401
Waterlines 1119.700
0
Sanitary sewers 2334 200
Construction contingency, Sg
' 60 G
4• 600
Construction Subtotal $399,100
t Technical Services, 15%
Administrative Services, 5% 1SC•'00
t Land Acquisition 56,000
1 796,700
~
Project Total
700 i
The above costs are not guaranteed, but represent the
Engineers best estimate of the prices that i
and th•e amounts that should be budgeted if can be
proposed F
project is let to competitive biddin Qurin the proposed `s
,j 1954. g g the summer of
j
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
i
This report recommends that the project costs be divided
among benefited properties within the improvement district in accordance ilimi o the local
conditions:
tht theg following
1. Properties on existing streets and future streets
designated by the City master plan shall not be
J subjected to double assessment for street improvements
Assessment areas for the Dartmouth extension shall not
extend beyond a dividing line midway
Dartmouth. extension and any existing or r between the
g proposed street.
• i
756.10/200.36 .0,115
EXHiSf"F
PAGE
Streets that are judged to be subject to this condition
are as follows: f
# 1. S. W. 69th Avenue
F
~y 2. S. W,. 72nd Ave nuc
3. A future street that will extend south along the
` west line of the Martin property
4. A. future a street ~
that will enter the Williams r
property from the drive-in theater property to the
northwest
j
S. Pacific Highway
S. W. 70th Avenue has only a 30-foot right-of-way and is
not proposed for future improvement. Land along this
existing street is, therefore, not proposed for
exclusion from assessment.
2. Land that is subject to assessment shall be divided into
three zones controlled by distance from the right-of-gray.
line of the proposed street improvement. Zone A will
~
include all land that is from 0 to 150 feet .from the f,
right-of-way line. Zone 8 will be all land from 150
1 feet to 300 feet, and Zone C will be all land between r
300 and 450 feet from the proposed right-of-way. Land
beyond 450 feet from the right-of-way will not be
assessed..
Assessment rates for land within each of the zones shall
be stepped such that Zone A is assessed at three times
the rate of Zone C, and Zone 5 is assessed at two times
the rate of Zone. C. The land included in each of the
three assessment zones is shown in Exhibit A.
"
' i
i ASSESSMENT RATES
Based on the assessment conditions described above,
1,557,000 square feet of land is subject to assessment,
including 833,000 square feet in Zone A,, 540,000 square feet
in zone 8, and 184,000 square feet in Zone C. The unit
assessment rates required to raise $1,995,700 from the
assessable land areas are $1.55/sq.ft. for Zone A,
$1.06/sq.ft.. for Zone B, and $0.53/sq.ft. for done C. -
1 These assessment rates are a
pprbximate. The actual +
assessment will be based upon the final project coasts and
actual assessed areas.
F
CC-0
786.10/200.36
5 3
-3-
ExHisff
PAGE
OUTSTANDING ASSESSME14TS
There are no outstanding City of Tigard assessments against
the properties to be included in the proposed L.I.D.
BENEFITED PROPERTIES For each benefited property, the tax account number (Column E
1), names of the owners of record (Column 2), and the
estimated assessment (Column 11) are shown on Table A. In
addition to the total assessment for each property, Table A f
also shows the area (Column 13) and estimated value of land
-f -y and improvements (Column 14) that would be purchased from
each property and the resulting net cost (Column 15) to each
i parcel. Net cost (Column 15) is the estimated assessment
(Column 11) less terse estimated value of land sales (Column
14). For estimating purposes, the value of undeveloped land
is assumed to be X3.00 per square foot. Some properties
show a resulting negative net cost, indicating that it is r
estimated that the property owner will be paid more for land
included in the parcel than the remaining parcel will be
assessed for improvements. y.
One parcel, Tax Lot 1S136DC2SCO, owned by Horner Williams `
shows on Table A (Columms 13 and 14) to have a negative land j
sales amount. This results from a recommendation of this
report that land on the north side of the proposed street be
purchased from the Martin family and sold to Williams,
thereby resulting in the lard purchase (or negative sale)
amount shown in Column 14 for Williams. ,
Table A shows the percent that each parcel bears of the
total project cost, both for total assessment and net
assessment (Column 6) after land sales. Column 17 of Table '
A shows the relationship of the net assessment (Column 15)
_ to the assessed value (Column 3) of the property. For the
entire district the total net cost is $1,199,000, or 49
percent of assessed value.
Although there are 28 individual parcels within-the
boundaries of the proposed La.I.D., through contract
purchases, family relationships, purchase options, and
multi-ownerships, there appear to be only nine totally
independent owners of property within the L.I.D. Table B
shows the same information as Table A, but consolidates the
information for each owner. The information on Table B is
not the official assessment roll, but is included for
informational purposes.
786.10/200.36 C-001654
-4- EXH181T
PA6E,__..-_.__.-
i
r
I S:i~30
{ i
1 P
6D 0`00t 0006610 00L960 09Et£Z 01001 OOLS661+ OoOLSSI 105L6S 000:0[ 9LLZL50 000005 0:£SZCIS OOOCCO 00ottttt S`1VLi3E F
0 .muwaxamQ .amaw. aQ asw.meu .0m+wxa.russewu.au
.
v...r .DD; 0099
[ Z'0 01`31 0 0 1 0 ODDL 0096 003202 a IFOGU00 'P(I,Lm 106 W1152 Y
L...97.4.a.00fC(di 310
x O66 OOSDB 96116 0OZZ6 953[[ OOZL 0OC66
SST 0'Zi 99465[ 0 0 L S NOOU00 'NISUYYtI OOC VUtI
9L O'6 63DLOt 0 0 1`'S 636101 OOM ZG 0000 00151 01+29: 005[9 OOECS 005Ef OC£i4[ H SYA07 'ISLI51Ff11J OQL Vs{ it
L9 WE ZT:EE 0 0 Cot LtbEC 00 0 0 0 0 MIC QOoIZ 00101 0 ti3Ilotl 'b'tA4i'mm ZOI YUIIr
69£9 1.01 LO60Zt 000m 000[9 Z ;I 106EWZ 00IL91 0 0 E160 001`16 1`66661 OOLSZI 0061 3 Q7VtCiJ at am 'NNld23V3 % IOt V91 252
i
COTOZi- 0096;; 0428 O 6 Ld 96 00909 00909 00606 I01V70 °l d 3N3oII3 1,'t!Na.I3ICl OOI V0i 157 `
t:t- L Oi- 1 i 6 0 0 0 0 LY:96
Vmnr im 3 07Vttoa '~T1od tl
as S•D I:9C5 OOLZZT 0060: 00 15:91.1 Mott 0 0 OOSSS 00325 09LOZ1 006SL 00016 O 3115 MN 6 Itttdll9 13170:1 002 OVSiSZ
09EL ®'@ ODD6 0 4 S;0 0696 OQbB 0 0 MG 0060 0 0 001` 13111011 °If3}(oll flOSE wi5
9 E•4 ZOYC 0 0 Z'0 ME 000E 0 0 ZOTf 000E 0 0 00[SS V3 VI71C 3 T(7'11NO(I *=710,§ 006C MISt
:i 06€ E•1 fl16SY 0 Q 0'0 41652 OOOti 0 0 D9C9 0009 9bS6 0009 -0000 VJYN06t '11'111018 OOTC VV11S7
1`61 910 0ICU 165 0 0 D'0 1001. 0066 0 0 0 0 IDOL 00" 009E VQ VI70f 3 07VNt)d '1<70770:d 000£ VV114
k3077od 1117t►C 3 QImHola 't
6LE ۥ1 OUST 0 0 010 016St OOQOt 0 0 0 0 0165[ 0000; 00ZD ~*JIN06t ' (Od 0062 V~1tS~
0 D10 SS:: 0 0 Z10 SS:1` 008E 0 0 0 0 553: OOOL OOtSS 3 71113,11 11135Vfl USE Mist.
i J 3111om v I C 'MADIS
floa 9 110 09TT 0010 0062 S'O :906 OOZ9 0 0 0 0 :986 OOL9 0090t 0VI3Ni7DC dI1E$ 3UG3NVC U3Ao QIMM '11m0d 00'91009[151
76 i
:EZ Z•"s. L30:t 0996 OZZE Z11 LOLEZ 006:1 0 0 0 0 LOLEZ 0061`1 0009 VI7fiC 3 CMNO2I 'X30770d OOSL009f1S1
ZD LIE C609Z 0 0 C'1 C609L 00991 0 0 0 0 C609Z 001`91 00929 S3NOV 3sI107 1I1.7MoMH ZOM09EIGI
ZDI 6.6 MOTT 0 0 619 Z9181T 00910 0 0 L159Z HOSE :3916 009LS OOOEO N37113 u ']UV)t.7 11MIC3d 003309[191 ~
SZZ S"1`T OE££LT 00603- 0OC91- L.9 OZ:DZt 00630 0 0 OZETZ 00102 001COt 00069 00[LL 0 IMOM 'MI71111 OOSZO09CISI -
SE; O'S 96969 0 0 SIC 00969 00199 OSLI OOCE 096£9 OOE09 0L6C 005E COM 03 0 O I~111.11 001`Z309£1Sl [
991 6't'Z SEEM 0 0 E1I 6ZZ90L OOZLSZ 09LOE OOOOS SEMI 006511 VESZE1 MCI) OOUSI 73M '1tOS1MifOOtZE1002Z03939
I[- 010- DZ96- 0065: OO€S1 0.'I 9LZ9E 000ZZ 0 0 . 0 0 9LZ9E COOZZ 00509 I 1=11 zm '3'kN]l.I Mt
9- Z10- TOLZ- 0099 OOZE Z10 619C Boot 0 0 0 0 610C ME 00090 111JM 1G7W 'MIN113 ZOQZ1139E[Sl .
02 D°0 SSD: 0 0 Z•0 SS6D 0092 0 0 0 0 S56D 000E Boost 113207 xm '3)(111.1 Io0Z039E25i
OE L'01 906821 0019CZ OOL9L E:-91 90609C OOSS9Z t106 OOSDT GZSSL OOCIL 93SGLZ COLSLT OO90E3 0 IM0)t SM11111H OOOZO39EISi
- 1 S D•0 ZC69 0 0 Z'0 ZC611 004E 0 0 0 0 Mt 00tC OOES6 !9172(1 it 1 ° ING 0061039LtSi ;
{ S:I- :"E- OoS03- oCSo3 OOSET 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oo00Z 0 I1o1( 'S(dlMIM TO91039ETS1 f
1`1- S"t- 91611- O:OLL ODLT S'O DZoO[ ooE9 0 0 0 0 MGT OOE9 00SOCI V IM73 U SOUA3 'imam 0QOt039CTS+6
1 Lt 9"E ME: 0 0 Z'Z L21€: ROIL; 0 0 0 0 LIM, OOILZ o0E.03E 3)I37UVt( )tt.IaE1C '(IMI 3.S00Ud- 00LIOJ9CIS1
-
---°-°--°°-°-------------------------------°------------q
U111 (91) (ST) 1311 (C2) (Lt) tit) 1411 (6) (0) (C) (91 (S) 13) (CI tZ1 t(1
"21' S 31 9 91' 21 be 0 MOM d@ 0
MW A 71203 $ Whs 7VSOZ ¢ S
3O a 30 % .9943 J3(A 937VS (NIn 30 3 7VSOS 7VLOS3 31802 s3NOZ V 311oZ 3117VA d07 )V
- 03s83SSV
romo IMMO .L 30 A.F.I.
j sttsUAGG38SN aNy S V am O•I.7 M3V&q 'NOISKUM N7110tuI
~ •aNI'aroI.Y~INI9tt3 .ut~[tsPt•v•; .
rv. Me 11
Table
co
R.A.i01IGJR It7dClittFidING.IHC. CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT ROLL ~ 2
ASSESSMENT !ROLL
I1Afl17i0U111 EK1T~9FOY3. STREET L.I.D. LAND AREAS AND A33CSS4iEM
CITY OF TIGlaD. OR=N ASSESSM
_
VALUE ZONE A ZONE B ZONE X TOTAL s OF mm SALES 1 COA2 i OF i OF
~
gq.!t 0 Oq•tt 0 4q.ft. 4 TOTAL aq.tt 0 0 TOTAL VALUE
OLO m seamy sq.it 4
tl1 121 434 141 --151--° 161 101 191 1114 1121 1234 -114) (151 1161 "71
JUVtN 0. ALI]UWOIR 225000 9400 14956 0 0 0 0 9400 Y4956 0.7 1740 278w0 -1281®4 =1.1 -6
1 1I' m STMARS 62600 16400 26093 0 0 0 0 16400 26093 1.3 0 0 260'33 2.2 42 !
LOUtSE 1111x E -
OSE HIXG 1d & FAMILY 374500 193500 307867 133600 141709 89100 47254 416200 496630 24.9 89200 347600 149230 12.4 00
,i DONALD POLLOCK 1& KONICA ROHER1 257100 175000 21P.433 95300 101084 0 0 270300 379517 19.0 97020 161060 238457 19.9 89
JtfUlTN P1. PR0f4STFIEID 348300 27100 43117 0 0 0 0 27100 43117 2.2 0 0 43117 3.6 12
I10 R08ERT FIANQALL CO. 154300 83300 132534 115900 122935 58000 30750 257200 166729 14.3 0 0 266229 23.9 106
LUCILLE E. VA5EY 55100 2600 4455 0 0 0 0 2000 4455 0.2 0 0 44935 0.4 0 P
IfOHI31 G. WILLIAMS f & FINNEI 794000 292000 464585 151700 160906+ 211100 11562 465500 637054 31.9 93400 700200 356654 29.8 45
LOUIS W. 00115= 141300 33500 eO53300 43500 46140 15100 8008 92100 107449 5.4 0 0 107449 9.0 76
j ...c.....................................s ................................................eaoo.
TOTALS 02423000 833000 01325340 540000 0572776 184000 697504 1557000 41995700 100.0 231360 0796700 $1°199®00 100.0 49
i.
i ~ 4 3
I
~ ;t I E
000156 ~ ~
vr,1CLkL JTATF-ME -i DATED. Januar, 17, 1992
tiEw LSSLE. -NEGOTLkTED RATING: Non-treed In the opinion of Davis Wright Tre-arine. Bond Cowuel. under existing federal law and assuming compliance
with certain covenants. Original Issue Discount on the !dotes is esxludable froth the gross incame of the
owners of the Notes for federal income ras purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of ;
1 *w detertraaning alternative minimum table incorere for indtvidwJlt and corporations under the Internal Revenue r
' Code of 1986. as amended (the "Fade"). The Original lathe discount on the Motes may, however. be sa0ject
j to other collateral tax consequences. In the apiniafi Of 86nd Catsnset, Original Issue Discount on the Motes is
a exempt from presera personal inceirme ta= aan by the State of Oregon. See `7'az eWdon° herein.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
y u $2,6432945.6Q* f ;d
UMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION
e tit
! C BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES
(Dartmouth Street LID Project) €
- Series 3992 r
DATED- Date of Delivery DUE: February ' 'S
The Now are mgistazed notes in Mmuriry Amounts amounts of S5.000 or integral multiples Jw,xof.
Accreted Value on the Notes wall be payable only at tt awriry or prior redemption upon presentation and
® surrender thereof through the principal corporate trust offices of the regiuaar and paying ,ages: of the ay,
curmrtly United Stag National Bank of Oregon, Portland, Oregon.
,1 Note process will be used to pay for the cosm of local improvemem projects that will be asd:. •cd
against the benefited properties. The Notes are limited ta.-, general obligations of the City and are secured by F
and payable from the proceeds of permanent financing to be sold upon completion of the projects. Not : -AM.
secured by the full faith and credit of the City and any taxes which the City may levy within the limitati, of
section l i or I lb. Article M of the Oregon Constitution.
0
j MATURITY SCHEDULE
' n Origiuai Approximate Price
Maturity Principal M=Urity Yield to Per S3,000
AM= Amn= hi=d= AL-M=du
`n February 1, 1994 $2,643435.60® S % S
Redemption Provision -'!Tae Notes are subject to redemption on August 1. 1993. and on the fat day of each
C month thereafter. See 'Optional Redemption of the Notes herein.
Bank Desi=tiara - These note, combined with all other anticipated tax-exempt issues of the City. total less
= than S10.000.000 for calendar year 1992. Therefore the City' has designated the Notes as "qualified taz-
exempt obligadoms" pursuant to the Iruemal Revenue Cade of 1986.
- Legal Opiniou - The Notes are offered when. as and if r ived by the U ter. subj= to prior sale. or
withdtawml or modification of the offer without novice, and to the appmvzl of leg2Iity by Davis Aright
Tramaine. Portland Oregon. Bond Counsel. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the Ciry by the City
Attomy. Notes it definitive form will be available for delivery through the Depository Truss Company in
} Nov York, New York an or about February 3.1992.
j
UNDERWRITER-
U.S. NATIONAL BANK ~
"Approximate. subject to change.
00~S
_
EMBIT
PAGE
.a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
s
Page
_ UFSt' ION OF SteS 1992 NOTES
( Table 1: 'S'able of Accreted Valurs Per a S5,000 Maturity Amount Note 3
Legal Is%su Rid to Darnouth L1 ) Pmject 4
TAX RMATION
Appmved LegWatiort
! 6
Table 2: Reps a uWve sol%w i(.d Tax Rates 7
F
THE LOCAL O PROJI:Cr
moral Improvement FWject PmcedtnC-S g `
r Tim Pmj= 8
Table 3: Sours and Uses of Futi;ls 9
TIM CITY OF TIG %RD
Govemment 10 1
Table 4: City Council and Other Officials of the City 10
Admiais::ratiou 10
Std 11
Table S: Bargaining Units and Cc av:,ct Status
d Table 6: Fatalities 11
1l
FINANCLA.L FORMATION
Bases of Accounting - 12
Fi ! Yew 12 F
Audits 12 E "
Budgeting 12
Table 7: General Fund - Consw.utl,. c Balassce Shuts 13
J i Table t3: Ce i Fund - Consecti- `tater:tent of Revenues arA Expenditures 14
1
ECONOMIC AND DEMLOGRAPIEC I 'ORMAMON
Land Use Planning d5
Population 15
Employment 15
Economic Development 16 f
Utilities 16
t Publk F3cWties 14
Transpor*ation 17
Agritulzze 17
J InfomLdon Somcas i8
Economic and Demogmphic Tables 18
Table 9: Population Fst;anates
r
18 'C'able 10: Average Annual Unemployment 19
i `Fable 11: l aber ,"Force _ 19
Table 12: Employment 20
Table 13: Gross Farm Sales 21
Rang 22
L&Sal Nunes, 22 t
Uo riting 22 f
Tax Exemption 22
Fusancial Advisor 73
?Miscellaneous 23
Concluding Statement 23 ~y
EXHIBIT r
APPENDIX A: June 30. 199t Audited Financial Statement (Pardal) PAGE
APPE',',MfX B: Legal Opinion
000209 ~
r.
PAY?tLNT A.SD SECt.°R rr Y FOR TFX tioTE.S
The Notes are limited tax general obligations of the City. The full faith and credit of the City and any taxes whin:
the City may levy within the limitation of the Oregon Constitution are pledged to the punctual payment or tf!
Notes. The City has covenanted in the resolution to establish a fund to which shall be deposited all prw4.i~t
permaaaerrrt financing. the proceeds of anbonded aS'=ssments. the fb=lo a of impeuv=ent Inns for unirmr ;
rwlized `.mesa the Improvement Project and any unspent note proceeds which may be available o.-, .l t
maturity date of the Motes. The deposits in the fund shall be applied to the payment of such Notes ar°d such tut is
shall not be transfec ed. borrowetL dive tt 4 of used for any other purpose.
f
It as cm='y the intent of the City. upon completion of the Improvement Project, to issue ea:z
boads to provide long-t= finatwing for the Improvement Project Should the City be unable to mwi= spe;;s1
assessment bonds, the City will istsue limited tax general obligation bonds to provide tottg- mt financing for L►!t
Improvement Project.
1
j THE Bt ORAL MML-110MOM OF THE NOTES
The Notes are subject to optional redemption prior to maturity an the first day of etch month. commcncinl;
August 1. 1993. All Notes called for redemption shall cease to accrue interest from the date of redempt'•,.!
desigmued in the redemption notice. The amount payable upon redemption of any Note is an amount equal to i
Accrcted Value of such Note the applicable Redemption Date. The Redeataption Price for a $5.000 I+aturit,
? Amount Note on an Optional Redemption Date is set on the Table of Accreted Values. Notice of redemption v-411
be mailed to the registered owners of the Notes by fist-class mat? not less than thirty (30) days prior to ;
intended redemption date. r
tPMESTOR 3T.'il'A aXrY A.N"ta It UM
The Notes are not suitable for all investors. Investors should consult with qualified advisors to determine •ahetirer
the Notes are a suitable iPVC5 n=L The Notes may offer certain advantages over other types of taxable and cox
exempt notes for invest= seeping capital accumulation. However. the Notes are subject to cr:rtain risLe i
consequences that ate different from other investments. Several important factors must be considered rr
determine whether the Note, are sttimble for a particular investor.
Some of the factors that should be considered am discussed below. The following discussion is not intended to ix
a complete listing of all factors that should be considered.
{ After-Tax Yield
{
The value of an investment return may be affected by Federal. State. and local income taxes and other taxes. °
Investments should be compared for their after-tax remm to the investor.
i
Income Tax Tre2traent of Original Issue Discount -
The Nows are being initially offered and sold to the public at a price which will result in original issue discount
for Federal income tax purposes. For 3 description of the Federal income tax treatment of original issue discount.
see i°aaz Exemption --'I'an Treatment of Original Lune Discount.' berein. I
No Payment Prior to Maturity; Autoraatk Reiave =e:nt
I'
The Notes do not pay intent to the holds- prior to maturity or redemption. Inte= motes and compounds
semiartriually over the life of such wes. Effectively. the intetes% is automatically rrinvcsted on a semi: nnua.t
basis at the approximate note yield to maturity. However. automatic reinvestment prevents an inves`t4e hvtn
reinvesting interest =rings at a highm- yield if inter= rates are Wgher at the time of mine neat. Also. if
money is needed for other uses. an investor cannot obtain any funds from a note prior to maturiry or redemption
without selling the notes. See 'Mark-k Risk.* '
2 0 0 i#iBIT
M PAGE
LECaL ISSUES RELATED TO DARTMOUTH LID PROJECT
Opponents of the project have filed numerous lawsuits seeking to prevent the project. The litigation has been
filed in both Washington County Circuit Court . the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, and Marion County
f
j Circuit Court. E,
3
ibfmyin v. Cary of Tigard, 78 Or App 181. 714 P2d 1113 (1985). This case was the Martins' initial t
challenge to the LID. They claimed that the formation of the LM was illegal in a number of
rests, the trial court ruled against them and fear the City on all clai its. The Oregon Court of t
Appeals found the kutins' challenges to the formation of the IM to be without merit. and afllrmed
all of the trial court's rulings. 'The Court of Appeals did discover a defect. not rahM- by the parties,
p in that as small motion of the proposed roadway was located outside of the LID boundarim but the
E
c of that =ctkm of the roadway was mistakenly included in the IM a ments. The Court of
+ Appears mmanded the LID to the City for r=se=enL This case established that the City followed
per procedures in forming the LID.
Gordon R. M=da. es al. Y. Cfry of77gard. LUBA No. 88-034 (September 19, 1988). In this ease. the {
Martins, filed an appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals, challenging the City's adoption of
Ordinance 88-08. which amended the 1984 ordinance that had established the LID. Ordinance 88-08
1 was adopted, in part, to correct the deficiency pointed out by the Court of Appeals in the case
discussed above.
LUBA agreed with the City. determining that Ordinance 88-08 was not a land as,4e decision withln
LUBA's jurisdiction, and, even if it were. the Martins' challenge was actually based upon a -
superseded draft agreemene between the City and the Oregon Department of Transpcrtation, and the
Martins' had provided no basis for LUBA to review Ordinance 88-08.
• Gordon R. Afarrin. er al. v. Cagy of Tigard. 101 Or App 676 (1990). review denied 311 or 60 (1990).
In this case the Martins challenged the validity of the local improvement district on the basis that
- these had been "substantial changes" to the LID subsequent to its formation. thereby necessitating the
a City Council to reinstitute the LID formation process. The trial court granted the City's motion for
f summary judgement, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court without. opinion, and the Oregon
Supreme Cot= denied review.
Gordon R. Maron Y. State of Oregon. et al. Marion County Circuit Court No. 91 C10659-1, '"his
case. brought by Gordon R. Marro against the State of Oregon and the City of TiSud. is flow
pending in bfmion Coartty Circuit Court. The plaintiffs claim is based solely on. the ass:stion that
the state, through ODOT. illegally renewed a road approach permit that had been granted to the City
of Tigard. It is the plaintiffs position that b---cruse the renewal was effected after the period that the
initial permit had expired. the renewal itself was invalid and the City roust reapply for a new permit.
Both the City and ODOT have argued to the court that OAR 734.54-050 provides explicit authority
for the permit extension. In his letter ruling of October 31. 1991. Marion County CircuitCoun Judge
? Robert NcConvitie determined that the extension would be found valid if ODOT's District Engineer '
properiy determined 'whether in the interim since the issuance of the permit there has been a
substantial change in tine circumstances and conditions which were material to the issuance of the
permit, and, if so. whether under such changed circumstances the continuation of the permit and the
extension of the completion date are proper.'
The parties have submitted supplemental briefs on the issue raised by the judge, and oral argument
were printed on January 3rd. The City expects Judge McConville to tender his ruling within the
month,
i
Should the courts ultimately rule that a new permit has to be issued. the City believes that they
would be successful in obtaining that permit from 0DOT. If the intersection as designed is ruled not
safe, efficient. etc., the City's response to such a finding would be to redesign the intersection as f
necessary.
i
4 G 1 NiBiT
PAGE
TAX Lti'FORNiAT'>;Oti
APPROVED LEGISLATION
The 1991 Oregon Legislative Assembly adjourned on June 30. 1991, having spent much of the session addressing
Ballot Measure 5. The key bill addressing the s atutory implementation of Ballot Measure 5 is 14B 2550. which
was approved by the Legislatine and signed into Eaw by the Governor on June 30. 'no law takes o ::rct September
29. 1991.
House Bill 2350.- Prescribes the overall tax enter administration and colleVion methods and
procedures to conform to the tax limitations and requirements of Ballot Mean 5. Defines key
j terms including `Deal I&rket Value." 'FAempt Bonded litilebtedreess.* 'Capital Construction" and F
'Capital Improvements.'
Section 210 (14c) exempts general obligation indebtednes; issued after November 6. 1990 which is
voter approved and used for capital construction or irnprovemorim E
Section 210 (17-19) defuacs capital construction vid improvements to Lnclude all activities related to a
tht construction. modification, replacement. repair. remodeling and renovation of mvctuces which
have a useful life of over one year, the acquisition of land, or legal inteaiast in la :;r conjunction
with the capital construction of a structure: the acquisition and installation of rnachincty. fumishings F -
and equipment which have a life over one year and activities related to capital construction such as
planting. design. studies. permits. and acquisition of financing. Srructtaes arc defined as any
temporary or permanent building or improvements to real property of any kind which is constructed f
on or attached to real property. whether above. on or beneath the surface.
i
Suction 210 (13) defines actual cost to include all direct and indirect costs incurred by a loci , overnment to
deliver goods and services or undertake a capital construction project. Included but not limited ire : his definition
3 of actual cost are minimum and fixed charges. the costs of labor mateziais„ supplies, equips -rut, property E'
i acquisition. fees. insurance. engineering. financing. debt servim payments into debt service rescue and coverage
accounts.
Since Ballot Measure 5 requires all local governments to share the S10.00 per 511 of RMV 1mit on taxable
i property. the Legislature. in cooperation with mpresentatives of local govesratra nts. developed a response to f
mitigate the potential for competition among local governments for tax r:ve:nues i?re iroduct of this effort is
Senate Bill 1185 (Chapter 3096.1991 Laws) - a kxml government tax coordination bill:
Senate Bill 1185 - Pr+esc:ribes a tax consultation process which would
require local gnvemmentS to
clarify and exchange information on their property tax needs and would require dLcls•swu in vote f
ballots if a proposed tax levy mould reduce the tat collections of other local government:.
i
The bill also requires a local government seeking voter approval to increase its tax lc%y to hold a
serial public hearing on the effers of the tax proposal on other local government taxing districts.
SB 11.85 specifies the development of a Tax Coordination Plan which would include:
1. A description of the current taxing authority of each local govemment.
2. Estimated revenue needed and estimated taxes to be levied for the corning year.
3. If estimated revenue requir ments exceeds levying authority. an explanation of the deed s
revenue requirements and proposals for increased property taxes.
s. If estimated revenue requirements are less than the levying authority. an explanation of the
decreased revenue requirements and proposals for reducing propaV taxes
5. Options to achieve effective and efficient serviox delivery considering r ume limitations.
i
j SB 1185 requires that the ballot explanations of any treasure proposing a new or increased tae shall contain a
statement that indicate whether the tax measure is subject to the tax limits'of Ballot Measure 5. and whether the f
proposed treasure would reduce property tan: collection for other units of local government
J
~#IBlT
a 6 000-21V
PAGE l
E
.Y
g T1iE LOCAL IMPROVE1fE:`T PROJECT ~
• j GENERAL INIPROVE;MENT PROJECT PROCEDURES F
j Under their home rule authority. cities may Tu==be their own methods of financing local improvements by
special assessment. or may utilize the pxocedums in ORS M387 to ?.23399.
Lost impmvthment pwjws acre initiated either by petition of property o or by resolution of the CottndL r
Proje man confront to those local improvements descti-bed in ORS 22338'°4 or m ft- City Chattel The
Council sets the boustdmies of the area to receive special benefits frtin the impmven-rut prof this area is
referreYd to as a local improvement disuict (LID). If the boundaries. The Council pmes project is initiated by petition. cite petition dessaibes lice
a t dort or adinance declaring its intention to initiate the improvement
r project and or>'lers the preparation of an engineering rat. This report describes the pmjeM estimates the cxt
and lists the affected pvperdc& It may also specify the formula for apportioning the Cost. Before Ge6
t
improvement project is approved, a public notice surd hearing is roquired (ORS 233.389). Notices are usually
trailed to the affected property own= as well as publis.ed or posted. At the hearing. own= may remonstrate
' and. if a certain percentage mmoristaare. the project may be terminated or delayed according to City charter ut
ordinance provisions.
After Ul a hearing. the Council crakes the final derision to proceed by enacting an ordinance or resolution. The
a City is then authorized to issue bond anticipar3on notes in the amount of the estimated cost of the improvemt
Thereafter. the assessed property owners may file litigation againms the City regarding t! = acsment form^ln, i
allocation of cast, but may not I..Wgate the e`aentual assessment. When the estimated cosy to the City is ascercau.,,u t
on the basis of the contract award. or after the work it done and the cost actually detetrnitted. the Council levies
'.j assessments on each benefitted property by ordinance, The assessing ordinance creates.. 'ion on each property.
i.
When a property owner receives a Notice of Assessment, he or she has the option of ala .-ug a cash payment in
full or signing a 'bond application.' This 'bond application" is a legal eonuact whc,:."N site property owner
j age-es to pay the assessment in installments. Principal is paid in equal semi-annual inmtaliments. There is no r-
prepayment penalty-
A delinqu
i envy in payment of asmeats occurs, one year after failure to make payaient5 when due, and in that
event all unpaid installments, including inte,T_sr, "shall become immediately due and payable. and the total amount
may be collected in any legal manner, including foreclosure of lien. ORS 223 970 and OILS 223.505 to 2-13.595
provide that one year from the data an assessment installment is delinquent. the City may collect unpaid
assessments by advertisement and sale in the manner provided by law for sale of rzl property on execution.
r
i
THE PROJECT
Located in an area known as the Tigard Triangle. the Dartmouth Street LID occupies approximately 60 acres at
the junctures of Oregon Highways 217 and 99. The project consists of a "-foot wide paved and cupbed street
within z 70-foot wide right of way extending approximately 3,350 feet from S.W. 59th Avenue at its intersection
with the existing Dartmouth Street to Pacific Highway (Oregon 99) at its intersection with S.W. 78th Avenue. In
j addition to the street improvements. the project will also include right-of-way for a 200 foot street stub for a future
sweet extension to the south, met lights. s•.onn drains. waterlines' sartitary sewers. and other underground utilities
as required to minimize fut= excavation. Utilities will be sized to serve the ultimate development of the Tigard
Triangle in conformance with existing planning for the area. Sanitary sewer service will be extended to serve
existing dwellings along the proposed Dartmouth F-mension. t
f_
s
00,0213
~}11Bt'i'
PAGE
THE CITY OF TIGARD
,j The City of Tigard has an estimated population of 31.000. was incorporated November 1981, and encompasses an
area of 10 square miles. The City is located in the southeasterly portion of Washington County. in the State of
Oregon, and is part of a rapidly developing suburban aces within the Portland metropolitan area. The terrain is
gently rolling acrid hilly. with elevations from 110 to 710 feet above sea level. It is drained by the Tualatin Rives t
j and Fanno Creek and their tributaries, h was a fatming am until the 1950s. but has grown as population and
industry have moved out along major and fed=21 highways treading south and west out of the metropolitan
j center.
GOVF-qN T j
The government of Tigard is vested in a Mayor and Council. The Council consists of four members who are
elected at-large biennially to four-year terns. The Mayor is eluted for a two-year term. The Council appoints
the Munkipai Judge, City Attorney and the City Administrator. who is sponsible for the daily management of
the City and for the implementation of policy. which is set by the Mayer _nd City Council.
Table 4
CITY OF TIGARD
City Council
and Other Of1"aci2tc of the Ci E
'f Mayor: Gerald Edwards. Entrepreneur, has served on the Council since 1985. P Us mayoral term will expire
December 31. 1994.
Service Term
Council Member Occupation Began Expires f
Jack Schwab Attorney 10108/91 04/14/92
Valerie Johnson 7unberconsultant 04/14/86 ?J31/72
R. Joe Kasten Manager. Metallurgy & Quality As:.:• : o ce. E
Oregon Steel Milts 01119189 UJ31/92
John Schwartz Director of Emergency Services.
Consolidated Fire & fescue 01/01/97 12131/34
City Adminisirator Patrick J. Reilly
rinance Director: Wayne Lowry
Legal Counsel: OI)onnclL Rams. Crew & Corrigan
Source: City of Tigard-
ADMINISTRATION I
Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator, has been with the City since October 1988. Prior to that. Mr. Reilly was
City Manager for Gladstone, Kwouri (1984-88), City Administrator for Clinton, Missouri (198044). and City 4
Adminisxt-ator for Richmond Heights. Kzsouri (1978-80). He receives' a Master-of Art, degree in political
dense from the University of Missouri at St. Ezuis. and s Bachelor of Amu degree in political science from
Benedictine College at Atchison. Kansas. Mr. Reilly is a member of the Intermition,al City Management
Association and Alas served as president of the Bv£issouri Cry Managers A- iadclL 6
Wayne i.,oa-ry, Finance Director. has been with the City since Febxuary 1985. fie served as the City's
Accounting Manager through August 1985 and was then appointed Finance Director. Fdcr to his employment by
the City of Tigard.. he served as an Internal Audit Manager for Orange County. California,. for four and a half
j YT's. Mr. Lowry received his Bachelor of Science degree in business administration. with a concentration in
accounting, from Lang Beach State University. Long Beach. California. uO is a certified public accountant ®(y1BlT F
10 PAGE
0 00214
i FLtiA4'N'CLkL LNFOR;1ATIOit
`.`.3 BASES OF ACCOUINTING
! The governmental fund types am maintained on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The propriety fund r
types (enterprise and internal service funds) ace accounted for utilizing the accrual basis of accounting. The City's
? accounting practices conform to generally accepted amounting principles.
F
FISCAL YXARa July 1 to June 30
AUDM f
_ The Oregon Municipal Audit Law (ORS 297.405 - 297335) requires in audit and examiriation be made of the
accounts and financial affairs of every municipal corporation at least once a year. Unless the municipality elects
to have the audit performed by the State Division of Audits. the audit shall be made by accountants whose names
are included on the roster prepat'ed by the State Board of A=ountzncy.
k
I'm City audits for the fis~sl years 1983-84 through 1990-91 were performmed by Coopers and Lybrand. CPAs.
Portland. Oregon. The auditors did not review the tables and offer no opinion regarding the tables. A complete
copy of the City's annual financial statements may be obtained from the City's Futance Department. t
i
BUDGETING E
22 Tlie City prepares annual budgets in a=rdance with provisions of the Oregon Local Budget Law, which provides
standard procedures for the preparation, presentation. administration, and apgraLsal of budgets. In the months of
January through May of each year a proposed budget is prepared under supervision of the City's Budges
Committee. This committee consists, of the Council and an equal number of electors of the City. These electors
are appointed to the Committee. All members of the Bridget Committee have an equal vote and ft-al a approval of
s the budget.
j Prior to adoption. a proposed budget must be approved by the budget committer. In an advertised public meeting.
the budget comraitaee reviews the budget and the "budget message," which explains the budget and significant
;
EL changes in the local government's financial position. All budget committee meetings are open to the public.
Following budget approval by the budget committee, another public hearing is held. A budget summary and
notice of heating an published prior to the hearing. Publication is governed by strict requirements as to time and
mode.
~ E
A public hearing is then held after which time the Council adopts the final budget. makes appropriations and
declares tax levies. Prior to the public healing. a budget summary and notice of hearing am published. k
Publication is governed by strict requirements rs to time and mode. After the budget hearing. the Council
r considers the citizen's testimony and. if necessary. alters, the budget sub!= to statutory limitations upon
increasing taxes or fund allocations without further publication and hearing.
An election must be held to approve the City's tai levy to the extent that the budget exceeds the City's Tax
Base.' A tax base is equal to 105 percent of the largest regular tax levy within the prior six percent limitation for f
the prior three years. The 1990-91 tax base for the City was 52366.282. In addition. the City also levied ;
S 1316363 for debt service. The 1991-92 tax base for the City is 53.580.449. The City will also levy S 1.239.710
for debt service. The 1991-92 tax base was approved by voters in November. 1990.
f
After the operating levy election, if one is required. the Council preps a formal resolution which adopts the
budget. authorizes taxes to be levied and sets out a schedule of appropriations. This resolution must be adopted
not later than June 30. Two copies of the budget am submitted to the Assessoes Office before July 15 so that the
tart levy may be certified.
Supplemental budgets may be prepared as needed during the fiscal year utilizing transfers between the
appropriation categories which ar-. approved by the Council. Supplemental budgets are considered and adopt~~(B1T
Y the a przess as the regular budget. including public hearings and notices of hearings.
f 12 PAGE
COGb1-
1
,I
Table 8
CM OFTIGARD i
General Fund
Coasecutivr Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
As of 1 une 30
Revenues 1987 1988 1989 X990 1991
F
Taxes 51.645246 52.015.792 5-513 52.425.620 52-558,087
Franchise fees 745.520 749:684 949.576 1.100.181 1.179.833 _
1.kenses and omits 642.222 786.738 1.052 712 910.149 875231
Intergovernmental revenues 510.284 756.662 625.031 1.032.489 1.187.120
Charges for scrvices 23.580 24.853 20.652 39.818 48.150
Firics and 101fei== 144.559 254.154 240.849 232.332 259.497
I
Miscellanea= a 4 ~ 438-493
i Total revenues AILIMI 4 d 2 M 411 C
r
Expenditures
t
Community S=Vices 2.367.972 2.998-W 3264.482 3.504.824 4.312.354
Community development 84$.023 994.641 1.146.773 1.366.032 1.510.172
Policy and adnxfnist3ati:;.- 87.870 98.700 96.964 217.672 241.351
City-wide suppt Nnc::• s 592.863 477.794 437.812. 456.067 329.631
Capital projects 62.548 ' J 4 MM
Toud exp!ndirm= 4 ' .~.g 19~ a E
Excess of revenues over f
(under) expendimres 28,017 22.542 347.155 517.842 (335.970)
8
Total other financing
sources (uses) 250-574 0 0 0 0
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures
and other vise=s __22,642
I
Beginning fund balance .1,4°16 0'rQ a 3122LYL; ' a €
C
Ending fund balance l td F5l 1 t 7 z 1 Rs aSR $j 9rri z 2fi5
C
Source: Derived from annul financial statements.
S
j f
i
j
'r
i
t
j
I
G ~ t .
10 0
14
IXN161T y~
Db/!s 7
j
j r
Tc-ode. Employment in -hol le and retail talc accounted for 25.9 percent of the jobs in the Portland PMSA in
1950. making this the Largest employment sector.
-t
i Strength in domestic warehousing and distribution owes to Portland's geographic location at the hub of interstate
free-mays and railroads in the Pacific Northwest. Internaadorai trade farther enhances the domestic distribution
business in Port!artd. Being lecated along the Colombia River with a deep draft channel to the Pacific Oteen has I
r masse Portland one of the. West Coasfs leaders in yemiy cxy+= to ge.
SeMct sud Mi llaneous. This sector iw the sccssnd lug en in the Portland PUSA. writs! 25.0 Percent of jobs
r
in 19W. reflecting Ponland's importance as a service center for the region. E
r
- , Prlanufaetttring. Employment in ananufacturing counted for IU percent of the jobs in the Portland PNZA in
1990, !erasing it the third largest ssxar. Decxuwes in the wood products and W-vispartation equipment have been
offset by growth in the elecuical equipment and instrument segments, although decreasvs have occunvd in the
P tatter in the past year.
t:
The staWs economy is largely based on the lumber and wood products industry, which at:courats for about 29.1
percent of the state's tr=ufactxzrlng ernploytnent. and on food and khuftvd projects, which accounts for about 11.2
pe CnL The Portland economy is less dependent on these sectors (7.3 and 8.1 perrent) b=use of its increasing
diversificadca. The fora most important manufacturing sectors in the Portland PNISA are instruments and related
j products. machinery, electronic and other electrical equipment. and metals. ~
i
Government. The foutth largest sector in the Portland P?ZA is government; with 13.2 percent of Lhe jabs in
i 1990. Local govartment is the largest of the governmental employers, including school districts, counties. citim
and special districts. 6
4
EC®NONGC DEVE1.GPMEWT
As industrial and commercial land in Pottland b=me inc =singly scarce and costly. the greater supply of land in ~
the City of Tigard acted a variety of s ommercial and indtr_s xW firms. lndussial development is concentrated
west of interns ate 3, along the Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific railroad marks, and along Soutlawest 72nd
Avenue south of Highway 217..A number of business and industrial parks have been develor---d in these and other
locations over the past fear years. Commercial activity has developed in a strip along State Mghway 99W
(Pacific Mgharay), with increasing development along Mghway 217 and portions of Scholls Perry Road. The
Dartmouth Street LID is located in the area designated as the Tigard Triangle at the intersection of Highway 99 r.
1 and Highway 217. Not:: proceeds will be used to fund infraswacuure iinprovernents for development of this prime
commercial property.
CiTILI•P1F'S-
Norrhwest Natural Gas supplies natural gat to the ar= electicity, is provided by Portland General Electric
Company: and General Telephone Company provides telephone srsvice.
i PUBLIC FACII.T2'IF.S
Starer
j The Unified Sewerage Agency provides a=tment facilities for a 102-square-mile urban area of Washington
County. including most of the incorporated arms. The Agency. which was foamed in 1970. operates seven
treatment plants. The City owTu and maintains its own collection system.
Water
Residents of the City receive their water from the Tigard Watts District and the Metzger Water District. Tigard
Water District draws its watcr from the Clacl=mas River, and franc Bull Run Reservoir. through the City of
i Portland's system. The water source for i =r,,,cr Water Maria is also Bull Run Reservoir.
t i
16 0 ®0 B42 l1 r ~
149
PAGE
f
The premier red wine in the County and Sate is pint noir. The Washington County Wine Growers Association
has joined with the statewide organization in the promoting of local products both within Oregon and to the
broader national audience.
i
' 1 I1VrORMATION SOURCES
Mstorical dala have been eollWAtd frem Senetally accepted .vandard sottrcrs. usually from public bodie& In
Oregon.dam is fa°egttendy a-dailable for counties and also. to a somewhat It= degree. for cities. - the
City is k=Led within the : sniail P& y 1ctteapoGtac3 S d=1 tea. this =tr-'n it preseras darn for that arv_
as well as fog the Countyy and the City where available.
a
EGONONUCANDDI;.MOGPAPHICTABLES
j The tables that follow providc further information about the emnornic and demographic azure of the City.
Table 9
Ci I"Y OF TIG R D ~
Population Estimates
F
City of Percent Washington Percent. Ptreent `
Tigard Change County Cbange Oregoo Change '
1940 - - 39.194 - 1.089.684 i
1950 w e 61.269 56.3' 1.321.341 39.6% 1960 92.130 50.4 1.768.687 16.3
1970 3.302 - 157.920 71.4 2-091.533 18.3
1979 14,200 167.8 233.150 47.6 1394.330 23.6
1 1980 14,900 4.9 247.800 63 2.639.915 2.2 f
1981 15.750 5.7 255.000 2.9 1660.735 0.8
1982 13.000 143 259.700 1.8 1656.185 -0.2
1983 18.200 1.1 257.4-0 -0.9 -1635.000 -0.8 f
1984 18.450 1.4 260.200 1.1 4660.000 0.9
+ 1985 20...50 9.8 268.00^0 3.0 2.675.800 0.6
1986 20.765 2-5 273300 2.0 1661.300 -0.5
1987 23.335 12.4 250.001 2.5 1690,000 1.1 j
1988 25.510 9.3 287.000 2.3 2.741.000 1.9
1989 27.050 6.0 295.0010 2.8 1791.000 1.8
1990 29.650 9.6 313.0010 6.1 2.847.000 2.0
_ 1980-90
Compounded r` -
j Annual Rate
of Change 7.12% 2.36% 0.76%
1985-90 E
Compounded
Annual Rate
of Change 7.92% 3.15% 1M%
i Source: Under State Law. the State Board of Higher Education mum estirnate annually the population of Oregon E
rules and counties so that shared revenues may be properly apportioned. The Center for Populvion
Research and Census at Portland State University performs this statutor/ duty.
EXHMIT -L
•
PAGE
1$ aoc12)1g
1
E
Table 12
PORTLAND PMSA
Employment
Annual Averagts and Percent Distribution by Industry
(By Plata of employmaat)
l i-
Average P'erceut Average Percent
Aanraat of Total Annual of Total f
'I`ota! Wage us Salary aSSI 100.0% 536.$ 100.0°%
Manufacturing total 314,2 20.6 101.1 16.3
1
Vurable goods ~
Instruments & related products 19.6 3.5 10.4 1.6 ~
Machinery 12.7 23 11.9 1.9
Elect nic dt other electrical equipment 73 13 12.0 1.9
Lumber 6t wcod products 910 1.6 7.6 1.2
E
Metals 18.6 3.4 16.7 2.6
T rtadon equipment 9.1 1.6 9.7 1.5
Other durable goods 6.4 12 6.8 1.1
R'
Mora-durable goods
Food and Idndred products 8.6 1.5 8.4 1.3
i
Printing and publishing 5.9 1.1 8.0 13
Paper and allied products 7.5 1.4 3.8 0.6
i Other non-durable goods 9.5 1.7 8.8 I.4
E j Non-marufacturing total 441.0 79.4 5323 83.7
Trade 142.0 25.6 164.8 25.9
Services and miscellaneous 111.0 20.0 165.5 26.0
j Government 81.4 14.7 83.9 13.2
Finance. insurance and real e_<ate 45.7 82 51.2 8.0
Transportation. communications
Utilities 36.3 6.5 37.6 5.9
Construction 24.6 4.4 29.4 4.6
Raining and quarrying NA. 0.0 0.5 0.1
Labor disputes 0.7 0.1
i
NOTES: Columns may not foot due to rounding.
The Portland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) includes Clackamas. Multnomah.
Washington and Yamhill coundes. Data for 1985 are not comparable to prior years because of the
inclmdon of Ywnhall County and the c==, .;,+n of CLat County. Washington.
i
Source: State of Oregon Department of Human Resources. Etnploytnent Divisioo. i
i
j '
. ;
20 00
EXH~Si7 ,
PAGE
}
RAT1tiG
No rating for the Notes has been or will be applied for.
LEGAL MATTERS ~
mvis Wtigbt Tremaine of end. Ongm Bond Counsel for the City. will tomes an opinion with respect to the
:a validity of mid = cxmpdon on the Notes. A copy of such opinion of BoM +Coutud is included in ApprMia B
of this Official StatestenL
J:.
Certain legal mattes incident to the auk. .tion. issum= and she of the Note; are sabot to elan approval of thft C
t.
City Auonaey.
' UNDERWRITING
The Underwriter has agreed. subject to cm-min conditions, to pumhare the Notes from the City less an
Underritces discount of S bom the 0%igirtai Principal Amount sett forth on the cover page of this
i Official Statement. The Und-erwriter will be obliged to purchase all such Notes, if any such Notes are purchased.
' TAX EXEIN MON
f.
- " Tax Traatzaant of Original Issue Discount. The initial public offering price of the Notes is less than the
principal =cunt thereof payable at maturity. As a result. the Notes will be considered to be issued with original
issue diet. The diffsre:ce betwrea the initial public offering price of the Nis. as = forth on the cover page =
i of the OTx,al Statement (assurning it is the fuss price at which a1 substantUs amount of Notes is sold), and the
amount payable at maturity of the Notes wUl be treated as "sagi:tal ism tliWocnt.' VrA reset to a taxpayer
a wft purcb a defeated iwa= note at the initial public offering price (assuming it is dte ruz% pricer at which a
i substantial amount of the Notes iy sold), and who holds such deferred inter me to amity, the fuL amount of
{ - original mount will constitute inter= which is am includable in the gas bic=e of the owner of such
deferred in=rest we for Federal income tax and such owner will :sot, present under Fmleral income tax
later, realize tax; able capital gain upon payment of such deferred interest mote upon matzrity.
'the original iffier dL-zou to on each of the Notes is treated as accruing daily over the tam of such Notes on the
basis of a constant interest rate compounded at the end of each six-mottle pericd (or'shcrur pcdod from the date
of original issue) ending February I and August I (with straight line interpolation beturocn compound dates).
S--tion 12$$ of the Code provides, with respect to tic-exempt obtigations such as the Notm that the amount of
original issue discount accruing each period will be added to the ownce's tax bates for the Nom Such adjusted
tax basis wW be used to de= mine table gain or Um upon tlisposition of the Nests (including saIes. redtmpdon,
or payment at rnattaity). The owner of a deferred interest note who disposes of such deferred interest ' itote prior to
maturity should cons& bisllw tax advisor as to the amount of original issue di unt aerstaed ova the perod held
and the amount of mmabte gain or hiss upon the sale or other disposidon of such deferred interest note prior to
maturity.
As de-scribed above regarding tax-ex=ix interest. a portion of the original issue discount that moues in each y= r
to the owner of the deferred interest tote may result in =Wn collateral Federal income tax consequences. In the
cam of a 'oil. such portion of the cri&al i re discount will be included in the calculation of the
cogoratioWs allernadve, minim= tax liability and the eavironrnentat tax liability. of the Notes
should be aware that the awl of original issue discount in each year may result in in alterrta dva minimum tax
1 liability or an envinsnmenmil to liability although the owners of such Note will not receive a corresponding cash
payment until a b= year.
i
22
0002- 0~
PAGE
1
CERTTEZCATE OF COWLIANCE
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY
AND GOALS OF THE LCDC
$2,644,523.40 .
City of T'wrd, Oregon
Bond Anticipation Limited Tax General Obligation Notes t
Series 1992
s
On behalf of the City of 111gaed, in Washing,- County, Oregon, I hereby ce
that the project to be financed with the ~
proceeds of this financing are in compliance with the
e ~ .
Comprehensive Plan. of the City and the statewide goals of the Land Conservation and
Development Commission C'LCDC) of the State of Oregon.
~ E
Dated this 3rd day of February, 1992.
- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By: r 4 .
Wayne Lo
Finance Director
:j
i
_i
J - k
i
i
i
~ l
1 l
j
~j ~:A?9~74400
1 ,
1 '
j
PAGE _ -
i
-d RANDALL WOOLEY MARCH 28, 1994
1~ RANDALL WOOLEY ~
5
2 was thereupon produced as a witness in behalf of the
3 Defendants and, having been first duly sworn on
4 oath, was examined and testified as fellows:
6 EXAMINATION
7
8 BY MR. WILLIS: f
1 9 Q. Mr. wooley, we have -net briefly before. [
10 You }snow I'm the attorney that represents both the k=
11 Pol ocks and Mr. Carpenter?
12 A. Uh-huh (positive response).
13 Q. And you have let me give you the
` 14 precautions right away. Please try to answer out
15 loud., but say "yes" or "no" rather than "uh-huh" or
16 "huh-uh," because it's much easier for the court
17 reporter to get the response down accurately. Can
18 you try to remember to do that for me?
i
I 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. what is your present position with the
21 city?
22 A. City engineer.
23 Q. Now long have you held that position?
s
24 A. Eight-}ears.
25
Q. .Laad:-ciio3zs-y®uwh®1Q •®vhow long-have you been ,
~ l
a9RRSMAN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-3 UAW
PAGE
4
RANDALL WOOLLY MARCH 28, 1994
1 And when was the construction actually
r
' . 2 completes on that, if you know?•.-ti
ti-7
3 AL. 3: _believe .-It • as '~anu~ry of 1994. Actually
4 there's some work still.to be-completed by the
5 contractors,-some minor work.
6 Q. .So it would be ten to 11 years from the
f 7 time of its creation to the time of its completion?
8 A. What's correct.
9 Do you have any knowledge of any other LIDS P'
' 10 that the City of Tigard has been involved in that a
F
11 took that long from its creation to completion of
~ r
r 1.2 the project?
1 13 A. No, I have no personal knowledge of any
I
14 LIDS that took that long.
± ~A
15 Q. It's likely, isn't`it,..that you would have
16 that knowledge if it took that long to do one?
1
17 A. Not necessarily. [
1s Q. If they were since=186,•you would have that
' 19 knowledge; isn't that-true?
20 A. That's correct.
i
i 21 Qa Okay. With respect to your other
22 experience in working for other cities,-,did you ever
23 come across ny.4on.struction "program where those
24 being done for ;an LID took -that long -r-o get it
25 6ompleted?
F
GBBSM.AN & ASSOCIATES (503) 222-3222
E (H1BIT
PAGE _ E
RANDALL WOOLEY MARCH 28, 1994 i 19 !
,a
A. No.
2 .t
2 Now many total years' experience have you ;
3 got in govern.m.ent-employment?
A. Z guess it-.would be 20 to 21 years. ..Well,
5 Less the time that i-vas self-employed, a little
6 lees than 20.
1
7 Whatpart, if any,.-did-you play in the
` & Dartmouth construction project? tae°re kind of
9 skipping around here a little bit. But we would
10 agree on, would we not, that actual construction of
i:.
11 the Dartmouth-project occurred after 1956? i
I
12 A. Correct.
3
,i 13 Q~ Do you know when it actually started, when
~r 14 they actually started any work in the ground?
15 A. I believe the first construction was in
16 1993.
17 Q. Do you know about when in 193? f
f
i 19 A. As I recall, it was early summer.
13 1Q. Would that be
j _
20 A. June or July.
21 Q. Okay. So I guess setting aside what you
i
1 22 say is the clean-up-work-or minor completion that
23 the contractor still has to.do,-between June of 193
24 and January 194,',the actua.l:-conatruction.-work was
1
r
25 done?
i OSESMAN ASSOCIATES (5®3)•222-3222
f.
EXHIBIT
-
k'-
- -.®~S~r ~ kz~~~ d c~ ~ l~ot43 s
-f-k-' t i-3
Phone: 639-4137
'j L f
REAL ESTATE & BUILDING SERVICE E
625 S.W. Main street Tigard, Oregon 97223
EXH9I3lY
r
G
4, 4,000 square feet or 39.43 Acres
TOTAL, AREA OF 1,67
53 DIFFERENT PROPERTY DOWNERS HAVE SIGNED F
ALL HAVE SIGNED EXCEPT 51,500 square feet or 1.19 Acres
J or approximately 97% are for retaining the same zoning. i'
THE 5 PROPERTIES THAT DID NOT SIGN:
.3 were against signing mostly due to financing reasons
~ I
2 could not be contacted OR could not reach a decision
1 as to sign
(However one indicated he will sign)
i
1
I ,
i
EXHIBIT
F r
PAGE--L.0
E
000694
fo Cc.
GEOHOP, 1. HANSEN, P. G.
Ila
ATTORNEY AT LAW
TELEPHONE $03 245.9938 11515 S. W. PACIFIC HIGHWAY
FAX 903 249-0777 ~s()((T[.ANi), (1YY P:ti tDN L)933:1•A(1()f) 1
January 11, 1,995
Mr. Timo y V. Ramis VIA FAX #243-2944
Attornpyfocr City of Tigard
1727 . W. Hoyt Street
Por and, OR 97209
t
Re: City of Tigard°s Request for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA 94-0002/ZON 94-0002 t
Dear Mr. Ramis: F"
I represent an owner of property located within the proposed t
CPA Area, and have been advised that the City Staff is refusing
to allow the citizens permission to talk to their elected repre-
sentatives. The stated reason is that this particular comprehen-
sive change is a quasi judicial matter.
In my opinion, the staff is in error, as this CPA appears to
be a legislative matter, as 1) it was initiated by the City, 2)
affects a large number of owners, and 3) affects a large area,
all of which are hart-and-parcel of a legislative amendment. The
refusal of the staff to allow contact with their elected repre-
sentatives denies this constitutional rights of the citizens.
i.
If you agree, I would appreciate your so advising the Mayor
of the City of Tigard.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE I . FiANSSEN P.C.
George I. Hansen
T
cc:
cc: The Mon. Jim t3icoli, 'Mayor 1
F.
[RJAN 3~ #tr
,
Ire,
+
3
E
i
j t
T
I t~ l~✓L ( r G t, w.. 41,,;5 P,;6 a cs2c z - ~ i 4v- to'
/'All C, Spa4
r'
1 j ` +.r.!l?t/• ,lj~l//Gees"r~7~y ~3 e~ f aLLiri~~-!' .Sdi'~r~~ _ F
Pa d/ ! B~ . E - )r✓. 141,16a-Y°~a
i~
-iL+rr7~~y _.I~WC,/1~...._ ~fj ,fv~''eSBrz-- dlt~ /L~e.~ ~'-~o - Cs:.-
i
/
40 pp~,_
{
,
i
t
I
~ i
a
JAN 2 4 1995
UCTE5
Molly Gorger
13235 S.W. 72nd t
i Tigard, Oregon 97223
r
January 20, 1995
Dear Mayor, E .
! I airy confused and frustrated. I wanted to let you know how I personally felt about the ,
! proposed zoning changes in the Triangle and was told by by you it was illegal for you or any one
else on the council to talk to me about the triangle issues. I am then told by another party it
really isn't illegal that the change you arbitrarily made from a legislative zoning change to a_
quasi judical change is actually improper what is really going on here? Is it really illegal to i'
talk to the people of your community about zoning changes when no one has petitioned you
in the change? In changing the name of the procedure did you make a mistake? Am I to believe
R that when this change so greatly effects our community that you can not speak with the people?
J You can not hear them personally? Do you understand why I am confused?
This is the letter you told me to write. I want you to know how I personally feel about
the proposed planning changes in the triangle. I have also included some of the other concerns I
1 have heard. Please take note. f
-i
1. I think the triangle should be developed to its fullest potential. Build it big build it
j huge keep the growth going up instead of out. This particular chunk of land is
:a unique in its particular location to major arterials.
2. I agree with the planning commission let's shut down the proposed planning
changes.
3. These are some of the concerns I have heard from people with interest in the area. ' .
i
A. Buying a home, knowing it was commercially zoned knowing when their
children were gone they would sell. Their nest egg. Now if you down zone
they will not get the value they had believed they would.
i B. A house on a half acre as appraised at $130,000 .....and because of all the
commercial and professional development around the home, the heavy traffic
on major highways surrounding it it has lost a major chunk of appeal for a
i
i
d
' foot it is only valued at $65,000 help ....don't do this Please don't
t: devalue our houses.
C. Wouldn't the tax base be better for the city if it stayed commercial?
D. Save Mother Earth put the commercial all together cram it in
tight and neat.
I have had my say in what it is you are discussing that concerns me so in your next
council meeting. Please listen to your community Read our letters hear our voices.
I am concerned. We are concerned. I hope you too are concerned. Concerned for the
a community concerned for the earth and concerned for our own pocket books. Please do not
adopt the proposed zoning changes for the Tigard Triangle.
Sincer y,
i
I
lly Gorger
is
i
j
i f
f
f
<1 f
i V
f
Y
l
1 I
j
i 4
f
j - _ Rick Gorger s JAN 2 4 1995
13235 S.W. 72nd s~ 1
T igard Oregon 97223 ,i~j
3 January 20, 1995
Dear Council Member,
I am a property owner within the Tigard Triangle and I am very concerned about the k_
possibilities of down zoning the property within it.
j
One of my concerns is that by doyen zoning properties in the triangle, development will
slow or stop completely. I myself will not sell my property for development of multi-family k
housing and take a loss on my investment.
Another concern is that the zoning of this property should be for the highest and best use
according to land use laws with the state of Oregon. To down zone properties at a time when
commercial development such as Costco, Cub Foods, and approval for Wal-Mart is happening
seems like poor planning on the part of the city. After all what is going to bring the more tax
4 dollars to the city-----commercial property or multi-family? We all know the answer is
commercial.
There are man more concerns about down zoning this property but these are m main r
ones. So with these in mind I recommend to the city ...listen to the planning commission and
our staff who rejected this plan. Listen to me and the majority of the people who own property
in the triangle. Reject the proposed plan and let the zoning stay the way it is. Let the market
work on its own.
Concentrate on developing the transportation avenues around the triangle and take
advantage of making this triangle the best commercial development in the Tri- county area. 5
There's really no other piece like it, so let's make it a showcase!
t'
j Thank-you,
Rick Gorger
i
f '
i
I wish to 'thank Mayor J. Nocoli and the City Council for this
- opportunity to address you.
F
I'm Ely Wilder, address - 12260 SAN 72nd, Tigard 'T'riangle.
In the original master plan that I helped write, the residential areas
were to remain zoned R3.5 until such a time that each resident on ~
both sides of the street voted to become Commercial-Professional. `
Under the proposed zone change to R25, which even the planning
commission voted against, it would be difficult to sell our
residence as a resident and to sell to an apartment developer would
reduce our residence value by half
Our personal problem is the increased noise level, ar,,d the
difficulty gaining access to 72nd Ave due to the increasing number
of cars and trucks. This has also created a severe safety hazard for
children and pets. The majority of the cars and trucks travel at a
speed greater than posted.
Nly request is that the council deny the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA 94-0002 / Zone Change Zon 94-0002.. If the
council needs to increase it's residential density then they should
rezone the vacant land between 68th. and 70th and thereby redirect
a large amount of traffic to 68th Ave.
Thank you,
G_
4
- k
TIGARD TRIANGLE
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
- PUBLIC HEARING
t
January 24x1995
f
The planning staff has claimed that they gent ahead with f'
their plans because they heard no objections -ta from the 4
citizens when apartment buildings were being proposed.
_ This staff must have a hearing problem. Every time the
subject came up a number of Triangle people strongly object-
ed to apartment buildings,irn their neighborhood. It is truly
unfortunate that these meetings were not recorded.
But let us just assume the staff was right in that no
1 person objected to apartment houses,' °-J b Did
i• the staff conduct a survey among the people in the Triangle }
on whether or not they objected to apartment houses,
ne+gtrboL-*cvdSW6 Most certainly not!
The staff is saying that Triangle people were silent on
the issue. Even if this is so, SINCE WHEN DOES SILENCE MEAN
'a APPROVAL?
Did the planning staff invite citizens to offer their
views and suggestions to the specific area plan before it was
submitted for the public hearing? Oh yes,indeed! But they
invited only a select few. Of these few, only one was a E
Triangle property owner. This person did not have his proper- '
ty downzoned to R-25. And he certainly was not elected to
represent the people in the Triangle.
Paragraph 2.1.1 in the Comprehensive Plan Policies
states: The city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involve-
ment program and shall assure that citizens will be provided
an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning
process.
Submitted herewith is a list of 120+ Triangle property
owners who signed petitions opposing R-25. Not a single.
person on this list was offered an opportunity to review or
to make suggestions on the specific area plan before it was
submitted for a public hearing.
The 120+ property owners on the list simply were
bypassed in the process, and these citizens were most vitally
1 affected of all. I speak for every single one of them when I
appeal to you to deny the Tigard Triangle specific area plan.
Thank you.
Dayle Beach
11530 SW 72nd Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223
j
I i
r CPage 1 of 3
The Tigard Triangle property owners listed below have
signed petitions opposing R-•25 zoning:
NAME ADDRESS
Irving L. Larson 11.720 SW 68th Parkway F
Robert J. Koch 7130 SW Baylor St.
William I. Horne 7160 SW Baylor St.
Robbie Horne 7160 SW Baylor St.
Larrie P. Noble 11750 SW 72nd Ave.
T. L. Noble 11750 SW 72nd Ave.
William L. Chase 11580 SW 72nd Ave.
Violet Chase 11580 SW 72nd Ave.
John Wozniak 11550 SW 72nd Ave.
Darlene Wozniak 11550 SW 72nd Ave. E
Anna Belle Mahon 11780 SW 72nd Ave. t'
Mary A. Fegles 11720 SW 72nd Ave.
Margaret M. Gooley 7130 SW Baylor St.
Ely Wilder 12260 SW 72nd Ave.
John Scott 7085 SW Elmhurst St. G'
Debi Scott 7085 SW Elmhurst St.
-j Calvin Barrett 7175 SW Beveland St.
Diana Barrett 7175 SW Beveland St.
Allwin Cohn 7105 SW Baylor St.
Nancy P. Haag 7070 SW Baylor St.
Emma L. Wilder 12260 SW 72nd Ave.
Kenneth G. Brian 11680 SW 72nd Ave.
` John C. Law 6945 SW Baylor St.
Billie J. Law 6345 SW Baylor St.
Mark E. Schultz 7010 SW Baylor St.
j Laura K. Schultz 7010 SW Baylor St.
j Michael Lefebvre 7040 SW Baylor St.
Linda Lefebvre 7040 SW Baylor St. e
Gene E. Jackson 7045 SW Clinton St.
Robert Winkler 11745 SW 70th Ave.
Ruth Salimena 7100 SW Baylor St.
John Salimena 7100 SW Baylor St.
i Luella Winkler 11745 SW 70th Ave.
Miriam Dahn 6835 SW Clinton St.
John Dahn 6845 SW Clinton St.
Ada Shiley 11600 SW 69th Ave.
Lawrence E. Greene 6830 SW Haines St.
Delores D. Greene 6$30 SW Haines St.
Arden L. Peters 7135 SW Clinton St.
Sue S. Peters 7135 SW Clinton St.
James D. Buehler 7175 SW Baylor St.
' Melissa S. Buehler 7175 SW Baylor St.
Al Thomas 7135 SW Baylor St.
June Thomas 7135 SW Baylor St.
Caree Beniston 11570 SW 69th Ave
Chris Beniston 11570 SW 69th Ave.
Lavida E. Miller 6870 SW Baylor St.
! George Nordling 7105 SW Elmhurst St.
Sudie E. Tommy 7120 SW Gonzaga St.
j
Page 2 of. 3
The Tigard Triangle property owners- listed below have
signed petitions opposing R--25 zoning: C
NAME ADDRESS
Bob L. Tommy 7120 SW Gonzaga St.
JoAnne Nord.ling 7105 SW Elmhurst St. t-
Neal Nulton 7025 SW Gonzaga St.
Velma E. Zeek 7060 SW Beveland St.
Linda Dorton 7075 SW Clinton St.
Jacqueline F. Byles 6860 SW Haines St.
Steven M. White 6940 SW Baylor St.
! Janice White 6940 SW Baylor St.
Michael Gordon 7086 SW Beveland St.
Christopher D. Shaver 7040 SW Elmhurst St.
Priscilla Ditter 7070 SW Elmhurst St.
Mark Ditter 7070 SW Elmhurst St.'
Michael R. Andrus 7155 SW Beveland St. j;
Bonnie Halferty 7015 SW Clinton St.
j Jill A. Scrivner 7115 SW Beveland St.
Ron E. Scrivner 7115 SW Beveland St.
Anne Leiser 7021 SW Baylor St,
Roy R. Rogers 12700 SW 72nd Ave.
Evelyn O. Beach 11530 SW 72nd Ave.
M. Jean Gieszler 7070 SW Gonzaga St. f
Jim Baker 7075 SW Gonzaga St.
'j Leona Bordenkircher 7105 SW Gonzaga St.
Fred L. Harris 11540 SW 70th Ave. t~
3 Cynthia Brooks 7085 SW Beveland St.
David A. Brooks 7085 SW Beveland Sam.
a Dayle Beach 11530 SW 72nd Ave. !
Gordon S. Martin. 12265 SW 72nd Ave.
Joan Jacober 7110 SW Clinton St.
Mary Manley 7435 Sw Hermosa St.
Lester Jacober 7110 SW Clinton St.
Don Pollack 1834 SW 58th Ave., Portland
i Michael Schaefer 6775 SW Clinton St.
Dean Smith 11705 SW 68th St.
i
Robert S. Hogg 6860 SW Clinton St.
Harriet L. Hogg 6860 SW Clinton St.
G. Fred Warden 3900 Portland Rd., Newberg
Carl H. Johnson 8965 SW 69th Ave.
Jennie Larson 11720 SW 68th Pkwy.
JbAnn Winters 19000 SW McCormick Hill, Hillsb.
Kenneth L. Reusser 17345 SW Reusser Ct., Beaverton
Gertrude G. Reusser 17345 SW Reusser Ct., Beaverton
1 Donald Scheckla 21885 SW Scholls, Sherwood
Lucille Scheckla 21885 SW Scholls, Sherwood
Ken Rosenfeld 11930 SW 70th Ave.
Owen Housel 9289 SW Club Meadow Ln.
Cecil Jones 12190 SW 69th Ave.
Mrs. Mildred Perry 8439 SW 61st Ave.
+ Bill Steinburg 8310 SW 10th Ave., Portland
i
I Page 3 of 3 `
The Tigard Triangle property owners listed below have
signed petitions opposing F.-25 zonango
NAME ADDRESS_
Janine M. Jensen 2736 Malibu Way, Eugene
Stephen A. Clair 11565 SW 66th Ave.
i Western Evangelical Seminary 12753 SW 68th Ave. [ .
Eldon F. Baurer 11800 SW 69th Ave.
Ramona Baurer 11800 SW 69th Ave.
Sharon Moore 11710 SW 69th Ave.
[ Glenn Moore 11710 SW 69tn Ave.
Stephen W. Peirce 12525 SW 68th Ave.
" Lucille E. Vasey 1602 NE 40th Ave., Portland
Greg Sammons 6950 SW Alden Ct., Portland,
Stephen Kroo 11930 SW 72nd Ave.
j Darlene A. Landon 6210 SW River Rd., Hillsboro
" Kathleen Fullwiler 15510 Lakeside Dr., Rockaway
Paul B. Wagar 6980 SW Bavlor St.
'i Kaneko Wagar 6980 SW Baylor St.
Louise Stewart 11990 SW 72nd Ave.
Donald Stewart 11990 SW 72nd Ave.
John Connet 11810 SW 72nd Ave. E
Jane Connet 11810 SW 72nd Ave.
Styeven C. Rand 7540 SW Hermoso Way
David M. Sloan 7355 SW Beveland St.
Mary C. Lewis 11860 SW 72nd Ave.
Jason C. Lyman 7395 SW Hermoso Way
Molly Gorger 13235 SW 72nd Ave.
Richard Gorger 13235 SW 72nd Ave.
James L. Corliss 12000 SW 66th Ave. f
John Turnquist 12545 SW 72nd Ave.
Charlie Dorton 7075 SW Clinton St.
J. T. Roth, Jr. 12300 SW 69th Ave.
Donna K. Jones 12190 SW 69th Ave.
i
I
_ J ~ff
i f.
i
j
I
f
E
i
i E
1
'.e
4.
i _ IF NOT IN THE TRIANGLE, THEN WHERE?
f
No site is more accessible from all parts of the Metro ~
area than is the Tigard Triangle.
No site is more ideally suited to commercial develop-- `
menu:, than is the Tigard Triangle.
In view of the above statements, it is difficult to com-
prehend how the council could possibly be opposed to business
enterprises in the Triangle.
The argument has been made that Triangle development
would add to Tigard's traffic problems. This argument has no
merit whatsoever. Tigard's traffic problems would be far
greater if all new businesses located along major streets, w
such as, 99W, Hall Blvd., MacDonald St., Greenburg Rd., etc.
The amount of traffic that the Triangle could handle to
j accommodate its business enterprises would be far greater
than what the Tigard streets could handle to accommodate
their businesses. E_
4004
J0
'
r
t
i ~
a
1 i
1
i
i
C
1
WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM R-25 ZONING?
j
Who would win, and who would lose from R-25 zoning in
the Tigard Triangle? Let's examine the evidence. r'
There can be no argument that the property owners under;
R-25 would be hit and hit hard! Homeowners (who comprise the
vast majority of property owners in the R-25 confines) would
have no financial incentives to ever sell their homes or even
to improve or maintain them over the years. Decay is bound to
set in and slums will result. C
Neighboring businesses will lose. A slummy neighborhood
( does not attract customers but rather drives them away.
Apartment developers would not lose, but they would not
gain either. Although it would appear that the City Council F '
would be handing over bargain land on a silver platter to the 4.
developers, the property owners would never sell at such a
low price.
The citizens of Tigard would lose. They would lose their:
trust in their city government. They would certainly be able E.
to figure out that if the Tigard City Council can arbitrarity
downzone a community in the Triangle that same body can also
downzone ANY community AT WILL. Communities, such as, Summer -
_9 field, Castlehill, Metzger, Greenburg, Bull Mountain, and
others could never feel safe from the City Council callously ~
3 downzoning their neighborhoods.
The City Council will lose. Whatever respect that the
citizens had for the Council will turn into cynicism. Soon
j the word will get around that you cannot fight City Hall.
I Citizen input will become something of the past. f
So who stands to gain from R-25 zoning? The answer is
the lawyers. Most certainly, R-25 would be appealed. The
I lawyers know this very well and could gain handsomely from C
this legal controversy. The only way the opposing lawyers j
would not gain would be for the City Council to reject R-25.
(
(
4
1
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
p
- F.
Citizen involvement must be an integral part of the G
process in developing any zoning plan. This is stated re-
peatedly in different words in the Comprehensive Plan Poli-
cies. One section applies specifically to the Tigard Tri-
angle. This passage may be found in Vol. I, under 152-6,
c. Tigard Triangle. The passage states: Citizens in the area
would have the opportunity to be involved in formulating the
area plan. t
Of the 120+ Triangle property owners who signed pets- r
tions against downzonirg, not a single one was invited or
f called upon to help formulate the area plan. Only one person
from the Triangle was invited to help draw up the plan, and
that person did not have his pX9p_ertj downzoned. This person
did not represent the TrTriangle property owners; he only rep-- F.
resented himself.
What does "citizen involvement" mean? Does it mean that !
the planning staff selects which particular citizens will be E
involved? Does it mean that we citizens should have ESP and i
arrange to be there when the staff is drawing up the plans?
-j Does it mean that key information, such as devaluation of
properties, shall be withheld from the adversely affected
` citizens? Does it mean the planning staff shall drag up the
plans secretly with but a few privileged citizens partici-
pating? Does it mean that the staff shall never consult with t
the affected citizens before drawing up the plans. Does it
mean that the planning staff :hall be totally callous to the I
needs of the citizens living in the proposed downzoned areas?
It is inconceivable that anybody could answer yes to the
above questions. Yet we find that City Hall seems to have
hardly any regard for citizen involvement.
Another passage in the Comprehensive Plan Policies might j
help to further clarify what is meant by "citizen involve-
ment". Paragraph 2.1.1 states: "The city shall maintain an
ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that
citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in
all phases of the planning process"
The Tigard Triangle- is of vital concern to property
owners in the Triangle. It is absolutely necessary that they
be involved in all phases of the planning process. They
should never be bypassed again as they were before.
.i
f D~L~~ ~L ~,1
3 E
G j c
1 _
-1
? THE CITY COUNCIL VS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION
-3
E.
In June 1993 the Planning Commission heard the public
testimony of some 20 persons opposed to the Tigard Triangle `
specific area plan and of only two persons for the plan.
Later, the Planning Commission received a signed petition of
80+ Triangle property owners who opposed the plan. 5
In July 1994 the Planning Commission voted eight to zero
against the plan.
The City Council is now questioning the unanimous de-
cision of the Planning Commission. Why? Doesn't the Council
have any confidence in its own appointed Commissioners to
render intelligent decisions? F'
Z9,
F
3
- ~ F
,y
i
r
i
c
F
1
i
i
E`
i
Fi k
CITY OF
C S e
i January 12r 7.~3:YJ
OREGON
Steven, Janice, itelsy and r
Ryan White E
ta,M S.W. Saylor Street
Tigard. OR 9722-
i
Dear Steven, Janice, K813y and RW: ~
Thank you for your recent letter specifying your concerns wah the Tigard Triangle Plan. This will be the
subject of a public hearing on January 24, 1995, In the Town Hall Room located at
Tigard City Mall
. 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon r:
} The Council Business Meeting begins at 7:343 p.m.; however, the public hearing on the Triangle Land Use
1 Mll not begin I f 8:30 par+. F
t
i.
,a irdtvldua3 Council members received letters from residents and persons concerned about this area. City k
Attorney Jim Coleman advised the City Council on September 20, 9994, that the Triangle Plan is being ~
processed as a quasi judiclal proceeding since there are identh` ed properties under consideration for zone
change. As a result, It Is preferable that any public Input be provided at a public hearing setting rather than
i through Individual contacts. Councilors have been cautioned against contacting Individuals directly In ostler
to avoid potenftl 'conltlct of Interest' concerns.
In an attempt to collect all infcrmsdon and concerns raised by citizens and property owners, Council
members provided staff with letters they have received on this matter.. These letters will be Incorporated into
the staff report and shall berme part of the public record as %witten testimony.'
r-
If you have any questions on this hearing. please do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior
Planner, Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below.
Sincerely,
William A. Monahan
City Administrator
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
1
13125 SW Mall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
i
r
C11Y OF
January 12, 1 W6
OREGON
F.,
John Wozniak
F -
77 A
11550 S.W. 72nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
f
Sear Mr. Wozniak:
Thank you for your record letter specifying your concerns with the 11gard Triangle Plan. This will be the
subject of a public hearing on January 24, 19E, In the Town Hall Room located at
Turd City Hail
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
The Council Business Meeting begins at 7:30 p.m.; however, the public hearing on the Triangle Land Use i'
wilill not min before 5:30- p.m.
concerned about this area City
Individual Council members received letters from residents and person
Attorney Jim Coleman advised the City Council on September 20, 1994, that the Triangle Plan Is being
p7ocessed as a quasi-judicial proceeding since there are identified properties under consideration for zone
change. As a result, it is preferable that any public input be provided at a public hearing setting rather than
through Individual contacts. Councilors have been cautioned again-st contacting Individuals directly In order
to avoid potential Oconfli: of interssr concerns.
In an attempt to collect all Information and concerns raised by citizens and property owners, Council
members provided staff with letters they have received on this matter. These letters will be Incorporated Into
? the staff report and shall become part of the public record as 'written testimony.`
If you have any questions on this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact Caron Landsman, Senior
Planner-, Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below.
i E.
Sincerely,
3 William A. Monahan
{
City Administrator
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
WM00112M
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 634-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 j,
_f
V `I`
~ January 12, 19M
ORES
Mark and Ueda Lefebvre I
7040 S.W. Saylor Street
Tigard, OR 57223 E
j Dow Mr. and Pi's. Lefobvm: f
3
i Thank you for your recent letter specifying your concerns with the Tigard Triangle Man. T his will be the
subject of s public hearing on January 24, 1SJ5> In the Taw Halt' nti,.,~:.....
Tigard City Hall
1 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
The Council Business Meeting begins at 7:30 p.m.; however, the public hearing on the Triangle Land Use
%dil not begins before 8:361 p,m.
IndNidual Council members received letters from residents and persons concerned about this area. City
Attorney Jim Coleman advised the City Council on September 20, 1994, that the Triangle Flan Is being
processed as a quasi-judicial proceeding since there are Identified properties under consideration for zone
change. As a result, it Is preferable that any public input be provided at a public hearing setting rather than
tFrror it indlvldual contacts. CoLncdlors have been cautioned against contacting Individuals directly In order
to avoid potential 'coniffct of Interes4' concerns.
In are attempt to collect all Information and concerns raised by citlzzens and property axners, Council
' members provided staff with letters they have received on this matter. These letters will be Incorporated Into i
the staff report and sl-iall become pars, of the public record as "written testimony."
1
If you have any questions on this htia ing, please do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior
Manner; Cathy Wheatley, City. Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below.
i
Sincerely,
E
i
William A. Monahan
City Administrator r
r
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
wmcO112.96 t
-1
l
i
i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
is
_ F
January 12, 190 OREGON
Mrs. Herbert J. Haag
707o S.W. Baylor Street
Tigard, OR 97223 l
Dear Mr. Haag:
Thank you for your recent letter specifying your concerns with the Tigard Triangle Plan. 'i°hte will be the E
subject of a public hearing on January 24, 1995, In the Town Hail Room located at:
j Tigard City Hall t
i 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard f
-y Tigard, Oregon
The Council Business Meeting begins at 7:30 p.m.; however, the pubic hearing on the Triangle Land Use
will not begirt betom 0:30 p.m. i
Individual Council members received letters from residents and persons concerned about this area. City
Attorney Jim Coleman advlsed the City Council on September 20, 1994, that the Triangle Plan is teeing j
processed as a quasi-Judicial proceeding since there are Identified properties under consideration for zone ~ .
charge. As a result, it Is preferable that any public Input be provided at a public hearing setting rather than
through individc contacts.. Councilors stave been cautioned against contacting Individuals directly In order
to avoid potential "conflict of Interest" concerns. E
In an attempt to collect all information and concerns raised by citizens and property owners, Council
members provided staff with letters they have received on this matter. These letters will be incorporated into
the s W report and shall become part of the public record as "written testimony.*,
J
if you have any questions on this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior
Planner; Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or. me at the telephone number and address listed below.
i sincerely,
i
William A. Monahan
j City Administrator
f
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
r
WMC0112 95
t`
f
j
1 r
13125 8V1 Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 -
F ,
f
F
0
Jantry 12. 1.
25
EGON
F. 6V D
E:
OREGON
t:,r. Paul Canutt k
7460 S.W. Sevelsnd
Tigard, OR 57223
E'
Dear Mr. Cam E
Thank you for your recent letter speclfying your concerns with the Tigard Triangle Plan. This will be the
4 subject of a pufiic hearing on January 24, 1995, in the Tovm i-iaii Room located ai
t
Tk;md City Hall
13125 S.W. Hall Boulcrumd
Tigard, Oregon
The Council Business Meeting begins at 7:30 p.m; however, the public hearing on the Triangle Land Use
will not ire iadm 8:30 p nL .
IndWusl Council members remived letters from resiclents and persons concemed about this sr City E -
Attomey Jim Coleman advised the City Council on September 20, 1554, that the Triangle Plan is being
pressed as s quasi-judicial proceeding since there are Identitled properties under consideration for zone `
change. As a result, It is preferable that any public Input be provided at a public hearing setting rather than
UmxQh Indly ual contacts. OcunoElom have been camloned aglrrst contartIng individuals directly In order
to avold paatentisl 'conflict of lyderesr concerrm
In are attempt to co;lect all Information and concerns raisers by cid,zerss and property owners, Council
members provided staff valth letters. they have received on this matter. These letters will be Incorporated Into F
Me report and shall become part of the public record as 'written testimony..
E
If you have any questions on this hearing, pleasa do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior j
Planner; Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below.
j Sincerely,
{
William A Monahan
j City Administrator
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
wme0l92.ss
r
13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-41771 T DD (503) 634-2772
j
i
i E
Jannry 12.1995 MTV
EO-L
Mt Dayle Beach
Ms. Evelyn Reach r
11530 S. W. 72nd Avenue
Tigard. OR 97223
Dear Mr. and Ms. Beach:
°-j Thank you for your recent letter specifying your concerns with the Tigard Triangle Plan. This will be the ~
. subject of a public hearing on January 24. 1945, In the Town !tall Room located at:
r.:
i Turd City Hall
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard i
Tigard, Oregon
i
The Council Buskum Meting begins at 7:30 p.rn.; however, the public hearing on the Triangle Lan! Use
~
j satin not begin beftre 3:30 P.M.
Individual C*uncp members received letters from residents and persons concen d rout this area. City
Attorney Jinn Coleman advised the City Council on September 20, 1994, that the Triangle Plan Is being
processed as a quasi-judicial proceeding since there are Identified properties under consideration for zone
changa As a result it Is preferable that any public Input be provided at a publi4: hearing setting rather than
ftwgh Individual contacts- Councliors have been cautioned against contacting lndWuals directly In order
to avo"sd potential 'con56ct of WerwX concerns.
,i
In an attempt to collect ail Inforrnaticn and concerns raised by citizens and property owners, Council
{ members provided staff with legs they have received on this matter. Thy letters will be Incorporated Into
ft staff report shall become parrs of the public record as 'written testimony.'
If you have any questions on this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact Carol L swan, Senior
i Planner, Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below.
Sincerely,
William A. Monahan
City Administrator
c: Council
Carat Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, Cittj Recorder
v6n=011 12M
13125 SW Hull Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
1 k
l
t
CITY OF
j January 12, 1M
~
OREGON
i
1
Ms. JoAnne hordling l
7105 S.W. Elmhurst Street
'l rd, OR 97223 r.
i
Dear Ms. Northing:
, Thank you for your recent letter specifying your concerns with the Tigard Tri'angle flan. This will be the i
subject of a public hearling on January 24, 1095, In the Town Habl Room located at
Tigard City Hall
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard ~
Tigard, Oregon r
The Council Busirsess M ng begins at 7:39 p.m-; however, the public hearing on the Triangle Land Use
Will nct i in befare 8:39 p.rba. F
i
Individual Council members received letters from residents and persons concerned about this area. City
w,' Attorney .lira Coleman advised the City Council on September 0, 1994, that the Triangle flan is being { -
processsd as a quasHudicial praceedhV sinco two am Identified properties under consideratlora for zone
&emge. As a restA It is preferable tint any public irrptrt be provided at a public hearing setting rather than
through Ind ual contact& Cou~ors have been cauftnod against contacting individuals directly in order ~
to avoid potential *conflict of Interest' concerns.
In an attempt to collect all lrdomiation and concerns ralsed by citizens and property owners, Council
have meNed on this r. These letters will be Incorporated Into
the statf report and part of the pub IL- record as `written t °
If you have any questions on this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior
Planner, Cathy Wheatley. City Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below.
3 ,
Will m A. Monahan
City Administrator
r
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior planner 4 .
Cathy Whey, City Recorder
f
wracOl 12a5
_ J
I
13125 SW Hall Wd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772
i
{f6EFJ 6
I7
January 12, 1 !
OREGON
4 .
Mr. Gene I- Jackson f
,,1~ E
7045 S~^.9Wry.PClinton Street
r
Dear Mr. Jackson:
Thank you for your recent letter specsfying your concerns with the Tigard 't=riangle Plan. This will be the
subject of a public hearing on January 24, 1995, in the Town Hall Room located at
j Tigard City Hall
ll
_ 13125 S.W. Mali Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon t
The Council Business Meeting begins at 7:30 pm.; however. the public hearing on the Triangle LmW Use
=M r in befom 3:30 p.m. ;
lndWual Council members received letters from residents and persons concerned about this area. City
. Attorney Jim Coleman adv=ised the City Council on September 20, 1194, that the Triangle Plan is being
processed as a quasi-)udlclal proceeding since there are Identified properties under consideration for zone
change. Asa It Is preferable that any public input be provided at a pubic hearing setting rather than
through individual contacts. Councilors have been cautioned against contacting lndivlduals dirty in order ~
to avoid potential °conPket of interes" concerns.
In an attempt to collect all information and concerns raised by citizens and property owners, Council
members provided staff with letters they have rived on this matter. These letters will be incorporated into
the staff report and s1WI bamme part of the public record as 'writtan testlmony.®
If you have any questions on this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior
Manner, Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below.
Sincerely,
William X Monahan
City Administrator ,
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
i
a Sro=011z95
13125 SWI Halt Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
9
p
CITY Q.
TIGARD
ARD
JJanuary 12, 1
ORE-ION
Mr. 1341 Chase ;
11 SW S.W. 72rod Avenue r
Tlgrd. OR W=
,
{
r
j Dwr Mr. Chase:
i Thank you for your recant letter specifying your concerns with the Tigard Triangle Plan. This will be the
sub)ect of a public hearing on January 24, 1W5, In the Town Hall Room located at:
Tignrd City I
13125 S.W. Ball Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
The Council Business Meating gins of 7:30 p.m.; however, the public hearing on the Triangle Land Use
wiii not begin before 8:30 pm.
i Individual Council members received letters from residents and persons concerned about this area. City
-~til Attorney Jim Coleman advised the City Council on September 20, 1994, that the Triangle Plan is being
processed as a quasilu dicial proceeding since there are Identified properties under consideration for zone
change. As a result. It preferable that arty public input be provided at a public hearing rather SGVkQ than
through IndWidtW contacts. Councilors have been cautioned against contacting IndlMun s directly In order
to MVW potenu °corriiict of interest" concerns.
r
t
In an attempt to collect all information and concerns raised by citizens and property owners, Council
members proMed staff with letters they have received on this matter. These letters will be Incorporated Into
the staff report and become part of the public record as "written tes`.Imony.°
If you have any quesVons on this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior a
Planner, Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or me attire telephone number and address listed below.
Sincerely,
William A. Monahan
City Administrator
f'
c: Council
Carol Landsman, Senor Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
WnIC011295 6
i
: 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 654-2772
r s
January 12, 1
OREGON
Mr. Jim Codlss
Larximark Ford
P. O.l t 23970
t '!`IVd. OR 07251X70 y
Der Jim;
Thank you for your recent letter specifying your concerns 1 h the Tigard Triangle Flan. This MI be the i
subject of s public hinting on January 24, 1 , In the Town Hall R located at
f
Tigard City Hall
. 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon s
The CAunc9 Buslirress Meaft begins at 7:30 p.m.; haw ow, the public hearing on ft Triangle Lud Use
j Yl?l nmmi ire befom 8= p.m.
l
individual Council members received letters from residents and persons corcemed about this mare. City
Attorney Jim Coleman advised the City Council on September 20, 1994, that the Triangle Plan Is teeing
processed as a quasi- udiclal proceedirg since there are Identilled es under consideration fdr zone
change. As a restdL It is preferable that any publI ; Input be provided at a public hearing setting rather than E
through individual contacts. Councilors have been cautioned against contacting individuals directly In order
to avoid potential "aonnict of Interest"' concerns. ~
f.,
In an attempt to Ord all Information and concerns ralsed by citizens and property owners, Council
warnbers provided 1 . ed on this nor. Thew letters vslal be Incorpomited Into
the staff repon and shall become part of &m public record as % ittep testimony.`
I.
It you have any questions on this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact Carol Landsman, Senior F
Planner, Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder or me at the telephone number and address listed below. k'
f
Sincerely,
t
{
:i
Wil9lam A Monahan
City Administrator
i
L.
a: Council
Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
wMem 12.E
` i
13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MID (503) 684-2772
i
John Wo=bk Mark and Unda me
Mmm Janice, Kd5y and
Rym % 11550 S.W. 72nd Avenuq 7040 S.W E 'or Sueat
o S.WWt. SWAM fteat rd. OR 97223 Tiga-M. OR 97223
i OR 97223
Um Habat J. HOBO Pad Cam m Ms. Evelyn Beach
7170 a.Wif. or Suest 7460 S. W. Bevdwd Mr. Beach
Tkp4 OR 97223 1 Tlqn4 OR 97= 11 S.W. Avows
OR asrM
e Gem E. Jackson Mr. Bill Chase
j 7105 &W. 705 S.W. a II- 94W S.W. V-nd Avenue
i
119a4 on mm ngw~. OR OR
i
W. Jim C41ft
tmxtnmrk Fad
P. 0. Bm mm
~
T%W4 OR 9=-3=
a
i
i
t
j
# I
S
f
r
I
i
3
i
i
I
l
i
f
J r'
TIGMAD GLE CPA/ZON G -
January 24, 1995
Y . INTRODUCTION ~
A. ~Pr :sentation I will go over. the proposal and give a
brief history of how it came about. Then two consultants
who worked on the Specific Plan and Eton Goodpastor will
give additional information about the project.
E. j o'o - This is a proposal to amend the Comp Plan
map and zoning map to redesignate approx. 46 acres of
land and to change the zoning map only on approx. 12
_ acres of land in the Triangle area. This is shown in .
tabular form on Exhibit,. B and on the maps of Exh C • in
your packets, and I will go over the proposed changes-on
the display map.
3. proposal is to amend the Comp Plan and zoning maps '
to redesignate 17.5 acres of LDR;.20.7 acres of CP;
and 7.9 acres of GC TO 33.4 acres of DM R and 8.
i '
acres of CP; and i
2. to change.t ae zoning only on 11.9 acres _ from GC to
CP i
0 net change: 20 fewer acres of GC, same amount of t
CP and 36.4 additional acres of A.
These proposed changes would be the first step in
is
implementing the Tigard Triangle Master Plan map as well
as several design guideline, open space and
transportation recommendations contained in the specific
i Plan for the Triangle.
f3, [EEgm- ere? - this proposal is the result of an ongoing
four-year planning process and is based primarily on
three sources:
1. The goals and guiding policies developed by the -
Planning Commission with the help of many study
-i participants.
2. The Tigard Triangle Master Plan map and
development standards accepted by the PC and k
::1 i
adopted by the CC in 11192 (Resolution 92°-54). Y
4
[ hibit DI ,
r.
3. some recommendations contained in the Tigard i
'triangle Specific Area Plan.
IX HISTORY
A. rEarly Tal 1 - Prior to 1990, the idea of completing a
masher plan for the Triangle had been discussed for t(,
1 ,
several years by ;the CC, PC and others primarily because ~
the Triangle had experienced little development despite r
its location.
B. rOfficial Actionl ° In late 1990,-.the CC decided to go
3 forward with a land use study of the area and began by f.
meeting with local developers to obtain their perspective r ,
on what might be done to change the situation. Based on
these discussions, staff concluded that a land use study
should be undertaken and The Benkendorf Associates Corp.
was hired in July 1991 to complete it.
C. [Phase Il - From August 1991 to April 1992, several
workshops were held by the PC, including joint sessions
with the CC, NPO 4 and the Rcon Dev. Committee. These
meetings served to establish the goals and guiding
V*1icies for the Triangle. Citizen review and input
began in June 1492 and continued through the PC and CC
j hearings and adoption of Resolution 92-54, the Tigard
Triangle Master Plan map in Nov 1992. E
D. ( se ) in Oct 1992, a grant from DLCD was awarded
to the City to cq'mplete a specific plan for the Triangle
area. The Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan, prepared
by OTAK, Inc. consists of four c6mponents - a land use
plait, a design overlay plan, an open space plan and a t
i transportation plan. Building on the previous findings
and recommendations from the 1991 background study, the
PC work and input from several study participants, the E
plan gives several recommendations for changes in the
Comp Plan and `zoning maps, detailed site and building
h "
7 Y Y I
i f
design guidelines, a continuous open space network and r
provides aframework for transportation decisions. Later
you will hear more detail about the plain from two
consultants who worked on it.
F
s
E. PRC Iiee roar esent l ° During June and July of !994, the PC held a hearing on the ~ ~ and ~
-i voted 8®0 to recommend that the council deny i- -
Testimony at the hearing was overwhelmingly
ir. .
against the land use changep, bast November the CC and
k
PC held a joint meeting to discuss the proposal at which
time the CC decided to hold-this hearing tonight. ~
CIT. FOR THE RECORD: NOTIFICATION AND-LETTERS
A. in addition to the required noticing for this hearing,
staff placed ads in the Oregonian and GityScape and
f-
invited the Chamber of Commerce, Homehuilders Assoc of
Metro. Portland, 1000 friends and the CITs. t
{
S. She have received 7 more letters on this proposal since
the staff report was written. All are opposed to the j
V proposal.'(final count 20-2 against). i
C. Based on the facts, findings and conclusions in the final
order, staff finds that the proposal is in compliance [
with the statewide planning goals, the comprehensive Plan
and the Comm. Dev. Code. ~
Iv. INTRODUCE CONSULTANTS
i
At this time I want to introduce Ralph Tahran of OTAIC, Inc. ~
who will cover the Specific Flan-in a little more detail. He
will be followed by Randy McCourt of DKS Associates, who will.
discuss the transportation plan. Ron Goodpastor will then k
discuss Police Dept concerns.
Staff recommends that the 'CC no rgve CPA 940002 and ZON I_
94-°0002, but direct staff to prepare design, transportation
and open space standards to implement identified Triangle '
goals.
j
i'
r~
I
i
AGENDA ITEM` f
For Agenda of
y
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUIMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA 'T'ITLE Amendments to TDC Section 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) relatincd
to FEMA requirements and clarifying local nermit procedures
PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD Off{ R#iV CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council adopted the attached amendments to TDC Section 18.84 s.
to meet FEMA requirement and reorganize and clarify local permit procedures t
for lands involving steep slopes drainsgewaYs wetlands and the 100
year ,
floodplain?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached amendments.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Last spring, the Federal Emergency Management Agency conducted a review of
the City's regulations and procedures for administering and enforcing
floodplain regulations. The letter attached to enclosed November 17, 1994 E.
staff report to the Planning Commission indicates the changes necessary to
comply with FEMA.
While making the FEMA related changes, it was also decided to reorganize and i
clarify various provisions of the existing sensitive lands code section.
These are included in the recommended amendments. The changes are summarized
`i in the November 17, 1994 staff report. The Planning Commission held a public
a hearing on December 5, 1994 and recommended that the City Council adopt the
amendments with changes recommended by staff to reflect recent requests by
FEMA.
f
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED E
j None
i
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
I •
i
i
i
I
•f
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i
TO: Planning Commission
` FROM: Dick Bewersdorff
DATE: November 17, 1994 f
SUBJECT: Staff Report - Amendments to Floodplain and Sensitive r`
Lands Regulations
A
Background
Last spring, the Federal Emergency Management Agency conducted a
j review of the City's regulations and procedures for administering
and enforcing floodplain regulations. FEMA sent the attached
i letter (June 21, 1994) indicating changes that were necessary to
i comply with FE14A regulations.
Because of staff vacancies, the City contracted with a consultant
(McKeever/Morris, Inc. - Keith Liden) to work with FEMA to draft
' l amendments to the city's development code. In making changes to
comply with FEMA, various provisions in the Sensitive Lands Chapter
Section 18.84 of the code were also reorganized to help correct
ambiguities and clarify provisions. The draft is completed and is
now ready for Planning Commission review. i_
Summary of Chances:
c moved parts of Section 18.84.010 to 18.84.015 & .026
o requires paving in sensitive land areas to receive a
_i permit
o adds accessory structures less than 120 square feet to
the list not requiring a permit
o adds landform alterations up to 10 cubic yards to the
list not requiring a permit
i o identifies who is responsible to review and approve
administrative permits
-1
o clarifies sensitive land permits issued by the Director
and Hearings Officer
a adds FEMA.mandated flood proofing, anchoring, elevation
and manufacture housing requirements
E'
j
t
Recommendation
The amendments have been reviewed by FEMA. Staff's recommendation k
is for the Commission to recommend approval of the changes to Code
a Section 13.34 to the City Council.
i
r 4-
t
i
r<
E
{ S
I
I s
i
i
f
t
i
i
J i.
I
i
i
- E
is
FINDIIv'GS - BOA 94•-01 SENSITIVE LANDS FEMA
The following findings are to be included with the Planning F `
Division staff report dated 11-18-94 - Amendments to Sensitive
Lands and Flood-plain Regulations: i
L~CDC GOALS `
Goal 1. Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearing and
opportunity for response was advertised in the local
paper and request for comment were sent to all CITs, i
DLCD, METRO, DSL, the Corps of Engineers and FEMA.
Goal 2. Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures t _
is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 157. The proposed
3 measures conform to FEMA requirements and clarify
previously approved local requirements.
Goal. 5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
Resources. The proposed revisions aid in controlling..
impact on sensitive land areas including wetlands.
- Goal 7. Areas Subject to Natural. Disasters and Hazards. The
proposed revisions strengthen city regulations relating
to floodplains, clarify the decision-making process for
other sensitive lands including steep slopes,
drainageways and wetlands and bring City requirements
into conformance with FEMA.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
i 1.1.a. This policy requires that legislative changes are
consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional r
development plan. The findings above address the
statewide goals. METRO was sent a request for comment.
The agency does not regulate sensitive lands.
2.1.1. This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement
process. A request for comment was sent to all city
Citizen Involvement Teams and was legally advertised.
2.1.3. This policy requires that information on issues be
available. The staff report and findings and proposed
ordinance have been available for review since November
18, 1994.
3.1.1. This policy governs areas with areas having development
limitations. The proposed ordinance clarifies existing
regulations and procedures.
3.2.1. This policy prohibits landform alterations that would
result in rise in the elevation of the 100 year r
floodplain. The proposed ordinance adds FEMA mandated }
requirements to further_ guarantee no damage or rise in 4
j ,
i
the floodplain.
l t
3,2.2. This policy governs rise in the floodwayn The proposed
,j ordinance complies with FEMA standards and has been
reviewed by FEMA during the development of the
provisions.
3.2.4. This policy governs development related to wetlands. The
-3 proposed ordinance identifies uses that are permitted
without a permit and clarifies permit procedures that are
in compliance with FEMA requirements.
{
f.:r
{
1 i
s
{
1
1 ~
1 ;
i
r
1
i r
~ j
i
I
9 '
i
{ j
I
r t Federal Emergency Management Agency
eeonX .
Federal Reeonel Center
130 228th Street, S.W.
Bothell, WA 98021-9796
k
k I
June 21, 1994 J U F. 24 1994 ;
` ~U
t~
The Honorable Gerald Edwards
mayor of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard p:
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mayor Edwards: 4 ;
This letter summarizes our findings from the Community Assistance Visit (CAV) conducted
by Katherine Bennett on larch 22, 1994. The purpose of the visit was to review the City's I
procedures for administering and enforcing its floodplain regulations, and to provide you
with the most current information on the National Flood Insurance Program. - We also
wanted to provide an opportunity to discuss any concerns you may have had about the City's
flood maps or floodptain management program in general.
F
We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of Richard Bewersdorff and Viola Goodwin of
the Community Development Department. Based on our floodplain tour and review of
development records, the City's planning and permitting procedures are commendable.
Development records were requested for 30 buildings constructed since 1985, and the
Community Development Department was able to provide thorough documentation that these
buildings have been located outside flood hazard areas.
There are, however, several issues that must be resolved before we can close this CAV
report. The City must describe how it plans to address a reinforced dam in Summer Creek
which violates City and Federal #loodplain regulations. Although your fioodplain
management program appears to be working quite well, the City also must substantially
amend its Sensitive Lands regulations to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program,
unless the City has additional regulations for floodplain development besides the Sensitive
Lands Chapter (15.84) of the Land Use Code. Tigard's flood plain regulations apparently
j have been revised without our approval since we last reviewed them in 1957. Changes to the
City's fIoodgl- in regulations must be sent to this office for review before their adoption.
Finally, the City must clarify its procedures for certifying the as-built conditions of
completed floodplain development.
c l .I
f
i
i
l
i
j These issues are detailed in the enclosed addendum to this letter, and will require a response f
within 45 days of the date of this letter so that we may conclude our evaluation of Tigard's
eligibility for the National Flood Insurance Program, If you have questions or need further k
a assistance, please call Katherine Bennett at (205) 487-4713.
Sin rely,
harles b. Steele, Director
Mitigation Division
E
Enclosures
cc: Richard Bewersdorff, Tigard Community Development Department
David Scott, City of Tigard
Jim Kennedy, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem
i
i i
r
k
l
i
E.
i
F .
j
1
f
E
1
i
I
j
1
i
i .
•
j
r
Issues Identified in the Tigard Community Assistance Visit
(Addendum to Charles L. Steele's better dated June 17, 1994) ~
Summer Creek Floodway Violation
A beaver dam in the floodway of Summer Creek near SW Merestone Court has been
reinforced with concrete, and without a development permit from the City. This violates
City and Federal requirements for floodplain development permits (ref. Tigard Land Use
Code section 18.84.015.1) and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations section
60.3(b)(1)). The dam also appears to violate City and Federal prohibitions against
development in the floodway that results in any increase in base 100-year") flood levels
(ref. Tigard Land Use Code section 18.84.040.A.3 and NFIP regulations section 60.3(4)(3)).
The NIFIP regulations require hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to demonstrate that
development in the floodway results in no rise in the base flood level. lVe have sent
guidance on how to do these "no rise" analyses to Duane Roberts of the Community k
Development Department. p <
l
The NFIP regulations allow a community to permit exceptions to the floodway "no rise"
requirement, provided the community first receives a conditional Flood Insurance Rate Map
' and floodway revision from FE1MA to reflect proposed development. Because the floodway
is intended as a planning tool to prevent new development from increasing flood levels in the k
community, the exception procedure should be used rarely and as a last resort. An
application and instructions for requesting map and floodway revisions have been sent to
Duane Roberts.
We understand that the City has applied for permits from the U.S. Corps of Engineers and
the Oregon Division of Rater Resources to construct a new darn in place of the existing
dam. If constructed, the new dawn would first require a City permit for floodplain f
development and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the dam's effect on the base flood
level. If the analyses show the dam to cause any increase in the base flood level, the City
i would need to request a conditional Flood Insurance Rate Map and floodway revision from
FEMA.
f
To meet City and Federal tloodplain regulations, the City has a few options for dealing with
the existing dam: (1) demonstrate through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that the clam
results in no rise in the base flood elevation, (2) remove the dam, and (3) apply for a Flood
Insurance Rate Map and floodway revision. Your response to this letter must describe
how the City plans to correct this violation.
. Floodplain Re lations
Based on our review of Tigard Land Use Code Chapter 18.84, Sensitive Lands, the City i
must substantially amend its floodplain regulations to comply with the National Flood
Insurance Program. The Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Land Use Code does not satisfy
minimum Federal criteria for community floodplan regulations. If the City has additional
regulations to supplement the floodplain requirements of the Sensitive Lands Chapter,
they should be submitted to this office for review. Otherwise, the City's floodplain
regulations must be amended to:
i
j t
I
Steele addendum p. 2
J 1. Disallow agricultural and recreational uses as outright permitted uses within 100-year t.
j floodplains (Code section 18.84.015.A). Aside from structural development,
agricultural and recreational uses can involve non-structural development such as fill,
grading, and pavement in the floodplain for which permits are required by the NFIP
! regulations (section 60.3(b)(1)). Linder these regulations, development is defined as
any manmade v.,a„g., to improved or ainmpavve aa.^ eSasaae, including but not
i limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, or
excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials" (section 59.1).
2. Clarify that permits are required for all development in 100-year floodplains,
including non-structural development as defined above, and substantial improvement
to existing structures (Code section 18.84.015.E & D). Current language in this
3 section does not include substantial improvements, defined under the NFIP regulations
as "any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, E'
the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure `
before the "start of construction" of the improvement (projects to correct health,
sanitary, or safety code violations and alterations of registered historic structures are p.
} exempted]" (section 59.1).
t3. Clarify that Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, I
and/or other federal, state, or regional agency permits for wetland development are
not substitutes for City development permits in floodplains (Code section
18.84.015.C). The City must review all development in designated flood hazard 1
areas, regardless of whether or not these areas are also wetlands, for compliance with
the minimum floodplain management criteria under section 60.3 of the NF1P
regulations.
4. Apply the provisions of Code section 18.84.025.13 to all new or substantially
improved floodproofed structures. (This could be fixed by inserting the word
"improved" between the words "substantially" and "floodproofed" in this section, ref.
NFIP regulations section 60.3(c)(3)-(4).)
5. Require that all records pertaining to the flcodplain regulations be maintained. ('T'his
could be fixed by deleting the words "For all new or substantially floodproofed
structures" in Code section 18.84.025.0, ref. NFIP regulations section 60.3(b)(5).)
~ r
6. Require all new structures and substantial improvements to be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. (This could be fixed by
changing the,word "utilize" to "ud ity" in Code section 18.84.026.8., ref. NFIP
regulations section 60.3(a)(3)(ii).) ;
1 7. Require manufactured homes to be installed using methods and practices that
minimize flood damage, as required for construction and substantial improvements
under Corte section 18.84.026.0 (ref. NFTP regulations section 60.3(b)(8). It would
E,
Steele addendum p. 3 i'
be helpful to indicate that anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use `
of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. (Reference FDA's "Manufactured
Home Installation in Flood Hazard Arias" guidebook for additional techniques.)
Sample language for this provision is provided in the enclosed FMIJA Region 10
Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance section 5.1-1.
8. Delete reference to the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Plumbing Code in Code
section 18.84.026.E. The reference changes the meaning of the Federal floodplain F
management requirement (NFIP regulations section 60.3(x)(5)-(6)) that this Code
' section is m=-it to satisfy. The Federal requirement pertains to community water
supply systems which the UBC and UPC do not address.
# 9. Require that all subdivision proposals in the 100-year floodplain:
(1) be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; K
'a
(2) have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems
located and constructed to minimize flood damage;
(3) have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; and
(4) if located where base flood elevation data has not been provided by FEMA or is
not available from another authoritative source, and if the proposal contains at least
50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is less), generate base flood elevation data. f
Sample language for this provision is provided in our model ordinance section 5.1-4
(ref. NFIP regulations section 60.3(a)(4) & (b)(3)).
7
10. Require manufactured homes that are to be placed or substantially improved within
1 zones Al-30, AH, and AE to be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the
lowest floor is at or above the base flood elevation, and securely anchored to an
i adequately anchored foundation system (ref. model ordinance section 5.2-3 and NFIP
regulations section 60.3(c)(6).
11. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements,
and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless certification by
a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that
encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of
' the base flood discharge. If this provision is satisfied, all new construction and
substantial improvements must comply with all applicable floodplain development
s requirements (ref. model ordinance section 5.3 and NFIP regulations section
i 60.3(4)(3))•
J
t,-
Steele addendum p. 4
The City must formally adopt these amendments to its flaodplain regulations in order to
- , remain eligible for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. A draft of the ~
amended regulations must be sent to this office for review before they are adopted and
within 45 days of this letter's date. A final copy of the amended regulations, once ,
1 adopted, also nl~ t be cQ t m via for µz-senroVy9 and to close out this CAV.
r
Records and Insrection
The City is responsible for obtaining and maintaining records of permits and as-built
conditions of all development in the floodplain (N€IF regulations sections 60.3(b)(5),
60.3(c)(4), & 60.3(c)(5)). The Community Development Department keeps on file thorough
permit application records that include construction plans, location relative to the floodplain, K
and proposed elevation of development. Although this information demonstrates good
planning, it does not document the as-built conditions of completed development. V
Because no new floodplain development has been approved in some time, no information was
` available during the CAV on the City's procedures for obtaining and maintaining the as-built
documentation required for floodplain development. Your ready to this letter must o-
describe how the City obtains and records the as-built conditions of completed ~
floodplain development, including elevation or floodproofing certification, and openings k.'
in enclosed areas below the lowest floor of elevated floodplain straactures to allow for the r
passage of floodwater.
j 6
i
y
I
i
i
1 f
c
i t
I
c
f
j E
i 1
1
3
t
Exhibit "All
i,
- Language to be added is hold,
4 Language to be deleted is bold]
} Chapter 18.84
! SENSITIVE LANDS f
~ectons•
i 18.34.010 Purpose
18.84.015 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and
Nonconforming
18.84.020 Administration and Approval Process j
18.84.025 Maintenance of Records F
18.84.026 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas
18.84.028 General Provisions for Wetlands I
18.84.030 Expiration of Approval: Standards of Extension of Time E
18.84.040 Approval Standards
18.84.045 Exception for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine below
the 140 Feet Elevation
18.84.050 Application Submission Requirements ~
18.84.060 Additional Information Required and Waiver of F
Requirements
18.84.070 Site Conditions
18.84.080 The Site Plan
18.84.050 Grading Plan
18.84.100 Landscaping Plan r
f:
18.84.010 Purpose 'r
A. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for
development because of their location ;within:
A A. .t. ~,b
- L
1. The 100-year floodplain;
2. Natural drainageways;
!
I 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies
including the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant
wetland on the Comprehensive Plaza Floodplain and Wetland
Map; and
4. Steep slopes of 25 percent or greater and unstable
ground.
. Draft - December IM Page -1
Chapter M84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit X
B. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the ~
public health, safety, and welfare of the community through
the regulation of these sensitive land areas.
{
C. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are
intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streaks, and
J creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank
stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish
and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and
recreation potentials.
D. The regulations of this chapter are intended to implement the c
comprehensive plan and the ~---r~arscr%4aoa.o~ iasrsa:asa z'sc
6 citv's flood vlaza lsanage~lexxt
Qgacpram as required by the National Flood Insurasc~s ~ragx , ~
and help to preserve natural sensitive land areas from
s encroaching use and to maintain the September 1981 .zero-foot
rise floodway elevation.
i
as s a .~.a.
_ ~'~%-sac. • i -
A r
111,11 25:111 C. i,i "it'-1-
nter.
3
3 I.
-`4_OA° e~~9-3'8---~~aY~°~E3 cam-
lam
n
7 r
'Weet above- -a 1-1 -a I n-
e'
i
i
e
i
- t
Draft - December G• 1994 Page . 2
Chapter 18.54 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit °A°
,l
8.8 .015 A icab ` I o ° Uses : Permitted. prohibited. and ~
Nonconforming
A. outright Permitted Uses No Permit Required
Except as provided by Subsections 18.84.015.B, D. and E., the
1 following uses are outright permitted uses within Arve
the loo-year floodplain, drainragaways, slopes that
are 25 percent or greater, and unstable ground when the use
_ doss not involve paging. For the purposes of this chapter,
the word "structure" shall exclude: Children°s play
{ equipment, picnic tables, sand boxes, grills, basketball hoops k.
,i and similar recreational equipment.
1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, or play areasa i
+ F
i . ~
z. Farm uses conducted without locating a
structure within the sensitive land area7-&xeept-4-n +
Wetlands,
} 3. Community recreation uses Oue
t
excluding structures
+ r
i
4. Public and private conservation areas for water, soil,
-3 open space, forest, and wildlife resources;
5. Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry, or
other noxious vegetation;
6. Maintenance of floodway excluding rechannel.ing; amd
7. Fences, except in the floodway area;
-y ,
8. Accessory structures which are less than ago square feet
in size, except in the floodway area.; and
3. L dform alterations involving tip to 10 cubic yards of
material, except in the floodwag area.
B. Administrative Sensitive Lands Permit
1. sepeeatre Administrative :sensitive lands permits in the
. IGO-year floodplain, drainageway, slopes that are 25
percent or greater, and unstable ground shall be obtained
from the appropriate community development division for
the following:
tea. The City Engineer shall review the -linstallation of
public support facilities such as underground
utilities and construction of roadway improvements
including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and
driveway aprons;
t
E'
E
Draft December 6. 14r Page - 3
Chapter 18.84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit W
_ - r
b. The City Engineer shall review Minimal ground
disturbance(s) or landform, alterations involving 10
to 50 chic yards of material, except in the
floodway area, for land that is within public i
easements and rights-of-way; i
ZO. The Director shall preview inimal ground
disturbance(s) or landform alterations
involving 10 to So cubic yards of material, except
in the floodway area; and
ti
3d. The Director shall review the arepair,
reconstruction, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing
structure or utility, the cost of which is less
than 50 percent of the market value of the
structure prior to the improvement or the damage
requiring reconstruction provided no development
occurs in the flnodway; F
4e. The Building official shall review building permits
for accessory structures which are 120 to 528 F`
square feet in size, except in the floodway area; c
and
3f. The Director shall review applications for paging f
on private property, except in the floodway area.
2. The responsible community development division shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application k
for a development permit, as described above in
subsection 1., based on the standards set forth in
sections 18.84.025, 18.84..040, and 18.84.045.
I L- -
1 f
C. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Landform alterations or developments which are only within ~
wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and
permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division
of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, and/or other federal,
state, or regional agencies do not require a sensitive lands
permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits
from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City
requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land
permits s m~°®. _ 1rw . rte. j
3 for areas within the loo-year floodylain, slopes of 25 percent
or greater or unstable ground, draibageways, and wetlands
e which are not under state or federal jurisdiction.
le. 12-
rwf
i
Y3rsfc • U°-mmber 6.29% Page _ 4
Chpter 18.84 SENSTSIVE LANDS Ea3iibit
D. Sensitive Lands Permits Ir~;suod by the Director i.'
1. The Director shall have the authority to issue a
sensitive lands permit in the following areas: E
a. Drainageways;
b. Slopes that are 25 percent or greater or unstable:
around; and t
- c.
C. Wetland areas which are not regulated by other
local, state, or Federal agencies and are E
designated as significant wetlands on the
Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland map.
2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas
in subsection D. 1. above when any of the following
circumstances apply:
a. Ground disturbance(s) or landforrm alterations i
involving more than 50 cubic yards of material;
b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an E
existing structure or utility, the cost of which F
equals or exceeds So percent of the market value of
i the structure prior to the improvement or the k
damage requiring reconstruction; ~
C. Residential and non-residential structures intended !
for human habitation; and
f;
d. Accessory structures which area greater than 528
square feet in size. f
E. Sensitive Lands Permits Issued by the Hearings officer
1. The Hearings officer shell have the authority to issue a ~
sensitive lands permit in the 100-year floodplain.
2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the 100-year
flcodplain when any of the following circumstances apply:
f
a. Ground disturbance (s) or lahdform, alterations in
all floodway areas; t
j b. Ground disturbance (s) or landform alterations in
1he~° floodway fringe locations
involving more than 50 cubic yards of material;
c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an
existing structure or utility, the cost of which
equals or exceeds 5o percent of the market value of
the structures prior to the improvement or the
damage requiring reconstruction provided no
development occurs in the floodway;
d. Structures intended for human habitation; and
4
V
Draft - December &,1994 Page - 5
Chapter 78.84 SENSMVE LARDS Exhibit W
E
j A. Accessory structures which are greater than 529
_ square feet in size, outside of floodway areas. ;
W. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this
chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land
areas.
. A use established prior to the adoption of this title, which
would be prohibited by this Chapter or which would be subject
to-the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter, shall. F
. be considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall
be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.332. (Ord. 90-29;
1 Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87°66` Ord. 87-32; Ora. 84-36; Ord. 83°52) E
j Y
18 .84.E 020 Admini tratian and oval Process
{ A. The applicant for a sensitive lands permit shall be the f
recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in
writing by the owner.
'i
1
B. A preapplication conference with City staff is required. (See
Section 18.32.040.) if uncertainty exists in regards to the
location or configuration of wetland areas, staff shall make
,j an on-site inspection prior to an application being initiated
to determine the nature and extent of the resource. if
necessary, assistance from state and federal agencies shall be
sought to provide the applicant additional information.
C. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or 'v
local policy, information given by staff to the applicant ~
during the preapplication conference is valid for not more
than six months:
1. Another preapplication conference is required if any
variance application is submitted more than six months t
after the preapplication conference; and
2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information
required by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of
l the standard, criteria or requirements of the
application.
D. The appropriate community development division shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny an application for an
~
1 administrative sensitive lands permit within the 100-year
floodplain, drainage*ways, slopes that are 25 percent or
greater, and unstable ground as set forth in Subsections
18.84.015 B.
i E. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny t
an application for a sensitive lands permit as set forth in
Section 18.84.015.D. The decision made by the Director may be
appealed to the Hearings Officer as provided by
subsection 18.32.310.A.
- i
DMft - December C 1944 Pa9c . 6
Chapter 184 SENSFr1VE LAIMS Exhibit •A'
OF. The Hearings officer shall approve, approve with conditions,
or deny an application for a sensitive lands permit within the
loo-year floodplain as set forth in Subsection 18.84.015 B.
The Hearings officer's decision may be reviewed by the Council F
_ as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.B.
F. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive
j lands permit applications to determine that all necessary
permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local f
governmental agencies from which prior approval is also
required.
E_
C. The Director shall notify communities adjacent to the affected
area and the State Department of Land Conservation and.
Development prior to any alteration or relocation of a
watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the
Federal Insurance Administration.
H. The Director shall require that maintenance is provided within
the altered or relocated portion of mmt~ a watercourse so
that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished.
1. The a appropriate approval € -
authority shall apply the standards set forth in Sections
18.84.026, 18.84.040, and 18.84.045 when reviewing an
application for a sensitive lands permit.,
J. The appropriate approval authority shall require that the l-
elevations and floodproofing certification required in section F
18.84.025 be provided prior to occupancy or final approval of
all new or substantially improved structures. F
'y 4, 1
JK. The Director shall give notice of applications to be heard by
the Hearings officer as provided by Section 18"32.130.
K-L" The Director shall mail notice of y. sensitive lands
application decisions in Subsections 18.84.015 D. and H. to ~
the persons entitled to notice under Section 18.32.120. (Ord.
90-29i " Ord. 89-06r " Ord. 87-66e " Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83°-52).
f
i
r
18.84.025 Maintenance of Records
A. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood f,
Insurance Study, the Building Official shall obtain and record E
the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the
j lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially j
improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains
a basement.
B. For all new or substantially improved floodproofed structures,
the Building Official shall:
1. Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to
mean sea level); and
2. Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in
this chapter.
Draft - Deo=ftr V 1994 Pap - 7
0wpt_r 18.&1 SEiYSr;;; E LANDS Exhibit "A.!
i
turez7--b The
Director shalli•
aintain for public inspection all other records
pertaining to the provisions in this chapter, (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
j 18.84.026 General Provisions for Ploodulain Areas
A. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit
applications to determine whether proposed building sites will ~
,.I be safe from flooding. l
14. The areas of special flood hazard identified 2sy the Federal
Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering
report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study of the City of j
Tigard," dated September 1, 19 33., with accompanying, Flood
Insurance Maps (updated Pebruaary 1984) is hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This
Flood Insurance Study is on file at the Tigard Civic Center. F
1 C. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in ~
accordance with Subsection 18.8$.026. B., the Director shall
obtain, review and reasonably utilize any bass flood elevation
and floodwaay data available from as federal, state or other t,
source, in order to administer Subsections 18.84.026.83 and. N).
D. ere elevation data is not available either through the Flood
Insurance Study or from another authoritative source,
applications for building permits shrill be reviewed to assure t
that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from
flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and
includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs
of past flooding, etc., where available. Pailure to elevate
at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas
may result in higher insurance rates.
1 t
BF. All new construction and substantial improvements. including
manufactured homes, shall be constructed with materials and
utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
' f-
GG. All new construction and substantial improvements,, Including
manufactured homes shall be constructed using methods and
practices that minimize flood damage.
_ M. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air--
conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be
designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent
water from entering or accumulating within the components
during conditions of flooding.
Draft - Detember 6, i994
Pale - 8
Chaptzr 1934 SENSMVE LANIDS Eddoit A' i
BX. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed G
to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the
system
FJ. All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial
improvements shall be anchored to
prevent flotation, collapse,
or lateral movement of the structure.
Get. New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters
into tho systems and discharge from the systems into
j floodwaters.
EM. on-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid
impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.
SM. Presidential Construction
f. ,
1. New construction and substantial improvement of any
residential structure, °~.her-----tta--- including
manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor,
including the basement, elevated at least one foot above
base flood elevation; and
2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are k
subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed
to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
exterior walls by allowing for the (entry and exit of
floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must
either be certified by a registered professional engineer
t or architect, or must meet or exceed the following
minimum criteria;
a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area
of not less than one square inch for every square
foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be
provided;
3
b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than
j one foot above grade; and
c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or
other coverings or devices, provided that they
permit the automatic entry and exit of flood
waters.
3. Manufactured homes shall be securely -anchored to an
] adequately anchored permanent foundation system.
f Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to,
use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors.
t
" C
a
P
p Drat. - December 6, 1934 page , 9
Chapter 13.$4 SENSITTYE LANDS Exhibit Ji'
~ F
.N. Nonresidential Construction
New construction and substantial improvement of any
commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure
shall either have the lowest floor, including basement,'
elevated to the level of the base flood elevation, or E
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,
shall:
n
I. Be floodproofed so that below the base flood level
the structure is watertight with galls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
2.e Have structural components capable of resisting
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of
buoyancy;
i i
' j 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer j
or architect that the design and methods of
construction are in accordance with accepted
standards of practice for meeting provisions of {
this subsection based on their development and/or
a review of the structural design, specifications and
;i plans. Such certifications shall be provided to .
the Building official as set forth in Subsection
18.84.025.B; and
4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not
floodproofed, must meet the same standards for k
space below the lowest floor as described in
18.84.026.1.2. Applicants f loodproofing `
nonresidential buildings shall be notified that
flood insurance premiums will be based on rates
that are one foot below the floodproofed level
(e.g., a building constructed to the base flood
level will be rated as one foot below that level).
i (Ord. 94-05; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87--66; Ord. 87•-32)
0. Subdivisions and partitions in the 100-year floodpla.in shall ! .
meet the following criteria:
1. The design shall minimize the potential for flood damage;
2. Public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas..
1 electrical, and eater systems shall be located and 4
constructed so as to minimize flood damage; j
i
~ F
3. Adequate drainage shall be provided to reduce exposure to f
flood damage; and
4. For subdivisions or partitions which contain more than SO
lots or 5 acres and where base flood elevation data is
not available from F or another authoritative source,
the applicant shall generate base flood elevation data to
be reviewed as part of the application. r_
Draft - Daamber 6, 1994 Page -10 l
Chapter =4 SENS'fM LANDS Exhibit 'A'
18.84 028 General Provisions forWetlands
A. Wetland regulations apply to those areas meeting the
'i definition of wetland in Chapter 18.26 of the Community
Development Code, areas meeting Division of State bands
wetland criteria and to land adjacent to and within 25 feet of
a wetland. Wetland locations may include but are not limited
to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory
and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon," Scientific
Resources Incorporated, 1990.
i B. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; r
specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. y
Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at
'j the applicant's expense. (ord. 90-29)
a
18 4 ~ D E=iration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time
i
3 A. Approval of a sensitive lands permit.shall be void if:
1. Substantial constru.:tion of the approved plan has not
begun within M one-and-one-half year period; or
2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved
plan.
' B. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and
payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the ~
approval period not to exceed one year, provided that.
1
I. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by
the approval authority;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction
of the site within the one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on
which the approval was based.
F
i
C. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant.
The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as
provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52) F
18.84.040 Annroval Standards i
A. The appropriate approval authority shall
approve or approve with conditions an application request '
within the 100-year floodplain in subsections 18.X 4.X815 B. and
E. based upon findings that all of the following criteria have
been satisfied:
s
,i 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the
floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero--
' foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments.,,
Draft - December 6, 19% Page - 11
Chapter 18.84 SENS VE LANDS Exhtibit °A'
including fill. new construction, substaintial
P
i-in rovements. and other development unless now
certified by a registered ~
professional engineer that the encroachment will not
result in any increase in flood levels during the base
flood discharge; p
2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year
f loodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as
commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land
use soap, except that alterations or developments g `
associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or E-
public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of
- the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas
designated residential subject to applicable zoning
standards;
3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted r
to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any.
increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year
flood; i
- F
4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted j
pedestrian/ bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction
'i of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as i,.
untimely; r
5. The plans for the pedestrian/ bicycle pathway indicate
that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average
annual flood;
6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of
Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals
--hall be obtained; and i
7. Where land form alterations and/or development are
allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, f
;i the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open
land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall
include portions of a suitable elevation for the
construction of a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway within the
floodplain in accordance with the adopted
pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan.
B. The appropriate approval authority shall approve or
approve with conditions an application request- for a sensitive
lands permit on slopes of 25 percent or greater or unstable
i ground in Subsections 18.84.015 B. and D. based upon findings
that all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. The extent and mature of the proposed land forte
alteration or development will not create site
_l disturbances to an extent greater than that required for e
the use;
i
i
Draft - December C 1994 Page - 12
Chapter M84 SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit W
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not
result in erasion, stream sedimentation, ground
instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site
effects or hazards to life or property;
3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to
ensure structural stability and proper drainage of
foundation and crawl space areas for development with any i;. .
i of the following soil conditions; wet/high water table;
high shrink.--swell capability; compressible/organic; and
shallow depth-to-bedrock; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land
fors alteration or development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to
# prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening.
s F
C. The appropriate approval authority r shall approve or
approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive
lands permit within drainageways in Subsections 18.84.015 B.
-j and D. based upon findings that all of the following criteria
have been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form f:
alteration or development will not create site C.'
disturbances to the extent greater than that required for
the use;
- 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground
instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site
j effects or hazards to life or property; f
j 3. The rater flow capacity of the drainageway is not
decreased;
j 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land
form alteration or development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to
j prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening;
5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of
adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance
with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan.
I
j 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of
i Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals
shall be obtained.
7. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed
within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City
shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area
within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions
,i of a suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrian/ bicycle pathway within the f loodplain in
Dr-ft - Demmber 6. 1494 Pap - 13
{ Chapter 1854 SENSITIVE LANDS Exhibit X
accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway
plan. (Ord. 90-29; Ord. 90-22;Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66;
Ord. 87-32; Ord. 86-08; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) r
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an
application request for a sensitive lands permit within
iwetlands in Subsection 18.84.015 D. based upon findings that ~
all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. The proposed landform alteration or development is
neither on wetland in an area designated as significant
wetland on the Comprehensive Man F°loodplain and wetland i.
Flap nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland;
2. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration,
1 or development will not create site disturbances to an
{ extent greater than the minimum required for the use;
3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site
drainage which would adversely impact wetland
characteristics have been mitigated;
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform
alteration or development, erosion control provisions of
the Surface Water Management program of Washington County
must be met and areas not covered by structures or
impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar
species in accordance with Chapter 18.1.00, Landscaping y-
. and Screening;
5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter r
have been met;
6. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, 'T'ree Removal, shall be
met.
7. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and
Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open
Space policies of the Comprehensive plan have been
satisfied.. (Ord. 90-°29; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-
32; Ord. 83--52)
18.84.045 Exception for Development of the 108th/113th Ravine below the
140 Feet Klevation
A. Under the sensitive lands permit process, the appropriate
approval authority BAm4m'-ew, as set forth in Subsections
18.84.015 B. and D., may allow portions of the ravine at 108th
and 113th, designated as a significant wetlands area, to
develop provided that all of the following criteria are met:
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for
` development is less than 25 percent slope;
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being
? '1 considered for development; and
i
Draft - December 6, 1994 Page -14
Chapter 18.84 SENSrWVE 1.HNDS Exhibit A°
1
3. Applicable provisions of Section 18.84.040, Sensitive
Lands Approval criteria shall be met. (Ord 90-29; Ord. r
i 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52) .I
18 84 050 Application submission R~uirements j
1 J k
,7 v A. All applications for uses and activities identified in
Subsections 18.84.015 B. through B. shall be made on forms
provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: f
1. Copies of~ the sensitive lands permit proposal and
necessary data or narrative which explains how the
proposal conforms to the standards, (number to be -
determined at the preapplication conference) and:
a. The scale for the site plan(s) shall be a standard
' engineering scale; and
} b. All drawings or structure elevations or floor plans
i shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4
inch by 1/8 inch to the foot;
i 2. A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are
9 property owners of record within 250 feet of the site;
and r
3. The required fee. r
>i
3 B. The required information may be combined on one map.
i C. The site plan(s), data and narrative shall include the
following:
1. An existing site conditions analysis, Section 18.84.070;
2. A site plan, Section 18.84.080;
. i 3. A grading plan, Section 18.84,090; and
4. A landscaping plan, Section 18.84.100. (Ord. 90-29; Ord.
89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.0 60 Additional Information Reauired and Waiver of Requirements
i
A. The Director may require information in addition to that
required by this chapter in accordance with Subsection
18.32.080.A.
i
B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information
in accordance with Subsections 18.32.080.B and C. (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
y
i
Draft - December 6. 1993 Page -1s
C bipmr MU SENSMVE LANDS Exhibit `A'
i
18.84.070 Site Conti t„ions
A. The site analysis drawings shall include:
1. A vicinity map showing streets and access points,
pedestrian and bicycle pathways, and utility locations;
2. The site size and its dimensions; F
3. Contour lines at two-foot intervals for grades zero to
ten percent and five-foot intervals for grades over ten
percent;
4. The location of drainage patterns and drainage courses;
5. The location of natural hazard areas including:
s
a. Floodplains areas (100-year floodplain and
floodway);
b. Slopes in excess of 25 percent;
c. Unstable ground (areas subject to slumping, earth
slides or movement);
d. Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24
inches of the surface for three or more weeks of
the year;
e. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential, or as
defined by the Soil Conservation Service; and
f. Areas having severe weak foundation soils;
6. The location of resource areas as shown on the
j comprehensive plan inventory leap and as required in
' j Section 18.84.035 including:
s
a. Wildlife habitat; and
b. Wetlands;
7. The location of site features including.
f a. Mock outcroppings; and
b. Trees with six inches caliper or greater measured
four feet from ground level;
i
8. The location of existing structures on the site and
proposed use of those structures. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-
66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52) j
i
4
3
Draft - December 6. 1994 Page - 16
Chapter 18.84 SENS137VE LANDS Exhibit W
18.84.080 The Site Plan
A. The proposed site development plan shall be at the same scale
as the site analysis plan and shall include the following
information:
+ 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties;
2. Contour line intervals (see Section 18.84.070.A.3);
j 3. The location, dimensions, and names of all:
j a. Existing and platted streets and other public ways
and easements on the site ar.d on adjoining
properties; and
i
b. Proposed streets or other public ways and easements
on the site;
4. The location and dimension of:
a. Entrances and exits on the site;
a:
b. Parking and traffic circulation areas;
i
C. ]Loading and services areas;
s
i d. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
F:
e. Outdoor common areas; and
a f. Utilities;
5. The location, dissensions, and setback distances of all:
a. Existing structures, improvements, and utilities
which are located on adjacent property within 25
feet of the site and are permanent in nature; and
b. Proposed structures, improvements, and utilities on
the site;
r_
6. The location of areas to be landscaped;
7. The concept locations of proposed utility lines; and
8. The method for mitigating any adverse impacts upon
wetland, riparian, or wildfire habitat areas. (Ord. 89--
06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
18.84.090 Grading Plan
A. The site plan shall include a grading plan which contains the
following information:
1. Requirements in Sections 18.84.070 and 18.84.080;
Draft - De=mber 6. 1444 Fag: -17
Chapter 16.$4 SENSMVE LANDS Uldbit °A°
2. The identification and location of than benchmark and
corresponding datum; `
J'? 3. Location and extent to which grading will take place
indicating contour lanes, slope ratios, and slope
stabilization proposals; and
4. A statement from a registered engineer supported by f
factual data substantiating:
a. The validity of the slope stabilization proposals; I.
b. That other off-site impacts will not be created; E._
F
' c. Stream flow calculations;
d. Cut and fill calculations; and
i
E- =
j e. Channelization measures proposed. (Ord. 89-06; f
'i Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)_
IS 94.100 Landscape P,•an
.J E
A. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the i.:
site analysis plan, or a larger scale if necessary, and shall
indicate: C.
1. Location and height of fences, buffers, and screenings;
;i 2. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and E
common open spaces where applicable; and F
3. Location, type, and size of existing and proposed plant
materials.
' B. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses:
i
1. Sail conditions; and
k
2. Erosion control measures that will be used. (Ord. 89-06;
' Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52)
i
-M.HWACT.doc (DOS)
TCDCSL.144
h:\Login\paTty\tcdcsl.144 4
(Also on 5 w~ floppy'
l
r
}
1
r
{ Draft -December 5, 1994 Page -18
Chapter 18.84 SENSTTTTVE LANDS Exhibit A'
r
Exhibit "B"
G5 - 2OA 94-01 SENSITIVE DS
The following findings are to be included with the Planning
Division staff report dated 11-18-94 - Amendments to Sensitive
Lands and Floodplain Regulations: F=
LCDC GOALS
Goal 1. Citizen involvement. Notice of the hearing and
opportunity for response was advertised in the local
paper and request for comment were sent to all CITs,
DLCD, METRO, DSL, the Corps of Engineers and FEMA.
i Goal 2. Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures
1 is provided for under Coal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed f
measures conform to FEMA requirements and clarify
previously approved local requirements.
Goal 5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
Resources. The proposed revisions aid in controlling
impact on sensitive land areas including wetlands.
Goal 7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. The
proposed revisions strengthen city regulations relating
i to floodplains, clarify the decision-making process for
other sensitive lands including steep slopes,
drainageways and wetlands and bring city requirements
i into conformance with FEMA.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
1
1.1.a. This policy requires that legislative changes are
consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional
development plan. The findings above address the
statewide goals. METRO was sent a request for comment.
~ j
The agency does not regulate sensitive lands.
' 2.1.1. This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement
process. A request for comment was sent to all City
Citizen Involvement Teams and was legally advertised.
2.1.3. This policy requires that information on issues be
available. The staff report and findings and proposed
ordinance have been available for review since November
18, 1994.
3.1.1. This r
policy governs areas with areas having development ~
limitations. The proposed ordinance clarifies existing
regulations and procedures. E
3.2.1. This policy prohibits landform alterations that would
i
result in rise in the elevation of the 100 year
floodplain. The proposed ordinance adds FEMA mandated
- requirements to further guarantee no damage or rise in
the floodplain.
3.2.2. This policy governs rise in the floodway. The proposed
ordinance complies with FDM standards and has been
reviewed by FMA during the development of the
provisions.
3.2.4. This policy governs development related to wetlands. The
proposed ordinance identifies uses that are permitted
without a permit and clarifies permit procedures that are
in compliance with FMLA requirements. }
`i
kr
_ k!
a
t
t-
1 ~
~ i
i
1 ~
E .
i
j
v
i
I
i
' f
AGENDA ITEM
R AGENDA OF ! 77
F
MEMORANDUM '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder C-
DATE: January 17, 1995
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 8 - Council Meeting of January 24, 1995
-j
R
3 Liz Newton is scheduling an interview meeting with Mayor Nicoli,
Councilor Fawley and persons interested in appointment to the
Budget Committee. If this meeting can be held prior to the E
:j January 24, 1995, Council meeting, the recommendations from Mayor
PTicoli and Councilor Fawley will be submitted to the Council as a
-i hand-carry item.
cwcOl 17.95 i
1
i
3
r:
z
l
i
~ s
t~
i
i
f
I
i
Ir-= Cc) AGENDA ITEM #
I u r) Gt L Oa ca Y 1 R AGENDA oF ! a~(7 k
r
Council,/Staff Liaisons (last reviewed by Council on July 5, 1994;
subsequent appointments and changes have been noted)
f
9 pia Lson
HAM
community Development Block Grant Duane Roberts/
Advisory Board Council vacancy k
Meats 2nd Thursdays at various locations at 7 p.m. The Board ~
presentation from all jurisdictions in the County. The
includes;re
Board advises the County Board of Commissioners on all aspects of
the CDBG Program. p
1 F
3 t
1 Washington County Solid Waste Paul Hunt
Steering Committee
(temporarily disbanded; however,
may be reactivated to develop the
next five-year waste reduction plan
with Metro and Washington County.
Washingtorn county Consolidated Pat attended... currently
Communications Tigard has an elected
official vacancy
r
Currently WCCCA shows Bill Monahan as the City representative; t_
j usually this is an elected official and each jurisdiction appoints
representative. WCCCA is an ORS 190 Agency. Meets 4 times a year
on the 3rd Thursdays of March, June, September and December at 4
p.m. in Beaverton.
Washington-County Cooperative Kathy Davis/Bill Monahan
Library Service, (CLAB)
Meats on 1st Wednesday of the month, 7-9:30 p.m. Next time for
l appointment will be in December 1995; most jurisdictions have
1 elected officials serve on the Board
' Page 1
3 _ f
,
' r
Metropolitan Area Communications Com. was Judy Fessler - since
" her resignation, Liz
Newton (as alternate) has
attended
Meets every other month on 3rd Wednesday at 3:30 - 3:30 p.m. in
off ices at Aloha. Each jurisdiction has' member, on the board; F
preferably an elected official.
a
Washington County Transportation JinmNicoli (replacing Mayor
Coordinating Committee Schwartz)
:
i
a I-5/217 *John Schwartz ~ Bill
Monahan
*Appoint to the I-5/217
j Subarea Project'
Management Team
r.
t,
Tigard Senior Center Pat (Liz has been F
attending)
-r 1
g'.
i
i Staff attends to keep current on senior Center issues.
s t-
99W Task Force _ea s_~Wendi Hawley
i
(Appointed by Council; in the past, monthly meetings have been
scheduled.)
-
Western Bypass Jim Nicoli (replacing s
John Schwartz)
Intergovernmental Water Board * /Paul Hunt
i
i Council will need to appoint an elected official replacement to
complete the term filled by Mayor Schwartz (ends 12/31/95).
Councilor Hunt has served as alternate.
FOC€JS (Forum on Cooperative No liaison listed
Urban Services)
f
f"
Page 2
i
{
j
I
j
i.
1
o--- - - - -
Tigard Country Daze No liaison listed
R.
metro-Policy Advisory Committee (Council - nominated Bob
Rohlf on 11/15/94;
County-wide vote by
jurisdictions on member)
J®PACT Members elected by County
jurisdictions.
3
Task-Force---SB 908 (Schools) Sill Monahan/Carol
E
Grant from DLCD Landsman
K- -
-ggpI ~
i f
Homeless Task Force Paul Hunt
A Appointed by council.
j F'
a Tree Task Force Dick Sewersdom:ff/Carol
Landsman/Wendi Hawley
Appointed by Council..
>i
h:\Eo9in\c&2hy\bmc
k .
i
f
{
as I
i
i
Page 3