The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/26/1997 ~c OV- CITY CF TIG® OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL i , MEETING ` f AUGUST 26, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED s f 4 1:Aadmgo%ccpkt1.doc rp J i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ISO- Revised Aug. 22, 1997 1 CITY OF TIGARD 3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL i BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 26,1997 6,30 Ph4 TIGARII CITY HALT` " 13126 SWHALL' BLV D TIGARD, OREGON .97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. f I Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7.30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - j Telecommunications 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 impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. I 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 i need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone j numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - f 1 Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). ` j SEE ATTACHED AGENDA i COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 1 j i i 1 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 26, 1997 6:30 p.m. • STUDY MEETING , > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. r > Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 4 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 p.m. { 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 22,1997 3.2 Approve amendment to the Dog Control Agreement (dated 8126186) with Washington County to Cite Violators in Justice Court Rather Than District Court and also to Update The Agreement to Refer to Current County Code Sections and Authorize the Mayor to Sign t 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 3 for Community Development Block Grant Senior Center Landscaping - Resolution No. 97-3~) 3.4 Approve Renewal of Municipal Judge Michael O'Brien's Contract - Resolution No. 97- j 3 3.5 Approve Agreement with Unified Sewerage Agency to update the Fanno Creek Flood Insurance Study and Authorize the City Manager to Sign 3.6 Approve Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement for Greenberg Road Improvements - Resolution No. 97-3 COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 2 L~ 1 1 F 3.7 Local Contract Review Board: 1 a. Award Contract - 1997-98 Pavement Major Maintenance f 1 i Program to Eagle Elsner, Inc. I{ b. Award Contract -1997-98 Slurry Seal Program to Blackline, Inc. I C. Award Emergency Bid for Reconstruction of Benchview Place , Sanitary and Storm Sewer to DaNeal Construction, Inc. 3.8 Approve, in Concept, the Intergovernmental Agreement Preliminary Review Draft (dated August 14, 1997) for the Willamette Water Supply Agency i • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:50 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 97-0001 - FONNER STREET (DAAL HOMES/EATON PROPERTIES) Request: The applicants, DAAL Homes/Eaton Properties are requesting annexation of Tax Lot 4400 (2S1 3613) into the City of Tigard. The subject J site is 3.69 acres and adjacent to Hunter's Glen Subdivision. SW Former Street borders the property on the south and west sides. The existing City boundary runs along the north boundary line of the site. Current Washington County designation is the R-5 District (Residential 5 Units Per Acre) which is in conformance with the City's Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Location: A 3.69 acre parcel that is bordered by SW Fonner on its south and ~i west sides. i Applicable Review Criteria: Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2 boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements, and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. t Zone: Currently Washington County R-5; proposed City of Tigard R-4.5. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Applicants, Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) (Continued on next page....) COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 3 r e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Staff Recommendation h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97- 1l Resolution No. 97- , 8:10 P.M. 5. TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN WORKSHOP RESULTS • Community Development Department { { 8:40 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZOA 97-0003 - STREET STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT IN THE CG ZONE OF THE TIGARD TRIANGLE Request: Amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General Zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing f. standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway- oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. I' Location: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. Applicable Review Criteria: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8(f). Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Triangle Design Standards. i 1 { Zone: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) C { a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges i { c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Opponents, Proponents) e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Staff Recommendation h. Council Consideration: Consider proposed amendments and, by motion, direct staff to prepare enacting ordinance for Council 1 consideration. COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 4 i 4 I 11 9:00 P.M. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS d ^ 9:10 P.M. I - 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this r j session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. i 9:30 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT i:\admlcathy\cca\970826.dm I - i I I i i I I, 5 COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 5 " L - 1 E Y Agenda Item No. Meeting of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL II MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 i • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli. i > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken j~ Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim j Hendryx; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Senior Planner Nadine j Smith; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine ' Wheatley. J > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m, under j the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, l j real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 1 > Executive Session adjourned at 7:07 p.m. > Transportation Fund Update „ _ - i Mayor Nicoli advised the Council of information he received at the Washington County Coordinating Committee. Five counties (Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah, Marion, and J Yamhill) would each put a measure on the November ballot to raise additional money for transportation through a county gas tax. This tax would be at the same amount in all five counties. It would be split 60% to the county and 40% to the cities (by population). The counties advised that they needed the revenue to offset the revenue lost to the cities when lands 4 annexed into cities and to maintain both the rural and urban roads under County jurisdiction. The projected revenue amount for Tigard was $250,000 a year. Mayor Nicoli reported that counties would also ask for an increase in the vehicle registration fee ~ . by $15 per car with the same 60(40 split between county and city (as regulated by state law). The projected revenue for Tigard from this fee increase was another $250,000 per year. Councilor Hunt asked what happened if not all the counties approved the gas tax. Mayor Nicoli said that the County Commissioners have agreed that if the tax did not pass in their particular county, then they would return to the voters with a lesser amount until the tar passed. He j mentioned that this election did not require the 50% voter turnout because it was an existing tax. ' He noted the discussion on whether or not to include the gas tax and the vehicle registration fee increase in the same ballot measure. While the majority of City Attorneys queried supported a combined measure, they were some who were concerned with that strategy. He said that he thought that Washington County would combine them. Mayor Nicoli reported that staff informed the Committee of a Measure 50 interpretation that allowed the serial levies, in place prior to Measure 50, to be levied in perpetuity, although they could not be increased. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26. 1997 - PAGE 1 4 l The Council discussed this information in light of the MSTIP program, the need to keep the voters involved and aware of what was happening, and to get voter input on whether to keep assessing this levy and using the money for projects or dropping the assessment once the current list of projects was completed. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that even if the program were dropped, a County Commission in the future could reimpose the levy at their discretion without voter approval. Mayor Nicoli emphasized that while the levying authority was permanent, they decided whether j or not to levy a tax through the Budget Committee process. They did not have to levy the full Y amount. He noted an issue of credibility also. Councilor Rohlf spoke to keeping the voters i involved in these decisions as part of a representative government process. He pointed out that, as a taxpayer, he felt that the news that the government now had an infinite funding source was a contradiction to the idea behind Measure 50 (which had been to limit govemment taxing authority). Councilor Rohlf asked if the County would tell the cities to maintain the county urban roads if the cities were given 40% of the increased revenues. Mayor Nicoli said that issue was discussed in depth at the Coordinating Committee, including the suggestion to look at the vehicle road j miles traveled versus the total length of the roads. He reported that Mayor Rob Drake of J Beaverton wrote a letter to the County in support of the gas tax, increased vehicle registration fee, and the 60/40 split. Mayor Nicoli said that the Gas Dealers Association has said that they would not oppose a uniform gas tax. He mentioned the other issue of the diesel tax which cost $30,000 to collect I $50,000 in tax because of the way it was assessed. The truckers have threatened "to come after" the cities if they touched the diesel tax while AAA has made the same threat if cars were taxed and trucks were not. Both had powerful political lobbies. The bottom line was that no one knew how to fairly tax diesel. i Councilor Moore asked what happened if the state imposed a state gas tax. Mayor Nicoli said that the counties were split on how to handle that. A couple have indicated that they would reduce their gas tax in response to the state tax while others said they would deal with that when it happened. Washington County Commissioners have not decided how to handle that issue yet. Councilor Scheckla asked where the increased revenue would be allotted to. Mayor Nicoli said that the money would go to "safety and capacity," which was all inclusive. Councilor Scheckla supported wording that allocated the money to the roads over light rail. Mayor Nicoli noted the political maneuvering on this issue, including the threat by Tri-Met to 7 veto these items. While the Tri-Met Board did have veto power over a gas tax and vehicle registration fee increases (per state law), Metro distributed the federal and state transportation funds in this region, including the $50 million Tri-Met received. A possible solution was a ' long-term spending plan developed by the cities and counties for this revenue. j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 2 E I` i 1 F. 1 k 1 1 is I. is . . k: > Agenda Review Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported that the Planning Commission hearing last night on an appeal of a director's decision regarding property in the Mixed Use Employment zone in the Triangle demonstrated that the Planning Commission needed clarification and training on the I 1 Triangle design standards. Staff was working on setting that training up. 1 Mr. Monahan noted the letter sent by Mr. Hendryx to the property owners regarding the Erickson property. He said that the SW North Dakota Task Force was proceeding well. 1 Mr. Monahan mentioned a call he received from a Durham resident regarding the mosquito problem in Durham that might originate in water on the Thomas dairy property. Jeff Munro of j Public Works was investigating the situation. Mayor Nicoli noted that bats have lost habitat and N suggested increasing the bat population in Cook Park as an innovative solution, since bats ate I mosquitoes. t - > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:35 p.m. I 1. BUSINESS MEETING I • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board i Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:40 i , g p.m. Mr. Foster, a Boy Scout, - lead the pledge of allegiance. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mayor Nicoli said that the Planning Director would give Council an update on light rail if y;E there was time. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA t > John Brooks, VLMK Engineers, said that he represented a client with a pending application i - . before the Planning Commission in the MUE zone in the Triangle. He asked that the process be completed and that the Council respond to the Planning Commission's request for an t interpretation from the Council. He expressed concern over the communications between the Commission, the Council, and his client. j Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, said that her office would continue to advise the Planning Commission on this matter and would find a legally acceptable way to communicate between the Council and the Commission regarding this pending application. The situation was that Council could not make an interpretation in the middle of an application before the Commission, nor could the Council's impartiality be compromised. i y CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 3 a s ' i Y: S 1 3. CONSENT AGENDA I I Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. I I Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli. Councilors I Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") tit 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 22, 1997 J i 3.2 Approve amendment to the Dog Control Agreement (dated 8/26/86) with Washington County to Cite Violators in Justice Court Rather Than District Court and also to Update The agreement to Refer to Current County Code Sections and Authorize the ? Mayor to Sign 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 3 for Community Development Block Grant Senior Center Landscaping - Resolution No. 97- 32 + 3.4 Approve Renewal of Municipal Judge Michael O'Brien's Contract - Resolution No. 3 97-33 f 3.5 Approve Agreement with Unified Sewerage Agency to update the Fanno Creek Flood j Insurance Study and Authorize the City Manager to Sign 3.6 Approve Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement for Green berg Road Improvements - Resolution No. 97-34 1 3.7 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract - 1997-98 Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Eagle Elsner, Inc. 111 b. Award Contract - 1997-98 Slurry Seal Program to Blackline, Inc. c. Award Emergency Bid for Reconstruction of Benchview Place Sanitary and Storm Sewer to DaNeal Construction, Inc. 3.8 Approve, in Concept, the Intergovernemental Agreement Preliminary Review Draft (dated August 14, 1997) for the Willamette Water Supply Agency 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 97-0001 - FONNER STREET (DAAL HOMES/EATON PROPERTIES) Request: The applicants, DAAL Homes/Eaton Properties, are requesting annexation of 1 Tax Lot 4400 (2S1 3BD) into the City of Tigard. The subject site is 3.69 acres and adjacent to Hunter's Glen Subdivision. SW Former Street borders the property on the south and west sides. The existing City boundary runs along the north boundary line of the site. Current Washington County designation is the R-5 District (Residential 5 Unites Per Acre) which is in conformance with the City's Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Location: A 3.69 acre parcel that is bordered by SW Former on its south and west sides. Applicable Review Criteria: Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements, and 18. 138, land classification of annexed territory. Zone: Currently Washington County R-5; proposed City of Tigard R-4.5. 3 a 1 K CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 4 e s. j a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None { { c. Staff Report: Community Development Department i Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He said that the applicant was in the process of subdividing his property and needed annexation in order to get sanitary sewer to his site. Staff has received no comments from any of the agencies requested to review this application. The County zone was compatible to the City R-5 zone. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was another way into this subdivision besides the access f on Former Road. Mr. Hendryx said yes, and that the issue would be addressed during the design review process. d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli reviewed the hearings procedures and criteria. - PROPONENT i > Pamela Danzer, Westlake Consultants, represented the applicant and stood ready to answer any questions. E e. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked if staff replied to Oscar Clark's letter. Mr. Hendryx said that staff would advise the Clarks regarding the City's greenspaces process. The property would come to Council's attention through that process. E Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of ZCA 97-0001. h. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-11 Resolution No. 97-35 ` Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 97- The City Recorder read the ordinance by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 97-11, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN G EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 97-001). iS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 5 5 j f. 1 r e: - i Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve Resolution No. 97-35. E 1 The City Recorder read the resolution by number and title. RESOLUTION NO. 97-35, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE 7 CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND 7 ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT "B" (ZCA 97-001) 1 1 Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, i Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN WORKSHOP RESULTS Mr. Hendryx introduced Lloyd Lindley, the consultant who worked with staff on the Triangle workshop in July. Mr. Lindley noted that the question before the Council tonight was "did the City want big box retail developments in the Triangle." He presented the workshop report document. He reviewed the history of the 23 member Triangle Task Force's work in developing the design standards 4 4 over a nine month period. He said that the standards exceeded the regional and state goals and _ standards. Mr. Lindley reviewed the participants, the process, and the conclusions of the July workshop. Experts from Oregon and Washington plus local property owners were brought in to test the design standards against the requirements of large scale retail development. He directed attention to the summary of opportunities and constraints in the report (page 6). A Mr. Lindley explained that the comments in the summary were listed in the order of "most j often mentioned." The opportunity comments included to embrace big boxes but to do them well and to the City's goals, to provide an adjustment process to address constraints, to clarify specific goals of design standards with articulation of the vision for the area, to address the constraints to provide certainty, to develop alternate schemes to illustrate intent, and that Tigard could choose its own future. The constraint comments included rigidity in standards, no room for negotiation, a desire for flexibility, lack of understanding of large scale needs and site constraints, ambiguity in large scale buildings relating to the standards, acknowledged limits of the topography, a street plan rather than spacing standards, lack of definition on 72" Avenue of the building to the sidewalk, and the 300 foot facade limit as confusing to large scale retail. Mr. Hendryx directed attention to page 9 of the report, the options proposed by staff for Council $ consideration. These included 1) retaining the standards as written, 2) excluding the CG properties from compliance with the Triangle standards, 3) requiring all development in CG zone with a floor plan larger than 1 10,000 square feet to comply with four out of the seven j standards at issue with the development community, and 4) exempting the uses over 110,000 j square feet from the seven standards. 1 1 s CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 6 1 __JJ_J 1 1 t.. j li i Mr. Hendryx noted the letters received from Eagle Hardware and Waremart. PUBLIC COMMENT i I Mayor Nicoli opened the discussion to public comment. > Russ Joki, Tigard-Tualatin School Superintendent, representing the School Board, supported Option 4. He said that the Phil Lewis site was of interest only to a large commercial user. He said that they did not feel that the design standards should preclude future users from developing I their property in a way consistent with existing uses already located west of 72nd Avenue. > Mike Robinson, Eagle Hardware, concurred with the School District's comments. He said that it was not just a question of whether or not the City wanted to allow big retail stores in the Triangle but how the development was done so that it was a credit to the City and presented an attractive entrance to the Triangle. He held that the City did not necessarily need the design guidelines currently in place to achieve that goal, and that the guidelines actually prevented the City from getting a good retail user on the site. {i{ Mr. Robinson pointed out that the Triangle consisted of two separate areas the CG zone west of 72°d Avenue with its large scale retail users, and the MUE zone east of 72 Avenue with non- retail uses and an established grid street pattern. He reiterated that the City standards exceeded the state and Metro standards (which did not prohibit large retail stores). He cited a letter sent to the City Council from Metro stating that the connectivity standards applied only to residential and mixed use areas. Mr. Robinson said that the two largest constraints identified at the July workshop were the rigidity of the design guidelines as written and the lack of understanding of how retail users developed. He mentioned the often stated opportunity that there was a place for big box retail in the Triangle, and that it could be done well. He noted that the Phil Lewis school site had a number of constraints that the design guidelines did not address. Mr. Robinson reviewed the options mentioned by staff. He did not support an adjustment ' process. He supported Option 4, exempting the large scale retail users from meeting the design guidelines. He reiterated that as the standards stood right now, they did not work for larger retail users or for the Phil Lewis school site. > Mark Weisman, Eagle Hardware, reviewed his design team's work to meet the third option. They concluded that a large scale user could only meet two of the seven standards because the standards were written without consideration of large scale user needs. Tinkering with four of the seven standards did not meet either the intent of the standards or the programmatic needs of Eagle Hardware. He emphasized the consensus at the workshop that the standards were rigid t and inflexible and did not work for large retail users. He spoke in support of Option 4. i Mr. Weisman presented a conceptual site plan to illustrate how these standards did or did not j work. Ms. Beery expressed concern that site specific information relating to an application that might come before Council not be discussed. a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 7 ) i •i f _ I I r,F- G Mayor Nicoli stated that he heard that the direction that Council gave was to prohibit big box development in the Triangle. He said that that was never what he meant to convey. He spoke to allowing big box development but strongly emphasized allowing it only if it were attractive. He said that he did not want any "ugly" boxes in the Triangle but that he did not oppose large retail j uses as such. He asked for Council discussion on this perception of the Council's original direction. Councilor Rohlf cited the Kruse Way development as an example of the design quality he wanted to see in the Triangle. He said that he understood how staff could have arrived at the conclusion they did, given the Council discussion of the topic. He said that his concern was not preventing big box retail but insuring that the treescape nature of the Triangle was maintained, and certain elements (like large blank walls) avoided. He expressed concern about the long temp viability of the stores. He reiterated his interest in quality development, possibly office buildings (such as at Kruse Way or Koll Center), but not necessarily excluding large quality retail development. Mr. Weisman commented that the Triangle was a visible and valuable property that over the long term should not have abandonment problems. The market turnover would be quick. He concurred with the need for quality development that fit into the community. He reviewed various standards as they applied to the site plan, explaining how each one worked or did not work given the topography, other site constraints, and the programmatic needs of a large scale j retail user. He concluded that they could meet only two of the standards. These issues included pedestrian connectivity across the site, spacing requirements, the Ik lm relationship between the building to 72"d Avenue (the 10 foot setback issue), preference for a green landscaped edge over a view of a sea of parking, the window issue, how topography minimized the impact of the scale of the building, the 50% of frontage in parking requirement, and the building entrances at 300 feet intervals requirement. Ms. Beery reiterated her caution about site specific questions. She said that general topographical questions about land in the Triangle were acceptable but specifics about an application on a site were a potential problem. t Mayor Nicoli commented that all sites in the Triangle had tremendous grade differences. Mr. Weisman said that only the less desirable sites remained available for development, which included steeper sites than typically used for shopping centers. Councilor Rohlf questioned whether or not the topography supported large scale retail uses if significant changes were required. > Scott Madsen, Cushman & Wakefield, said that as a commercial real estate broker for 18 years, his specialty was office development. He said that the Triangle was a market driven j j situation. The market for office was predicated on access and location. Employers were i primarily concerned with moving their employees in and out quickly in the morning and > evening with easy access to major arterials and freeways. He said that developers looked at the Triangle and concluded that the only suitable location for office was on the I-5 freeway side ? because of visibility and access to the freeway. The potential congestion on 72" Avenue was a major concern for office users and the reason why there has not been office development in the ti Triangle. j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 8 I< is g Mr. Madsen said that the Kruse Way development was a unique situation with multiple access points to the freeway. He cited the Lincoln Center office development as an example of a { workable situation because of its freeway orientation. He pointed out that there was no 1 guarantee that office developments would be occupied 100% of the time. He stated that the 4 market showing a clear interest in the Triangle was retail, citing the current big box retail users 1 already there. He said that the issue was insuring quality development. Mr. Madsen reiterated that the Triangle was not comparable to Kruse Woods. In addition the Triangle lacked the road infrastructure and access to guarantee the access desired by a large employer. > Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72nd Avenue, said that originally he supported the guidelines and { withheld his development application primarily to meet the spirit of the guidelines as developed by the Task Force, of which he was a member. He expressed concern for the entire Triangle, arguing that the guidelines needed to work for everyone. He said that this started when the residential areas on the Task Force wanted to redevelop. It was a fair request and the Task Force worked to accomplish that request but then things got out of control and the guidelines became too rigid and lacked flexibility. Mr. Martin spoke to giving the guidelines flexibility. He cited the Planning Commission I hearing last night at which a request for a 2000 square foot dental office was presented. The 1 Commission could not come to a conclusion on it because of the variety of interpretations and misunderstandings about the design guidelines. He mentioned flexibility for considerations of i topography, setbacks, major and minor arterials as a corridor through the Triangle with a streetscape, windows, grading, and the 300 foot access intervals. He commented on the human factor that led to misunderstandings and confusion.. Mr. Martin pointed out that in this market, he had to sell tenants on the location and space. He has lost the opportunity for some major retailers because of having to deal with the environmental constraints on his property. He read into the record the following from the workshop report summary; "Most stated that the standards did not have enough flexibility to j accommodate certain big box programs and the very physical constraints of the Triangle." > Kathy Godfrey, 7435 SW Hermosa Way, pointed out that the beautiful buildings at Disney World and Las Vegas were nothing but big boxes with fancy facades and "gingerbread." With j proper management and design, a big box did not have to look like a big box. She held that the 11 Triangle would not prosper without large scale retail uses. She said that if one took away the 3 landscaping at Kruse Way, they would be left with three and four story big box office buildings. She contended that with proper design and attractive storefronts, they could have an attractive business area of retail and mixed uses. .r F Ms. Godfrey spoke to retail as a better use of the land because stores were open 9 to 9 while office buildings stood empty half the time. She said that Hermosa Park was still waiting on the City; they wanted to move out. She commented that responsible people knew that an attractive l Triangle was good for the community. j { v CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 9 1 i b L` d i _ ' g I > Ken Rosenfeld, Triangle property and homeowner, Task Force member, spoke to keeping the plan as it was because it offered protection for the Triangle residents and allowed the City to I j handle Triangle development. He contended that the addition of half a million square feet of retail space (the total projected amount of the school site and the Martin property) would C j seriously impact the traffic situation. He said that the traffic engineer on the Task Force had i stated that successful development in the Triangle would require six lanes on Pacific Highway i and five lanes on 72"d Avenue. He noted the new office building under construction that would prevent expansion of 72"d Avenue to five lanes. He expressed concern that these large scale developments would use up all the traffic capacity of the Triangle, leaving none for the smaller developments. > Cynthia Thompson, 6960 SW Clinton Street, reiterated Mr. Rosenfeld's question about the large developments taking up the traffic capacity of the Triangle, and preventing the development of the MUE area. Mayor Nicoli said that that concern was specifically addressed in the plan, and that each area had its own amount of designated traffic capacity. Ms. Thompson said that she envisioned the Triangle as a nice place to live with work and shopping close by. She supported the design standards but agreed that more flexibility was needed. She said that perhaps the Triangle has had its share of big box development and did not need any more. i > John Putnam, 6960 SW Clinton, pointed out that flexibility was missing for both the large scale user and the small person. Ile cited the difficulty a neighbor was having in converting her home to office use because of the lack of flexibility in the design standards. He expressed his disappointment in the pedestrian and mobility impaired access inside the Costco and the theater _ lots, which he said was not good. He urged more flexibility in the standards, and greenspace in the Triangle. f > Evelyn Beach, 11530 SW 72"', cited the development on Sequoia Parkway as an example of good big box design within an innovative interpretation of the street standard. She emphasized i the landscaping design and streetscapes that imaginative!y hid the big boxes. She urged the Council to move forward on this issue. i i Councilor Moore spoke to first settling the question of whether or not the City wanted large buildings in the Triangle. That would determine where the discussion went next. Councilor Hunt concurred with Ms. Beach's use of Sequoia Parkway as an example of nice looking big box development. He said that while he did not like buildings like Costco, he thought Sequoia Parkway was well done. Councilor Moore said that he could not take a hard-line one way or the other either. ` . Mayor Nicoli agreed that the Sequoia Parkway development was a good example of big box development. He reiterated that his concern was with the appearance of the building, an issue i that he did not feel the design standards addressed. He said that his only problem with the design standards was that they were too rigid. He spoke to implementing an architectural review process that looked at each development on its own merits with an emphasis on a nice looking building held to higher standards. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the City taking the lead on developing the transportation infrastructure needed in the Triangle for good development to j happen. Mayor Nicoli reiterated the need for flexibility for the large scale users. I 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 10 3 r' { 6' 9 The Council agreed by consensus that they fundamentally were not opposed to large scale retail 3 development in the Triangle. They agreed that attractiveness of development for all buildings, I regardless of size, was important. In addition, flexibility in the standards was a consideration. t t Councilor Rohlf asked how did the City insure that all development in the GC zone was good i development, and how did the City help the smaller folks who were also suffering from inflexible standards. The Council discussed Mayor Nicoli's suggestion of an Architectural Review Board. Concerns included who would be on the board, would they follow the standards C or their own thought, adding another layer to the process, and allowing staff to use their I expertise in making the standards work. Mr. Hendryx cautioned the Council not to rush into a design review board without considerable thought. Mr. Monahan mentioned the need for staff to have a clear idea of what the Council wanted in order to avoid an interpretation on every application. Mr. Hendryx said that he understood Council to say that they would allow large scale development in the Triangle, provided it was of good design. He said that the Code had a number of standards already in place that would provide a high level of b,)od design. He said that the seven standards listed were the critical things that large scale retail developers found they could not work with. He suggested that Council consider keeping the basic standards and looking at Options 3 or 4. Councilor Rohlf asked if there was a middle ground on these issues. Could there be a very strong suggestion to use these standards with the discretion of the director to waive them under the proper mix? Mr. Hendryx said that an adjustment process was not practical from staff's point of view because they would be asked constantly to waive or reduce the standards. If the Council wanted quality development, then they had to have some thresholds for the standards. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the standards that would remain if the seven standards were eliminated. These included landscaping, building materials, entrance and other design requirements. Councilor Hunt commented that they could not design the standards to fit one particular project. Mr. Weisman agreed. He suggested working with staff to develop different standards that would meet the large retail users needs and the goal of quality development. l Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, reiterated that the document addressed more than the seven standards pulled out for this discussion. She said that she thought that they could remove these seven standards and still have a building that met the Council's goal for attractive development. j She said that at the workshop, the general feeling was that these seven standards would stop large scale retail development. Mayor Nicoli asked if there should be additional standards that would kick in for large scale development. Mr. Lindley mentioned a workshop comment that if the Council decided to allow y large scale retail development in the Triangle, then the standards should be looked at from that perspective, and any additions to the standards should meet the same vision statement developed by the Task Force and City goals. F i i E CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE I I; v t t Mr. Martin explained how he could or could not meet various standards on his different properties. He said that he could meet degrees of the standards but not 100% of the standards. Mr. Hendryx suggested that the Planning Commission use these seven standards as guidelines for large scale development. However using them as guidelines meant that they could not R require compliance. i . The Council discussed what strategy to pursue. Councilor Hunt suggested finding specific standards they could live with to replace these seven. Councilor Moore commented that the Planning Commission used guidelines in making decisions regarding granting variances. He y supported Mr. Hendryx's suggestion. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the activity at the Commission last night demonstrated the Commission's need for Council guidance on the interpretation of the standards. He spoke to tweaking the standards as they applied uniquely to the Triangle. The Council directed staff to return in two weeks with recommendations on the specific issue of standards for big box development in the Triangle. In addition staff would present a strategy to look at the other two issues of the needs of the existing big box people in the Triangle and the I needs of those converting homes to offices or businesses. Staff could bring in anyone whose input they felt they needed. Mr. Hendryx emphasized that if staff returned with a text amendment, that amendment had to go through the regular process which included review by outside agencies. Some of those outside ! agencies have demonstrated interest in what happened in the Triangle, especially with regards to pedestrian circulation. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 10:10 p.m. fora break. j > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m. I ~I 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZOA 97-003 - STREET STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT IN THE CG ZONE OF THE TIGARD TRIANGLE i f - Request: Amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General Zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway-orient signs within the Tigard Triangle. Location: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of I-5, and north of Highway 217. 1 Applicable Review Criteria: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.29 8.1.3, 8.1.8(f). Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Triangle Design Standards. Zone: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 12 l: 1 j i F 1 Z Ms. Smith requested Council to continue this hearing. The street standards were heavily tied k into the rest of the standards, and staff would like additional time to reconsider them in light of T' the Triangle discussion and the Planning Commission meeting. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue this hearing i to September 23. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS l ! > Light Rail Update 1 Mr. Hendryx reported that the state legislature authorized $500,000 to fund a detailed analysis of the feasibility of the commuter rail project for a line between Beaverton and Wilsonville. Washington County and the Cities of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, and Wilsonville funded the preliminary fatal flaw analysis and agreed to proceed with a detailed analysis on what improvements would be necessary. They also agreed that the study should focus on this main alignment from Beaverton to Wilsonville while not precluding connections to other lines, such j as one going to Salem. Mr. Hendryx said that the County would develop the scope of work for review by other agencies. Ultimately this would require an IGA for local participation. Local participation has - not yet been determined but was likely to be in-kind contributions. Wilsonville asked for discussion of a fareless ride. He noted that Metro was looking at rail lines to Oregon City, to Molalla, and between Tualatin, Lake Oswego and Oregon City. While the County study would be coordinated with those studies, those studies would not drive the County study. Mr. Hendryx reported that Tom Brian was instrumental in getting the funding for the study. He ` i confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the state money would pay for the study except for the local ! contributions of probably in-kind services. He said that he was concerned about that and would make sure that they could adequately staff their portion. ii > Councilor Hunt asked about the footbridge across the Tualatin. Mr. Hendryx said that while Council discussed that issue, they did not take any action on it. r > Mr. Hendryx reported that the rail line was nearing agreement to vacate the western line through town that used the bridge across the Tualatin River at Cook Park. The vacated land would 3 return to the state as a state corridor. The City would work with ODOT to get pedestrian access across the bridge. He noted the necessity of Tualatin purchasing or reserving the right of way of jj the rail line. He commented that the rail was looking to the City for help in acquiring the line. i 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at j p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real i property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 13 ! j I l ~J Y t 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 p.m. i i Attest: a erine Wheatley, City Recorder r, City of Tigard ~ry~ `~~/yam 4ate: ~',r' o`er ~"E't I i:\adm\cathy\ccm'970 26.dac - j 4 4'. - ~ j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1997 - PAGE 14 1 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal ~ ift P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 661-0360 Notice T i 8 912 k ' BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ] Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice } 1 r 13125 SU Hall Blvd. I • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. I I _ Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the-Tj-gard-Tualatin `l;imes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at-_T_ hard in the aforesaid county and state; that the ri ty C'c~nnCi_1 RV~; nAfiS fAeet-inc7 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for Or]E successive and consecutive in the following issues: ' August 21,1997 Subscribed and sworn to fore me this 2 lst day of Auqust , 1997 OFFICIAL SEAL I. ROBIN A. SMOEW Not ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT WN OF TIGARD OREGON The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full_ agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING August 26, 1997 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) > Executive Session Business Meeting (Town Hall Room) (7:30 P.M.) IJ > Award Contract -1997-98 Pavement Major Maintenance Program > Award Contract -1997-98 Slurry Seal Program > Public Hearing - Annexation of 3.69 acres located on SW Former Street, east of SW 121st > Update: Tigard Triangle: > Public Hearing: Tigard Triangle (Street Standard Adjustment in the t I General Commercial (CG) Zone) M912 - Publish August 21, 1997. l: COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8902 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED • City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice AUG 18 1997 13125 S11 Fall Blvd. • Tigar-d,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD • Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, )as. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. f Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tiaa rd-T11a 1 ar i n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti ga rd _ in the aforesaid county and state; that the ZOA 97-0003 Tigard Trinnglp a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for-021P. successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 14 , 1997 OFFICIAL SEAL t JACOUIELIN6 ARELLANO NOTARYPUBLIC•OREGON - COMMISSION NO. 30101 i f MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE B, 2001 riw 14th day of Au (.'r Subscribed and swo to befo me; his } gust,1997 ~ t I Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ` AFFIDAVIT - _ ilf 1 i 1 i ~ ~ t The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday, I August 26, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center- Town Hall I' :Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and j :written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be J conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard -Municipal Code and rules and procedures of the Tigard City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the ;close of the hearing on the request of failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond 1 to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW - Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0003 Street Standards Adjustment in the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle REQUEST: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the `Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets^ j . to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 9^>`.'.', west of 1-5, and north of Highway i 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals - 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. La, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, I 8.1.1.8.1.2; 8.1.3, 8.1.8(f). Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Triangle Design Standards. ZONE: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE). 3 M902 - Publish August 14, 1997. - i I - y j i j i i f { COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT II 901 - BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED • City of Tigard 13 Tearsheet Notice AUG 18 1997 13125 S[7 Fall Blvd. ° Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD •Accounts Payable ° AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ~4-W STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Ka-thy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 f and 193.020; published at r arr7 in the 1 aforesaid county and state; that the ZCA 91-0001 Ponner Stet a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the { l entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and I' j consecutive in the following issues: 1 August 14,1997 1. I OFFICIAL SEAL JACQUELINE ARELLANO NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 301011 I" COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9, 200, Subscribed and savor to betd~e me this v Of August, 1997 I , ~ t Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 3 AFFIDAVIT _ 1 I - ' The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday, G August 26, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written tes- timony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the re- quest or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 97.0001 FONNERSTREET REQUEST: The applicants, DAAL Homes/Eaton Properties, are request- ing annexation of Tax Lot 4400 (2S 1 3BD) into the City of Tigard. The subject site is 3.69 acres and adjacent to the Hunter's Glen Subdivision. SW Fortner Street borders the property on the south and west sides. The existing City boundary runs along the north boundary line of the site. Cur- rent Washington County designation is the R-5 District (Residential 5 Units Per Acre) which is in conformance with the City's Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. LOCATION: A 3.69 acre parcel that is bordered by SW Fonner on its south and west sides. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involve- ment; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements, and 18.138, land classification of an- nexed territory. ZONE: Currently Washington County R-5; proposed City of Tigard R-4.5. 14 1 1 _ i . _ i I TT8901 -Publish August 14, 1996. i t • i, i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING j i In the Matter of the Proposed i STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose ands That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance i Number (s) Al which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated pi, ~,Xru I it eZ copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being h to attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ E Q- day of_~~~Sllyr~ll/l , 19qj I 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon I 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon I Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public for Oregon \ M JO ANN HAYES NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: 5 COMMISSION NO 042148 Y MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 05. 199, L•1adm~olalfposLdm j I j 1 E JF y I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i ORDINANCE NO. 97-I i ~ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 97-0001). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on August 27, 1997, to consider a zoning designation for one parcel of land located along SW Fonner Street east of SW 121 st Avenue; and I, WHEREAS, on August 26, 1997, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and i " . i. WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land v use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: j' SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows: i Tax Map. Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use 2S1 3BD, lot 4400 Wash. Co. R-5 Low Density Residential Current Zoning New Zoning 1 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5 SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.I PASSED: By ((~Q/17~10U5 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, thiso)fj day of~u .1 '~L 97. I CGS ~t Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder { APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this lay of./4 1- 1997 3 Jam icoli, Mayor Appr ed as to-form: City Attorney Date 1 ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 1 3 ~ I I I 1 171 c 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : August 26.1997 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME:,, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED . C)V\-V\ l y $ w 1C JL f N ti G 4,51 hr= ~C✓~h1 V v j i i P N . kkadmIjoWlsitshtdoc - i f 1 -Pepending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of me each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: August 26, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 97-0001 - FONNER STREET (DAAL HOMES/EATON PROPERTIES) Request: The applicants, DAAL Homes/Eaton Properties are requesting annexation of Tax Lot 4400 (2S1 3BD) into the City of Tigard. The subject site is 3.69 acres and adjacent to Hunter's I Glen Subdivision. SW Former Street borders the property on the south and west sides. The existing City boundary runs along the north boundary line of the site. Current Washington County designation is the R-5 District (Residential 5 Units Per Acre) which is in conformance with the City's Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Location: A 3.69 acre parcel that is bordered by SW Fonner on its south and west sides PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i i i ',-~ENDA ITEM NO. 4_ PLEASE PRINT j Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, ddress appnd Pho No. Name, Address and Phone No. ~(C~ nG'LVt Z e~~- - I j Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1 I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. A (Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. { Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. f, Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I i i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No., 3 - Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. n~ J-j L j 7 l j li r ' depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of ~ }ne each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: August 26, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZOA 97-0003 - STREET STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT IN THE CG ZONE OF THE TIGARD TRIANGLE Request: Amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General Zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards I j within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway- oriented signs within the Tigard l j Triangle. Location: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of I-5, and north of Highway 217. I I' _ I PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i A I I AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 n PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) ANe, Ad&drandl one No. Name, Address and Phone No. l'~c(tA~L ~.ISrnjSot~ Z-'ill ckl`lN J '7TOEL P-( VL? LL P " 9Lf ~vJ S tY, A VE' , '7Uf7E 2~0 p(l_1LAN(~ U'~ . 9204 . X2(,8 Name, Address and Phone No. N/ame, Address and P one No. V'LrG~IL~. --j, c,-~-y i ILzCS- w .fir-?2 ciA-e T 9UV ~7.Z 23 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I i ~ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ~r i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Pr - Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i J Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I11 L 1 F 1 -Proponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (Speaking Against) ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i !j f Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. r I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. . a adm1jo11estity.doc ~ . . ry _ 9 _ .a I -1 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 8-26-97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amend Dog ontrol Agreement with Washington County PREPARED BY: __C, Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE B FOR E THE O 1N I Should the City agree to amend the Dog Control Agreement (dated 8/26/86) with Washington County to cite violators in Justice Court rather than District Court and also update the Agreement to refer to current County Code sections? STAFF RE COMMENDATION Approve the amendments as requested. INFORMATION SUMMARY I f •ttached is a letter from Sr. Assistant County Counsel Alan Rappleyea explaining the requests for amendment to the current Dog Control Agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard. All dog control complaints are handled and cited by the County; the Police Department has no objections to this request. f OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED r 1. Give staff direction if another course of action is desired. FISCAL NOTES j n/a 0admkathylcourci1%dogsum.doc F7.. - a #u j AMENDMENT TO DOG CONTROL AGREEMENT l , THIS AMENDMENT TO THE DOG CONTROL AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this day of 1997, between Washington County, a home rule subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter "County" and the City of Tigard, a duly incorporated city in Washington County, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "City." The Agreement was initially entered into on August 26, 1986, by the City and ! I I County and has been renewed for successive three-year terms by the parties. County enacted its Dog Control Ordinance as No. 306. Ordinance No. 306, which is referred to as I the Agreement, has been amended by Ordinance Nos. 317,394 and 491. These Ordinances ' are codified in the Washington County Code at Section 6.04. j.. The parties agree to amend the Dog Control Agreement as follows: I ; I 1) All references to Ordinance No. 306 shall be amended to read: "Washington County Code Section 6.04." ~l 2) The last sentence in Paragraph No. 3 shall be amended to read: "All i citations issued for a violation of the Dog Control Ordinance shall be adjudicated under the procedures established in Washington County Code Section 6.04." 3) Any amendment to Washington County Code Section 6.04 made after the i date of this Agreement shall not affect the terms of the Agreement. _ J AMENDMENT TO DOG CONTROL AGREEMENT Pagel i , 1 The City and County hereby agree to the provisions of this Amendment to the Dog Control Agreement. DATED this day of~ 1997. City of Tig d By: ~ I or / I By: lL . G _ Lf iLP ~L~f Z City Recorder I DATED this day of 1997. Board of County Commissioners For Washington County, Oregon By: Linda Peters, Chair - By: _ Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Alan A. Rappleyea Sr. Assistant County Counsel AMENDMENT TO DOG CONTROL AGREEMENT Paget ! - atldXllV~CI1~OCi~t - - 9 4 1 RECEIVED FEB 2 7,1936 _ DOG CONTROL. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this *111t day of • Apr,- 198, by and between WASHINGTON COUNTY, a home rule subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter t~ referred to as "County" and a duly incorporated city in Washington County, Oregon, herein- after referred to as `City". . i - WITHESSETH aY ✓ +r~ ORS 203.040 provides that a County ordinance adopted in the exercise of its police powers may apply within an incorporated city, provided the electors of the city or its governing body I consent thereto. ~ i j 'I County has adopted Ordinance No. 306, a Dog Control 1, E Ordinance, which provides for enforcement of the Ordinance within the boundaries of municipal corporations in the County, upon intergovernmental agreement for such enforcement. County does maintain a Dog Control Department with a staff 1 responsible for the enforcement and administration of the County Dog Control Program. City desires to maintain a Dog Control program within its territory by means of this intergovernmental agreement and the terms of County Ordinance No. 306, except as otherwise provided herein. t t z I` AGREEMENT Page 2 .~i 4 W , i i j City desires to contract with the County for the administration and enforcement of the City's Dog Control Program, and to terminate any prior a3reements for dog control between City and County. County is agreeable to rendering those services on the terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement. It would be in the best interest of City c d County to enter ! into such an agreement to avoid duplication of effort and to i minimize personnel costs, as authorized and provided by ORS i'. 190,010 through 190.030. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth in this Agreement, it is mutually agreed as follows: ' i 1. County Ordinance No. 306. attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, shall be enforced within the boundaries of the City. The term 'Washington County' appearing in Ordinance No. 306 shall be deemed to include City for the purposes of this Agreement. The Washington County Dog Control Division shall administer the Dog Control Program and 4.. enforce Ordinance No. 306 within the City. The Dog Control Program shall include those duties and functions of the type .k AGREEMENT Page 3 coming within the jurisdiction of and customarily performed by the County in the administration and enforcement of the County's Dog Control Program. 2. The rendition of such service, standards of performance, and employment of Dog Control Officers, and other matters j i incident to the performance of these services shall remain in the County. County shall retain full responsibility for the acts and i omissions of its officers and employees, anta.shall hold City harmless for County employees'- n-egligence subject to the provisions of ORS 30.260-30.300, sK 3. County shall furnish and supply all necessary personnel, equipment, communication facilities and shelter-for animals as necessary to maintain the level of services to be rendered under t _ 'i this Agreement: All citations issued for a violation of Ordinance No. 306 shall be adjudicated in Washingtoon.3v- District Court. ! 4. County will issue all licenses and permits required by ~ •y`r~..-'-~. Ordinance No. 306 and collect and retain all fees from sale of ter licenses and permits. City agrees that County shall retain all fees, charges and fines collected in the enforcement and administration of Ordinance No. 306. These monies are intended to defray partially the expenses lncurre8 by County in the administration and enforcement of Ordinance No. 306 and shall be _ 1 p AGREEMENT Page 4 the consideration for the services rendered. County shall perform the services and duties described herein at no cost to City. 1 5. Any prior agreement between City and County shall terminate on the effective time and date of this Agre?ment. j 6. City retains full authority to enact regulations II pertaining to all other subjects which may remote to dog control, including but not limited land_use and noise regulations. - City may enact additional or more stringent ordinances pertaining to dog control not otherwise inconsistent with County Ordinance I 1 No. 306. Enforcement of such ordinances and provisions shall be i the exclusive responsibility of City. City may choose to supplement the Dog Control Program within its territory using its personnel at its own expense. City shall hold County harmless from negligent acts or omissions of City employees under this Agreement subject to the provisions of ORS 30.260-30.300. I 7. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of its ( f i j execution, and shall remain in effect for three-(3) years. It I shall be automatically renewed for successive three (3) year terms unless modified, renegotiated or terminated by either I party. Either party may terminate by giving no less than thirty • (30) days written notice of termination., ' i • MREEMEHT Page 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of acting by and through its Mayor and City Recorder, has executed this Agreement on the date appearing below, and Washington County, through its duly organized and authorized Board of County Commissioners, has caused this Agreement to be executed, i DATED this day of U.~. 19816 at i I. Oregon. CITY g1% i By ! • ti - ~ n a o r i. ~y 6My ecorUUr 1 i DATED this 21' day of __~UgtY 198 + at Hillsboro, Oregon. J I. ( BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON j a rman APPROVED WASIIINrTON COUNTY BOARD Of C(i%q:;!1SSiONERS MINUTE URGIiP. - 'g6-347~~ DATE Recording 0036r APPROVED AS TO FOPA i WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON July 23, 1997 Irli 2 8 1997 Honorable Jim Nicoli U City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Dog Control Agreement Dear Mayor Nicoli: Enclosed is a copy of an amendment to the current Dog Control Agreement between your City and Washington County. The current Agreement provides that the County will cite violators to the District Court. Washington County is seeking to cite most dog violations into the Justice Court rather than the District Court in order to increase efficiency. This amendment will allow the County to cite violators into either the District Court or the Justice Court. Some of the more j ` serious violations may still go to District CoL.t. The amendment also updates the Agreement to refer to the current Code sections, which I have attached. Please sign both copies of the attached Amendment and return them to me. I will then forward an executed original back for your records. If you have any questions, please call me. l Very truly yours, Alan A. Rappleyea Sr. Assistant County Counsel Enc.. ar\a&t\dccitylt.doc\de .1 LJ - 1 County Counsel 155 North First Avenue. Suite 340, MS 24, Hillsboro. OR 97124-3072 P hone: (503) 648-8747 • fax: (503) 648-8636 Irl Washington County Code Chapter 6.04 6.04.290 Ilcease-Vaccination required for Issuance. DOGS 6.043D0 Ue nse-Delinquency penalty. j 6.04310 Idcense-'flag. 6.04320 Impoundment-Authority, Sections: 6.04330 Impoundment-Destruction. 6.04.010 Purpose. 6.04340 Impoundment-Acceptance of 6A4.020 Detinitioas. dogs possessed by persons taken 6.04.030 Dog control officers-Powers and Into custody. duties. 6.04350 Impouadment-Disposal generally. 6.04.04D Interfering with officers 6.04360 Impoundment-Ualieensed dog prohibited. disposal. 6.04.050 Faillag to prevent running at 644370 Impoundment-Uceased dog large prohibited. disposal. 6.04.060 Keeping dangerous dog 6.04380 Impoundment-Unwanted dog prohibited. disposal. 6.04.070 Keeping or owning vicious dog 6.04390 Impoundment-Redemption prohibited. requirements. c 6.04.080 Fallure to prevent acts of 6.04A00 Impoundment-Return of nuisance prohibited. purchased dog. 6.04490 Exceptions to acts of nuisance. 6.04.410 Impoundment-Shelter hours. a 6,04.100 Allowing dog with contagious d[s- 6.04.420 Impoundment-Release charges. j ease to run at Large prohibited. 6.04.430 Impoundment-Release for 6.04.110 Ownership of dog not vaccinated purposes of vivisection or similar prohibited. purposes prohibited. ! 6.04120 Failure to quarantine prohibited. 6.04A35 Impoundment-Court order. j 644.130 Removal from county prohibited- 6.04A40 Disposition of moneys. When. 6.04A50 Fees-authority. 644140 Failure to procure license 6.04A60 Kennel or pet shop Ucense- j prohlblted-Whea. Revocation. 6.04150 Fallure to display license 644.070 BIHng dogs-Notice. prohibited. 6MA80 Biting dogs-Notice by person 6441SS Nonownership not a defense. bitten. 644160 Cruelty prohibited. 6.04.490 Biting dogs-Notice by doctor, 6AU70 Cruelty-+Generally, veterinarian or hospital. 6.04180 Cruelty-Specific acts. 644500 Quarantine. 6A4190 Cruly4-Aathodlzed entry and Im- 6.04510 Minng or injuring Iivestock- poundment. Impoundment. I 6.042.00 Cradty-Authorized removal from 6.04M0 WWng or injuring livestock- ! vehicle. S`~te. of .1- 6.04.210 Cr=14-0111cw exemption from 644.530 Lntl -9- or fidu ing livestock- liability when acting to abate. Caudderation of daLuL 6.04=0 rlcease-Required. 6.04.540 Killing or Injuring livestock- 6,04.230 License-Mec ive date. Collection of loin. 644.240 License-Fee. 6.04550 Killing or injuring livestock- 6.04.250 License-Guide dog fee exemption. Authority to kill dog observed in 6.04260 Ilcease-Outside county residence act. exemption. 6.0456g0 Citation-Ferm-and-eontent- 6.04.270 llcease-Outside jurisdiction iId`jbsraf validity. 011-0 6.04.280 1ccense-Kennel or pet shop fee. 6 84b78- 6lta i i 117 (sum. t) Exhibit e) Page of i3 i 6.04.010 Washington County Code 6 0480-G1tattoe-Gommeneement-of possesses, harbors or controls a dog or other animal or Better by-pNvate-peFSea. permits a dog or other animal to reside on property Ica Sewlee. owned by the person, without regard as to whether the 6.04.600 9- mans-Mlalmum person has an ownership interest in the dog or other -Nut-meats, animal. Veterinary hospitals, kennels- and pet shops shall 6.04.5610 Appearance by defendant-When not be deemed the keeper of an animal for purposes required. of this chapter unless expressly provided for herein. In 6104620 y-defendant-;When a family situation, the adult heads of the household are net regale ed. presumed to be the keepers, jointly and severally, of the 604630 Sul Isslen-ofiw Uteu-statement dog. eeastltutes-%ulver. I. `Kennel' means the operation of any business 6.0090640 Vlolatlon-Penalty. or the participation in any activity in which rive or more j dogs with permanent canine teeth or which are more 6.04.010 Purpose. than six months of age are kept on the premises. In order to protect the health, safety and welfare of J. `Uccasec* means the person in whose name a the residents and citizens of the county and to provide dog license is issued, i for control of dogs and protection of dogs and animals K. `Livestock' means cattle, horses, sheep, goats, therein, the board of county commissioners of the county swine, turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits, but does wad the following provisions which may be referred excluding any fur-bearing animals, bred and maintained, to and pleaded as the `dog control ordinance.' (Ord. commercially or otherwise. 306 § 2, 1985) L 'Owner' means any person who has a property interest in the animal sufficient to give the person the 654.020 Definitions, ultimate right to make decisions regarding the pre and As used in this chapter, unless the context requires disposition of the animal. otherwise: M. `Person' means an individual, a partnership, com- I A. 'Animal' means any mammal, bird, reptile or pany, association, corporation, oranyotherlegal entity. amphibian. N. 'Pet shop' means any person regularly engaged i _ B. `Bail' means money or its equivalent deposited in the business of breeding, buying, selling, trading or i by a defendant to secure his appearance in court for a otherwise offering the public animals of any species. { dog control ordinance offense. O. 'Small animal shelter' means the facility by that 1 C. `Dangerous dog' means any dog that has, due name, built and maintained by the county. to the lark of the , `s of proper and adequate sups vi- P. 'Vaoanatod for rabies' means currently vaochated sion and control by its owner or keeper, done an act according to'the provisions of Oregon Administrative harmful in its character, to human beings or animals, Rules, Chapter 333, Division 19, pertaining to rabies, I; regardless of whether done in a playful or hostile manner. and evidenced by rabies vaccination certificate issued D. 'Dog' means any domestic mammal of the canine by a veterinarian. fly. Q. 'Veterinarian' means a participating veterinarian E. 'Dog control officer' means any individual em- licensed pursuant to the laws of the state of Oregon to played by the county to act and perform the duties set perform any of the acts set forth in ORS 686.0:10. forth in this chapter. R. `Veterinary hospital' means any business establish- F. 'Dog license' means that license required to be meat maintained and operated by a veterinarian which issued annually for each individual dog pursuant to the is operated for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases provisions of this chapter. or injuries of animals. G. `Dog running at large' means a dog off or outside S. `Vicious dog' means any dog that has, due to the premises of its keeper, not restrained by a rope, line, its size, nature or other characteristics, done an unreason- leash, chain, or other similar means, or not under the able act harmful in its character to human beings or immediate control, restraint, or command of a keeper animals, done in a hostile manner, (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. i thereof. If a dog is not restrained by a tether of some A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 3, 1985) kind, is not at bee] or not a working dog in the field, that dog shall be deemed `at large.' H. 'Keeper' means any person who keeps, has custody of, is responsible for the control or pre of, is yy. 4 118 8 Exhibit -2- Page of 13 i i i 1 I Washington County Code 6.04.030 r n 6.04.030 Dog control officers-Powers and 6.04.060 Keeping dangerous dog prohibited. duties. It is unlawful for any person to be the keeper of a The powers and duties of the dog control officers are dangerous dog. (Ord. 394 § 2 F-xb. A (part), 1991: Ord. as follows: 306 § 5(A)(3), 1985) A. To have police power in the enforcement of all provisions of this chapter relating to the licensing and 6.04.070 Keeping or owning vicious dog impounding of dogs prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to be the owner or keeper gh-&:04.630; of a vicious dog. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exb. A (part), 1991: Ord. B. To maintain and keep a small animal shelter or 306 § S(A)(4), 1985) other place where all dogs and small animals subject to impoundment may be kept and held safely and provided 6.04.080 Failure to prevent acts of nuisance with proper and sufficient food, water and shelter; prohibited. C. To impound and keep safely, any dog which is It is unlawful for any person to be the keeper of a found doing any of the acts set forth in Sections 6.04.040 dog which the person fails to prevent from being a public through 6.04.210 of this chapter, apparently abandoned nuisance by, or as required by the departmentofhealthofthecounty A. Molesting passersby, D. To issue ~~it s 'BE at%-4U i f B. Biting a person or animal; ~X C. Chasing or attacking persons; pursuant to 88etiens 6.04=560 thFough 6.04.630 e D. Attacking other animals; E. Traveling upon school grounds, public parks, public ate judsd3 oes, appear as witnesses and to perform all game refuges and public watershed areas, except under other acts nec=aryfortheenforcement ofthis chapter,, the supervision and control of a person and with the 13 To receive and collect any costs and charges here- property owner or manager's written permission; I iaafter provided by this chapter, F. Damaging or destroying property of persons other F. To investigate reports of biting dogs as herein than the owner or keeper of the dog; set forth by this chapter, G. Scattering garbage; G. To investigate livestock claims made pursuant H. Chasing vehicles; to Sections 6.04510 through 6.04550 of this chapter, I. Disturbing the peace, comfort, health or repose H. To post signs and notices stating that a dog control of any person of reasonable sensitivity by making loud, ordinance is in effect in the county, and advising the long, unnecessary and continuous noises; public as to provisions of the ocdimmoe; J. Being a female dog in season (estrus) and being L As funds in the dog fund permit, to conduct educa- accessible to a male dog not in the person's ownership tional and other programs to inform and advise the public except when access to the female dog is intended by the and animal keepers and owners of the dog control ordi- keepers or owners of both dogs for breeding purposes. nance Lansing and other provisions thereof; and proper (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § S(A)(5), care of dogs and other domestic animals. (Ord. 394 § 1985) 2 FdL A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 4, 1985) 6.04.090 Exceptions to acts of nuisance. 6.04A40 Interfering with olQcers prohibited. A dog shall not be considered a public nuisance under It is unlawful for any person to interfere with, hinder, Section 6.04.080 if it bites a person wrongfully assaulting molest or verbally abuse a dog control officer while in the dog or the dog's owner or keeper or if it bites a the exercise of his or her duties. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A person trespassing upon premises occupied by the dog's (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(1), 1985) keeper after being provoked by that person. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(6), 1985) 6.04.050 Falling to prevent running at large prohibited. 6.04.100 Allowing dog with contagious It is unlawful for any person to be the keeper of a disease to run at large prohibited. dog running at large. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: It is unlawful for any person to be the keeper or owner Ord. 306 § 5(A)(2), 1985) of a dog affected with a contagious disease which runs at large or is exposed in any public place whereby the health of man or beast may be affected. Such dog may ~j 119 (sp. 1) Exhibit -6 I Page 3 of /3 i I i 6.04.100 Washington County Codc be removed from the premises of the owner or keeper dog for which he has failed to display a dog license upon or other person by a veterinarian, dog control officer such dog when it is off the licensee's premises, if such or police officer or by any person supervised by the license is required under this chapter. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh, department of health of the county. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(12), 1985) A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(7), 1985) 6.04.155 Nonownership not a defense. 6.04.110 Ownership of dog not vaccinated Lack of ownership interest in the dog shall not be prohibited. a defense to a citation or any other legal proceeding It is unlawful to be the owner or keeper of a dog not arising from failure to procure or display a license. (Ord. vaccinated for rabies, which has been alleged to have 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991) bitten a person. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(8), 1985) 6.04.160 Cruelty prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly or negligently 6,04120 Failure to quarantine prohibited. commit acts of cruelty to animals. (Ord. 306 § It is unlawful for any person to fail to safely quarantine 5(A) (13) (part), 1985) any dog alleged to have bitten a person by. A- Searing said dog on the owner or keeper'spremis- 6.04.170 Cruelty-Generally. es with the approval and under the supervision of the General ads of cruelty include but are not limited county health department or countydog control division, to the following: and not allowing said dog to be at large or to come in A. To subject any animal under a person's ownership, contact with any other person or animals; or custody or control to cruel mistreatment; or B. Placing said dog in a veterinary hospital; or B. To subject any animal under a person's ownership, C. Impounding said dog at the small animal shelter, custody or control to cruel neglect; or or C. To kill without legal privilege any animal under D. Refusing to allow a dog control officer to impound the ownership, custody or control of another person. (Ord. said dog when said officer has probable cause to believe 306 § 5(A)(13)(a), 1985) that such person has failed to comply with the quarantine requirements of subsections A, B or C of this section. 6.04.180 Cruel-Spmffic acts. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(9), Specific ads of cruelty to animals include but are not 1985) limited to the following: f A. For any person to overdrive, overload, drive when ( 6A4130 Removal from county prohibited- overloaded, ovawock, torture, tormeat, deprive of rucesr Whem sary sustenance, cruelly beat, mutilate or cruelly kill, or It is unlawful for any person to knowingly remove or cause or procure any such cruel treatment of any animal cause the removal from the county of a dog for which while having the charge of or custody of any such animal the owner or keeper has been cited under Sections as owner, or otherwise; or 6.04.060 or 6A4A70 of this chapter, or for which the B. For anyowner orkeeper ofanyanimal ,toc uelly owner or keeper has received a written warning of such drive or work the animal when unfit for labor, or to offease from the dog control division. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. cruelly abandon any animal, or to carry or cause any A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(10), 1985) animal to be carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise, in a cruel, inhumane manner, or knowingly or wilfully 6.04.140 Failure to procure license authorize or permit the animal to be subjected to torture, prohibited-When. suffering, or cruelty of any kind; or It is unlawful for any person to be the keeper of any C. For any person owning, having charge or custody dog for which a dog license has not been obtained if such of any animal, except in the case of an emergency to license is required under Sections 6.04220 through deprive any such animal of necessaryand adequate food 6.04310 of this chapter. (Ord. 394 § 2 EA. A (part), for more than thirty-six hours or drink for more than 1991: Ord. 306 § 5(A)(11), 1985) twelve hours; D. For any person owning, having charge or custody 6.04.150 Failure to display license prohibited. of any animal, except in the case of an emergency to It is unlawful for any person to be the keeper of any deprive any such animal of necessary, adequate and humane shelter from the elements; \J (sum. 0 120 B Exhibit Page 4 of I i FF Washington County Code 6.04.180 E. For any person to confine an animal within or the date the dog reaches six months or has permanent !1 on a motor vehicle at any location under conditions that canine teeth, whichever comes first. Any such dog shall endanger the health or well-being of the animal, including be licensed within thirty days of being brought into but not limited to: dangerous temperature; lack of food, Washington County. or attention for more than thirty-six hours, or water for B. Every keeper of a dog shall ensure that the dog more than twelve hours; or confinement with a dangerous is properly licensed and shall obtain a License for any animal. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § unlicensed dog required to be licensed pursuant to subsec- 5(A)(13)(b)(1)-(5), 1985) tion A. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 6(A), 1985) 6.04.190 Cruelty-Authorized entry and Impoundment. 6.04.230 Ucense-Effective date. If there is urobable cause to believe that subsections A dog license shall be effective for one year from the C or D of Section 6.04.180 are being violated, after date of issuance. The dog control division shall keep a obtaining a search warrant in the manner authorized by numbered record of such licenses including information law, an animal control officer, peace officer, or any as to sex and breed of the dog, name and address of the combination, may enter the premises where the animal licensee. The division may provide for annual license is being held, provide food and water and impound such renewal in any manner that will promote administrative animal. If after reasonable search the owner or keeper convenience and efficiency. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), of such animal cannot be found and notified of the 1991: Ord. 306 § 6(B), 1985) impoundment, such notice shall be conspicuously posted on such premises and within seventy-two hours after the 6.04.240 license-Fee. impoundment such notice shall be sent by certified mail A fee shall be charged for each dog license in the to the address, if any, at which the animal was impounded. amount established pursuant to Section 6.04.450. This (Ord 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 199L• Ord. 306 § 5(A)(13)(b- fee is due and payable on application for a dog license. )(6)+ 1985) If a dog keeper pays the license fee but fails to supply the required proof of rabies inoculation within thirty days 6.042.00 Cruelty-Authorized removal from of such payment, the amount paid shall be forfeited and vehicle, retained by the division. (Ord 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), - Any animal control or peace officer is authorized to 1991: Ord 306 § 6(C), 1985) remove any animal from a motor vehicle at any location when the officer reasonably believes it is confined in 6.04250 Uocase-Guide dog fee exemption. violation of subsection E of Section 6.04.180 and that Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, harm to the confined animal has occurred or is in immi- any dog used as a guide dog by a blind or deaf person nent danger ofoccurrence. Anyanimal so removed shall is exempt from a license fee while so used, but is not be delivered to the animal control shelter after the except from being licensed or from required rabies removing officer leaves written notice of the removal inoculation. (Ord. 306 16 (D), 1955) and defivety. Such notice shall include the officer's name, the address and phone number of the shelter, and shall 6.04260 Ucease-Outslde county residence be placed in a conspicuous, secure location on or within exemption. the vehicle. (Ord 306 § 5(A)(13) (b) (7), 1985) Sections 6.04220 through 6.04250 and 6.04270 through 6.04310 shall not apply to dog keepers residing outside 6.04.210 Cruelty-Officer exemption from the county, if dogs of such persons are kept within the liability when acting to abate. county for thirty days or less, are duly licensed by the No animal control or peace officer shall be held jurisdiction inwhich the person resides, and if such dogs criminally or civilly liable for action under Sections are kept at all times under restraint. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. 6.04.040 through 6.04.200, provided the officer acts in A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 6(E), 1985) good faith on probable cause and without malice. (Ord. 306 § 5(A)(13)(b)(8), 1985) 6.04270 UcenseOutside jurisdiction validity. 6.04220 Ucense-Required. Licenses from other jurisdictions shall be valid in the A. Every dog shall be licensed within thirty days after county until they expire, provided any such license re- 121 Exhibit 8 (sum r) Page 5 of 13 { L L L J 6.04270 Washington County Code quires inoculation against rabies until that date. (Ord. of a kennel or pet shops, a license certificate from the n 306 § 6(F), 1985) dog control division upon satisfactory proof of loss and payment of a fee in an amount established pursuant to 6.04.280 L ecuse-Kennel or pet shop fee. Section 6.04.450. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. Any kennel or pet shop, or other such establishment 306 § 6(.f), 1985) which possesses, controLs, owns, boards, keeps or has custody of dogs in the course of its business or other 6.04320 Impoundment-Authority. activities, which have permanent canine teeth or which Whenever any dog is found performing any of the are more than six months of age, shall pay an annual activities enumerated in Sections 6.04.040 through 6.04210 license fee in an amount established pursuant to Section of this chapter, or has bitten any person or animal, a 6.04.450. This fee shall be in lieu of the individual licens- dog control officer, any peace officer, or any other person ing and fee payment requirement for any dog kept by may impound it by immediately delivering such dog to the establishment. Notwithstanding this provision, any the small animal shelter. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), eligible dog must be licensed pursuant to Sections 6.0422- 1991: Ord. 306 § 7(A), 1985) 0-6.04240 within thirty days of leaving the custody or possession of the establishment. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A 6.04330 Impoundment-Destruction. (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 6(G), 1985) Any impounded dog, which by reason of injury, disease or other cause, is suffering great pain or is dangerous 6.04.290 Uceuse-Vaaluation required for to keep impounded, may be destroyed forthwith. The Issuance, dog control division may request a veterinarian to certify The owner or keeper of any dog with permanent canine to this fact in writing before such immediate destruction teeth or which is more than six months of age kept in is undertaken. (Ord. 306 § 7(B), 1985) the county, including any dog owned by a kennel or pet shop, shall have that dog vaodnated for rabies No license 6.04340 Impoundment-Acceptance of dogs shall be issued for any dog, unless the applicant exhibits possessed by persons taken into a certificate of such vaccination by a veterinarian. The custody. certificate of inoculation must demonstrate that such The county dog control division, upon request of the _ vaccination is valid for immunity against rabies for not county sheriff's office or the Oregon State Police, shall less than tea full months of the licensing period. However, accept and take into custody and control at the small if a veterinarian certifies to some physical condition of animal shelter any dog in the possession or under the a dog which would prevent such inoculation for any control of any person taken into custody by such police period, no inoculation shall be required for the dog for agencies. The dog control division shall retain such dog that period, and a license may be issued for that dog. for a period of five days, and unless during such period (Ord. 394 § 2Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 6",1985) the person taken into custody has redeemed said dog or has made other arrangements for the care and custody 6.04300 Manse-Delloquen y penalty. of such dog, such dog shall be deemed abandoned, and Any keeper failing to procure or apply for a license such dog may at any time thereafter be disposed of as as required by this chapter in any year shall pay a delis- provided in Section 6.04390. In the event the person, quent penalty for such failure in an amount established the licensee or the owner of record reclaims said dog pursuant to Section 6.04.450 for each dog. (Ord. 394 § or arranges for the same to be taken out of the custody 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 6(I), 1985) of the dog control department of the county, said dog shall be released upon payment of the fee for redemption 6.04310 Lcense-Tag. as provided in Sections 6.04350 through 6.04380. At the Upon issuance of a dog license,, the dog control division time the dog is delivered to the small animal shelter by shall issue to the licensee a metallic or durable plastic the sheriffs department or state police, such police agency license tag, prepared with one hole and stamped with shall take from the county dog control division, a receipt an identifying number, the name Washington County, therefor in duplicate, which receipt shall be in a form Oregon, and the effective date of the license. Such tag approved by the county counsel's office of the county, shall be securely fastened to the dog's collar or harness and shall have incorporated therein, notice to the licensee and shall be worn at all times when the dog is not on of such dog that such dog maybe disposed of within five the premises of the licensee. If a license tag is lost, a days unless the licensee or person taken into custody licensee may secure a duplicate license tag, or in the case (supp. r) 122 Exhibit Page w of "3 t Washington County Code 6.04,340 makes proper arrangements for its custody and care. authorized representative must be given in writing to ^ (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 7(C),1985) the dog control division if a dog is to be destroyed within five days from such date, except as provided in Section 6.04350 Impoundment-Disposal generally. 6.04330. A person giving any dog to dog control for Ilse dog control division shall keep any dog impounded disposal pursuant to this section shall be charged a fee or delivered to the dog control division for disposal or in an amount established pursuant to Section 6.04.450. as otherwise provided in this chapter, for the period of (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 7(1))(3), time hereinafter speed, and shall dispose of dogs in 1985) accordance with the provisions set out in Sections 6.04360 through 6.04380. (Ord. 306 § 7(13)(part), 1985) 6.04390 Impoundment-Redemption requirements. 6.04360 Impoundment-Unlicensed dog A. A dog maybe transferred to a person other than disposal. the licensee or owner or sold only if the following qualili- Unless an unlicensed dog is redeemed, within three cations are met: days after impoundment in a manner consistent with 1. That the dog is in good health and free from dis- Section 6.04.390, the dog may be destroyed or sold in ease or in lieu thereof that the person purchasing or re- a manner consistent with Section 6.04390. If such dog deeming such dog make adequate and humane provisions has been impounded because of the biting of a person, for veterinary care of such dog, and does not have a vaccination which is valid for immuai- 2. That the dog is neither dangerous nor vicious; ty against rabies at such time, such dog shall be kept 3. That if the dog is sold, the purchaser pay prior in impoundment and quarantined for such period of time to sale, the basic impoundment fee in an amount estab- asnecessarytoobserve said dogforthe required ten-day lished pursuant to Section 6.04.450; quarantine period commencing after the biting of a B. To redeem a dog the licensee or owner shall pay person. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § the impoundment and boarding charges and other fees, 7(D) (1), 1985) as applicable, prior to release of the dog; and shall supply j proof of identity as the licensee or ownership. If the dog 6.04370 Impoundment-Ucensed dog is unlicensed, the person redeeming the dog shall purchase - disposal. a license and pay all applicable fees and penalties; Unless a dog which evidences a valid license by this C. That the dog be immunized against rabies within county or some other authorized governmental entity, thirty days after sale unless the dog lacks permanent is redeemed within seven days after notice of impound- canine teeth or is less than six months of age at the end meat, is marled, such dog may be destroyed or sold of said thirty days, or there is proof that the dog has a consistent with the manner pcrscn-bcd by Section 6.04-M. rabies vaccination valid for the current licensing period; Within five days after impoundment, notice of such D. That the dog be licensed at the time of sale unless i ; impoundment shall be given by deposit in the United the dog lacks permanent canine teeth or is less than six States mail of a certified and postage prepaid letter months of age. (Ord 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. addressed to the person who purchased the license for 306 § 7(E), 1985) f the dog at his address shown on the license application. The notice shall advise the persoa that the dog has been 6.04At10 Impoundment-Return of purchased impounded, the place where the dog is kept, and the dog. procedure required for redemption. If a dog is sold under Any dog sold by the dog control division may be re- the provisions set out in Sections 6.04320 through 6.04: turned within thirty days after purchase in exchange for 430, to someone other than the prior licensee, a new another dog which qualifies for sale, or a voucher good license must be purchased. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), for one year. Such exchange shall be free of any further 1991: Ord. 306 § 7(13)(2), 1985) impoundment fee. (Ord. 306 § 7(F), 1985) 6.04380 Impoundment-Unwanted dog 6.04.410 Impoundment-Shelter hours. disposal. The small animal shelter shall be open at reasonable Anydog given to the dog control division by the owner, times to the public, as the board of county commissioners keeperor licensee thereof for disposal maybe destroyed may determine. Such times shall be posted at the small or sold in a manner consistent with Section 6.04390, animal shelter. (Ord. 306 § 7(G), 1985) provided that a release by the owner, licensee or an Exhibit s..~ 123 tsupP. i, Page -7 of 13 f ~J J j 6.04.420 Washington County Code 6.04,420 impoundment-Release charges. 6.04.440 Disposition of moneys. Charges in an amount established pursuant to Section All sums representing license fees, delinquent license 6.04.450 shall be imposed for release of an impounded penalties, proceeds from the sale of dogs, impoundment dog redeemed (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. chafges and all other moneys and fees paid to the dog 306 § 7", 1985) control division shall be turned over to the director of support services of the county as part of the dog fund 6.04.430 Impoundment-Release for purposes of the county. (Ord. 306 § 8, 1985) of vivisection or similar purposes prohibited. 6.04AS0 Fees-Authority. The dog control division shall not sell or give away The board of county commissioners shall prescribe any live animal for surgical or medical demonstration by resolution and order and may from time to time amend or vivisection, nor permit the use of any impounded live the amount of each fee and charge imposed bythis chap- animal in its custody for such purpose. (Ord. 394 § 2 ter. The amounts shall be established upon a finding of Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 7(f), 1985) the board that they are reasonably necessary to help defray the costs of the services for which the fees and 6.04.435 Impoundment-Court order. charges are imposed Such resolution and order may also A. Whenever any dog is alleged to have bitten, provide procedures for forfeiture or refunds of fees and attacked, damaged or harmed a person and a citation charges. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § for ownership or keeping a dangerous or vicious dog has 15, 1985) been issued andeF this eheptee, the court may order the dog impounded pending trial, sentencing, or other disposi- 6.04.460 Kennel or pet shop license- tion of such citation. Revocation. 1. Upon motion and affidavit showing the facts con- The board of county commissioners may, after a stituting the violation and the circumstances of a potential hearing and opportunityto be heard, revoke any kennel danger to public safety, the court may make an order or Pu shop dog license ifthe person 'g such license upon the person charged with the violation, to show cause refuses or fails to complywith this chapter, or any other whythe dog should not be impounded pending disposition state or local laws regarding the keeping of dogs. Any _ of the citation for the violation. The order shall state person whose ficease is revoked shall, within ten days, the time and place for hearing on the motion "d6hall humanely dispose of all dogs owned by him. No part of be seFmd as pEo-Aded in SeWea 6..04=590. the license fee shall be refunded in such case. It shall 7- R, upon hearing, the court determines by a pre- be a condition of the issuance of any dog license to any ponderaace of evidence that unless impounded, the dog kennel or pct shop that dog control officers shall be per- is a potential danger to public health, safety or welfare, mitred to inspect all dogs and the premises where such the court may order the dog impounded at the county dogs are kept at anyreasonable time and theboard may, animal shelter or other secure facility satisfactory to the if permission for such inspection is refused, revoke the court, pending the disposition oftheviolatioa. The court permit oftherefusing owner. Acopyofthissection shall may consider the nature of the conduct constituting the appear on the application for all licenses set forth in alleged violation, any prior convictions and citations Section 6.04210. Review of the board's actions shall be pertaining to the dog and the defendants's past and solely and exclusively by writ of review as provided in present ability to control the dog and prevent it from ORS 34.010 through 34.100. (Ord 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), harming any person, and the available alternatives to 1991: Ord. 306 § 9, 1985) protect the public from harm. B. The court may order the defendant to deliver the 6.04.470 Biting dogs-Notice. dog to the animal shelter and to payin advance the usual The owner or keeper of a dog which bites a human boarding fees charged by the animal shelter. Upon being shall notify the department of public health of the impoundment under this section, no dog shall be released county immediately of such bite, giving the name and or destroyed, except upon further order by the court. address of the person bitten, if known to him, and shall The defendant shall be responsible for all fees incurred abide by the quarantine instructions given by the depart- due to impoundment under this section. (Ord. 394 § 2 meet of health of the county. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 317 § 2 (Exh. A), 1986) 1991: Ord. 306 § 10(A), 1985) rSWO. 0 124 Exhibit 6 Page of 13 Washington County Code 6.04.480 6.04.480 Biting dogs-Notice by person bitten. for laboratory analysis (Ord 394 § 2 Fidi A(part), 199E Any person who is bitten by a dog shall forthwith notify Ord. 306 § 10(D), 1985) the department of health of the county of such bite, giving a description of the dog and the name and address of 6.04510 Wiling or injuring livestock- the owner, if known to him. (Ord. 306 § 10(B), 1985) Impoundment. When a dog control officer has reason to believe that 6.04.490 Biting dogs-Notice by doctor, a dog has recently engaged in killing, wounding, injuring veterinarian or hospital. or chasing livestock, and that reasonable testing of the When a doctor, veterinarian or hospital has information dog will provide substantial evidence as to whether the that a person has been bitten by a dog, such person or dog has been so engaged, the dog control officer may hospital shall forthwith notify the county department of impound such dog and provide for administration of tests public health. (Ord. 306 § 10(C), 1985) by a licensed veterinarian or properly qualified dog control officer. 6.04500 Quarantine. A. If the dog control division determines through j All dogs alleged to have bitten a person shall be tests that the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, quarantined as herein provided for a period often days injuring or chasing livestock, the dog owner shall pay commencing from the day of the alleged bite. the cost of administering the tests, in addition to any A. If the owner of any dog alleged to have bitten impoundment, boarding or other fees and fines, if an;. a person can produce a valid veterinarian's rabies vacana- B. If a dog is impounded and tested upon receipt Lion certificate providing immunity for the time said of evidence from a complainant, the dog control division alleged bite occurred and such dog does not exhibit determines through tests that the dog has not been aberrant behavior, such dog may, under the supervision engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or cbasiog livestock, and with the approval of the county dog control division the complainant shall pay the cost of administering the or county health department be quarantined at the tests, the impoundment fee, and the cost of keeping the owner's residence. Such quarantine shall guarantee that dog during the impoundment. (Ord. 306 § 11(A),1985) such dog shall be securely confined and kept from contact ' with any other animal or human, except persons autho- 6.04520 Killing or Injuring livestock- _ rimed by the county dog control division or county depart- Statement of claim. ment of public health as they deem necessary for the The owner of any livestock killed by any dog may, protection of the public health, safety and welfare. within fits days after fire killing occurs, or becomes known B. Dogs alleged to have bittea a person that do not to him, present to the dog control division, a verified haw proof of aurent rabies vaccination or current Gceau statement containing a full account of sack Min& stating by the county, dogs with no known owner or licensee in detail the amount of damage claimed on account 4 and dogs a xhibiting aberrant Mmviocshallbe quarantined thereA and the name and address of the owner or keeper { for tea days at the county small animal shelter or by a of the dock if his name is known, as well as any insurance licensed veterinarian at the joint and several expense claim the owner may have in this regard, the claim shall of the owner or license of such dog. be investigated by the dog control division as to all C. The county health department or county dog material fads as to damages contained therein. (Ord control division personnel maymake spot chocks to insure 394 § 2 Exh. A (part) Ord. 306 6 il(B), 1985) proper quarantine procedures are administered. D. Any dog alleged to have bitten a person, that dies 6.04530 MIlingor iq(uringlivestock- within ten daysafter biting such person, shall be immedi- Consideration of claim. ately delivered to the county department ofpublic health All claims presented as provided in Section 6.04-510 or such department or its delegate shall be notified and shall be considered by the dog control division. Ile permitted to collect the remains of such animal for division may allow a claim or any portion thereof that laboratory analysis. The owner of such dog shall be liable it deems just and reasonable, shall file and enter of record for the cost of such lab tests. the value of livestock killed, and order a voucher drawn E. Upon proper showing of probable cause and in payment thereof out of the dog fund. If it deems the obtaining of a court order by the county department of claim unjust, it shall disallow it and enter such fact upon public health, any dog suspected of being a carrier of record. No claim shall be allowed where it appears that rabiesvi us shall betaken from the owner and submitted the injury or damage complained of is caused by a dog owned by the claimant or his agent, for any amount for Izs Exhibit tsp. 1) Page of l 3 I J 1 6.04530 Washington County Code which the claimant is insured, where it appears the injury 4---Name-ef4b or damage was due to any cause other than a domestic oumbeE animal of the canine family. (Ord. 306 4 11(C), 1985) 2. plame-of4he-PeFson-eite& ' aced; 6.04540 Killing or Injuring livestock- Collection of claim. In each case where a claim made for livestock killed has been paid by the dog control division, the county de- by and through the division shall be subrogated to all the-vde. ' rights of the owner of the livestock killed against the ainaat; owner of the dog for the amount of claim actually paid V-0-FO lb-0 IPBF-S-8-0 ited isle by the county. The county counsel of the county shall appear-i- e , proceed promptly, in a lawful way, to tolled on said claim.Any money so collected shallbe paid immediately :7. The designa& to the director of support services of the county. As a condition of payment of any claim, the claimant must r cooperate in any proceeding by the county to recover 11 er&PPFO a subrogated claim. (Ord. 306 § 11(I)), 1985) 6.04.550 Killing or injuring livestock- Authority to Ull dog observed In by the complainant to the effeet that ha ea e6; undef act apter A dog control officer designated by the director of d d 40e6 assessment and taxation shall be empowered to kill a the A I-R iee dog observed by the officer in the act of killing, wounding if mAde,by-a chasing or injuring livestock, in the same manner and _ subject to the same restrictions, as are provided in ORS 609.150 for private citizens. (Ord. 306 § il(E), 1985) 6A4560 Citatlo Aa ~ v ; I I i F,- sues ' 's.' z ekepter 13. The uniform dog eeatfol ekation-&hall-eonsir~ A feral eubs4,antielly-os-fe4tewss . . 4P A CS -T GAJ r~"'u gA1S- --w.vp.v Geraplai,.. ~ 2. GountYGOUnSBI'6reeOFdofNialation; Tl.... ..I .7• .iV gt(raey of 4:--gummensir. the fiellomAing . G. Eaeh of die t04a0ewi~tg enfaF eateFeds Q, Exhibit ~J (sgrp, 1) 126 Page 10 of 13 s Washington County Code 6.04560 i i 4r-I[tterfering-tYithi }:tadef -molesting-of wi11~8ae4f ereise eour44 1 do hereby F13 e~-toes: es-eti st (Defendant' N me) and vkieh has get been properly eque4ely quarantined. 6. Gemmitting oetfi of eruelty (a animals. 1. APP8&F in GOUA at the 6018 mentioned Gowthouse then Set ft time for Q heaFing, _Mh a eheek eF money order m- tth5 t At the is required by !a-*, hewever 41-98 _A =__Q_ N MS A teH the Geuft you requerA a hearing. !R118 RAI tions 6et forth on this GMkTION AND GOMPLAR l DEP MANOR. r side, send fluf explanation with the 6ummens of fleF explanation-and -what the effleer tells the j Geue#r Aa evicted a copy f i _j efendant's defense, _P__. the time Of trial eF i , defendant. WAAEE the eemplaint 6ball be fiet aside by the eouFt only upon tt a of (his rsummens. been infnrmed ef m5 A. (pai4), 1991! Ord. 306 § 14(A), MS) fight to a ifint; that FRY SignatuEetothi-s plea dty 127 Exhibit U _ (5 pp. u Page I i of h3 L___ 6,04 370 •,,^,.~,;ngien~e„nty-Gads 604.670 ioe-[ssueaee Hy-ot(teee. ES-4 he dM A deg seat alien person ] ef#teer {lam th undeF the fell 60ki-P-644y-the lien heeeuaty; erg ithin or b5 eey eityivatfiin theraunty-whiet. COE r, G. 11 a in 1. The %iolation PfftiOn Of6aid Malign MAI he as F] ~t e~eeaEiea tviEhig E{~aatn' (Ord. 306 § 14(G), 1985) as- f the-esunt3; and in his presenee e;,en though the ~ielation may ofigi 6,04v600--Summeas-Maimuw r-equhvaK%ts, in 9_AaGoa6.04;SW ofthis ehapter maybe used to perfeet in SUeh 0 ManneF that ear, be feadib, understood by a ....-/n Fa -394 [ ^ rel. A \I 1991 Ord 306 [ 1A/U\/1\ 1(10[. thedate,timeandplaeoiam to baYQoeeufFedj by Citation Commeneemeat-of action e by-prdvate-person, by the eemplainant to the offeet that he eertifles~ undeF een CIGH Of thiS ehBptBF and undBF and does believe; that all - P" shag ee thedi6ff oneadiethajudgmentaftheegioeefthe Go A` --14M I 6.04 660 and 644=%Q of this ehapter, F (Grd-. 306 j 14(B(2)), 19M) 6 04 690 Citatlen-geryke. "hc', agiw~rt~r t n a m l cu u( anh a r n n~3'rcn ' Is[a 17i1 e~tinn 04 byIa_', iu;luiwt, cyut[a[t1,_~z6i .band dauiagc-. m 6.04.0*M Appearance by defendant When following portion (jfGueh Motion inaneofthe required. manners` The defendant shall appear in court at the time men- le tioned in the summons if charged with any of the follow- ~ant eannetbe ing violations: faun dparsene8yatl' A. Interfering with, hindering, molesting or verbally be made (E) a MOM130F of his family o%,er fourteen year abusing a dog control officer in the exercise of his duties; *et-- e , B. Owning or keeping a dangerous dog; -J ts,4p. ° 128 Exhibit V Page of 13 f I Washington County Code 6.04.610 C. Owning or keeping a vicious dog-, years preceding the date of the alleged violation may D. Owning or keeping a dog affected with a conta- be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand gious disease that runs at large or is exposed in a public dollars. place whereby the health of man or beast may be affected E. Owning or keeping a dog not vaccinated for rabies of a ei which has been alleged to have bitten a person and which falsely{{mss has not been properly and adequately quarantined: set 1erNrN F. Committing acts of cruelty to animals. (Ord. 394 ceding § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 14(F)(1), 198 dellars; er-belly. (Ord. 306 § 13, 1985) ---by-defesdanl-~Vtien eeE !'Egi3lt+ed* in the ameunt ef the bag set ferth-en-4he-fiURHne*S tegethff Mith6 kli~ A6WemontefinaReFsej G. Thee*eeuted of beefing an' plea ef guil -D64 44(FI(2)), 198* 1 iltenstatement - eensfltute&-Aul 'fEti 111' t and 688fient dg-, f • . , t 306 ' j 14(G), 19M) 6.04.40 Violation-Penalty. A. The penalty for violation of any provision of this f chapter shall be a fine of not more than five hundred dollars- B. Each day any person shall be in violation of this I chapter shall be deemed a separate offense. C. In addition to any fine imposed pursuant to sub- section A of this section, a court may order the impound- ment and destruction of any dog found to be vicious, _ dangerous, or found to have killed, injured or chased livestock. D. Any person who has been convicted ofa violation of this chapter and who is found by a court to have been formerly convicted of any violation of this chapter or prior dog control ordinances of the county with the two } Exhibit Page _j,3 of 13 - rF., 1 AGENDA ITEM # J i For Agenda of August 26. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Adjustment #3 for CDBG Senior Center Landscaping ' i 1 project J PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK ~_--CITY-ADMIN OK s ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Tigard City Council approve a budget adjustment for the Landscaping project at the Tigard Senior Center? - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to adjust the 1997/98 adopted budget. INFORMATION SUMMARY j A project began last fiscal year to pave and landscape the parking area 4 I ehind the Senior Center facility. The 1997/98 budget process assumed that f he project would be complete by the end of the fiscal year. Due to delays 1 in accepting bids on the landscape portion due to the higher than anticipated cost, the project was not completed last year and needs to be included in the current year budget. The contract for the project was let by the council to S & L Landscaping Inc. in the amount of $21,786. Additional grant funds were approved by Washington County in the amount of $9,905 with the City share estimated at $11,881. The attached resolution adjusts the 1997/98 budget to allow for the completion of the project. $21,786 will be appropriated in general capital projects in the general fund to be funded by $9,905 in additional grant revenue and $11,881 in contingency funds in the general fund. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES i Increases general fund revenue in the amount of $9,905. Increase General capital project appropriations by $21,786 and decrease general fund contingency by $11,881. i 3 j i J i r .j AGENDA ITEM # f FOR AGENDA OF August 26. 1997 I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON it { COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Municipal Court Judge's Contract PREPARED BY: N. Robinson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK/ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL f Policy was set by Resolution 88-21 to appoint judicial staff after negotiating a personal services contract. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION k Approve resolution renewing Michael O'Brien's judicial services contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY j Since 1988 the City has entered into personal services contracts for the municipal judge function. Michael i _ O'Brien has provided judicial services for the City since October 1989. If the contract is approved, Judge O'Brien will be compensated $1,854.00 per month to preside over hearings, 1 review and update Municipal Court rules and procedures, provide a yearly court update, and conduct research as needed. The contract proposes a 3% inflation adjustment ($54.00 per month) from the last two contract years. As in the previous contract, if the average hours, over a three month period, fall below 26 hours per month or exceed 30 hours per month, compensation may be re-negotiated. An addition to this year's contract is the requirement for a year-end judicial report. The report will give City j Council information on caseload, changes in policy, new programs, and updates on existing programs. The report is intended to be useful to Council in determining if the Municipal Court is meeting the needs of the community. i The update may also help Council decide if a yearly judicial review is appropriate or if the year-end report furnishes the information Council needs to assess the performance of the court. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. i i FISCAL NOTES Sufficient funds have been allocated in the 1997/1998 budget for judicial services. t • y f a. , j 35 AGENDA ITEM # I FOR AGENDA OF August 26. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY y ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Fanno reek Flood Insurance Study Update- PREPARED LA mss' PREPARED BY:G e~ 13env ~ DEPT HEAD OK U~ CITY MGR OK 1 I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL J s Should the City enter into an agreement with Unified Sewerage Agency to update the Fanno Creek Flood Insurance Study? STAFF RECOMMENDATION j That Council, by motion, authorize: 1. the City Manager to sign the agreement with Unified Sewerage Agency to update the Fanno Creek Flood I Insurance Study, and; 2. the expenditure of Surface Water Management system development charges to fund the study in an amount not r^, exceed $50,000. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a letter from Lori Faha, USA Water Resources Program Manager, requesting the City to participate in this project and offering justification for it. The study would be prepared by Kurahashi & Associates, Tigard Oregon; a detailed description of the proposed project is available from staff. The purpose of the project is to i update the current Flood Insurance Study completed in 1981. The project would be accomplished through the attached agreement Nvith the Cities of Tigard and Beaverton, i Washington County and the Unified Sewerage Agency with the Unified Sewerage Agency managing the project I and each agency agreeing to pay for one quarter of the cost. i The results of the study will be used to regulate development and for the design and evaluation of projects j proposed by the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan recently approved by the Unified Sewerage Agency Board. Specifically, it will be used to determine required bridge spans for Tigard St., Grant Ave., Hall Blvd. and 4 North Dakota St. as well as main channel improvements at Hemlock St. Ii There are also 11 proposed culvert replacements in Tigard that could be better designed with the update. The . update would also be used to design flood control projects to improve the interconnection of the creek with the surrounding floodplain so that high flows will be detained by the floodplain instead of remaining in the channel. ` ""ne such project is proposed at Englewood Park and several others are proposed further upstream. 7 1 i L~ I -ic results of this study could show a significantly higher floodplain then determined by the previous Fioodplain insurance Study. A further benefit will be to notify owners of land found to be in this expanded floodplain so that they have an opportunity to purchase flood insurance and otherwise prepare for flooding. OTHER AI TFRNATIVFS CONSIDERED Do not authorize entering into the agreement. FISCAL NOTES i , The agreement proposes to divide the total expected cost of $200,000 equally among the parties of the agreement: Unified Sewerage Agency, Washington County, City of Beaverton, and City of Tigard. The City's 1 $50,000 share would be funded through Surface Water Management system development charges. j 1 iCCip,ride`sum`fic?.doe tf' - 1 i, I j i i i I 33II+ f j l 1 IF i i UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY i I ? June 30, 1997 1 TO: Rick Raetz, Washington County DLUT j David Winship, City of Beaverton Greg Berry, City of Tigard i j FROM: Lori Faha, USA Water Resources Program Manager r i + SUBJECT: Fanno Creek Flood Insurance Study Update f j cc: Bill GafS, John Jackson, Mark Jockers As you know, the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan recommends that the Fanno Creek Flood Insurance Study hydraulic models and mapping be updated immediately. I asked Roger Sutherland to provide me with a complete scope of work and cost estimate for the project (attached). The upshot is that the cost would be approximately $200,000. If we agree to move forward jointly, USA can request its Board of Directors to approve a major contract amendment with Kurahashi and Associates, and the field work could get accomplished this summer and fall. Please review the attached scope of work, and let me know any comments and your ability to participate as a partner, such that we split the cost 4 ways ($50,000 each). We believe that the cities and USA can fund this with SWM SDC funds. USA will provide project management. The draft scope of work from Kurahashi is for the following tasks: surveying new cross sections; creating an updated, calibrated hydraulic model; preparing mapping that could be submitted to FEMA by the County and Cities for a map revision; and use of the model to evaluate impacts of the high priority watershed plan floodplain and bridgelculvert projects. The latter task will give us all information we need for design, and will be a check on the watershed plan project priorities. From recent conversations, my understanding is that Washington County and Beaverton have tentatively approved this project and are locating available funds. I hope that Tigard will be able f~ to do the same. 4 1 ~ This project is extremely important for the following reasons: j i 1. The current Fanno (and tributaries) FIS is inaccurate, and does not predict flooding of several road crossings which was actually observed over the past couple years. t 155 North First Avenue. Suite 270, MS 10 Phone: 503/648-8621 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 FAX: 503/640-3525 i FJ; i i INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FANNO CREEK FLOOD STUDY UPDATE 1 i THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by the City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, Washington County (County) and the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County (USA or Agency). RECITALS: j WHEREAS, the Cities of Tigard and Beaverton and USA are parties to agreements dated j July 1990 which relates to the operation and maintenance of stormwater and sanitary sewerage facilities within the Cities and the providing of storm and sanitary services within; and WHEREAS, the all parties were represented on the Fanno Creek Watershed Planning Project Committee which recommended the projects in the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan; and i WHEREAS, the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan recommends that the Fanno Creek and tributaries Flood Insurance Studies be updated to resolve flood elevation errors noted during the development of the Plan (the Project); and WHEREAS, the Cities and County are the floodplain management agencies within their ~I respective boundaries for Fanno Creek and its tributaries; and WHERAS, accurate floodplain and floodway information is necessary for all parties to be able to effectively regulate new development or redevelopment along the creek to ensure that it does not negatively impact flood elevations; and 'r WHEREAS, the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan recommends various capital improvement projects to reduce flood frequency and provide water quality management, and updated creek hydraulics (which would be produced as part of the Project) are necessary to properly design these projects to ensure maximum benefits and efficient use of public funds; and ! WHEREAS, a cost savings can be expected if all parties work in cooperation with each other to jointly fund a flood insurance study update to determine actual flood elevations I and provide updated creek hydraulics; and + ! i WHEREAS, the work scope of the flood study update is attached to the Agreement and marked Exhibit A; I i THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises and covenants contained i herein and the authority of ORS 451.560 and ORS Chapter 190, the parties agree as u follows: i j1 ! I' 1 t E` 7 J j i _J f F11 A 1.0 City/County Responsibilities 1.1 The City/County will provide timely reviews of draft documents developed by { the technical consultant. 1 1.2 The City/County will each provide 25% of the funding for the project, which I will consist of funding for a technical consultant's work to produce the study. Payment may be made by a single lump sum or the City/County shall each pay to the Agency 25% of consultant invoices within 30 days of the Agency's submittal of such amount to the City/County. The City/County share of the funding shall not exceed $50,000 each. 1.3 The City/County will provide to the Agency or to the technical consultant any available information requested by the consultant for the project analyses, such as available survey information, mapping, construction plans, or other information. i , 1.4 The City/County will make any submittals of information to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, make any requests for floodplain mapping revisions, and pay any associated fees associated with that portion of the { Project inside City/County limits. 2.0 Agency Responsibilities i i i 2.1 The Agency will provide project management for the Project, including consultant contract management. ` 2.2 The Agency will provide 25% of the funding for the technical consultant, up to $50,000. f 2.3 The Agency will submit to the City/County an invoice of its portion of the Project expenses as agreed to under Section 1.3. 3.0 Schedule The Project will commence upon the effective date of this Agreement. The Project will end upon the completion of the study and delivery of final products by the technical consultant, as described in Exhibit A, and as approved by all parties. It is anticipated that the Project will be completed within Fiscal Year 1997-98. 1 4.0 Dispute Resolution i In the event of dispute between parties to this Agreement as to the Project work or any i terms or conditions under this Agreement, the Agency and City/County project managers ( shall first attempt in good faith to negotiate to resolve same. If resolution cannot be { i 2 J I i attained, the dispute will be submitted in writing to the Agency General Manager, Tigard n City Manager, Beaverton Mayor and County Administrator for resolution. In the event 1 resolution of any dispute cannot be attained at that level, the dispute shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration for resolution. The parties to the dispute shall be responsible for their own costs. The parties to the dispute shall each pay an equal share of the 1 arbitrator's fee. I i 5.0 Termination , i This agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all the parties, or by any of the parties notifying the other in writing, with the termination being effective immediately. In the event of termination, any project costs incurred to date, and any reasonable costs required to terminate the Project shall be paid for as defined in Sections 2 and 2 of this Agreement. If less than all parties request to terminate this Agreement, then the remaining parties may amend the Agreement or terminate it at their option. 6.0 Amendments All amendments must be in writing and approved by the signatory authorized by the governing body of each party. I i 7.0 Counterparts/Effective Date This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and becomes effective upon the date of the latest signature of the signatories authorized by the governing body of each party. 8.0 Indemnity/Hold Harmless Each party agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless for their respective acts or failure to act, to include their respective officers, employees, agents and representatives from and against all claims, demands and causes of actions or suits of any kind or nature relating to or arising out of this Agreement. Indemnification is subject to and shall not exceed the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 through 30.300). ' 9.0 Discrimination Prohibited i - - No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, color, creed, marital status, sexual orientation or national origin in receipt of any of the benefits of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement. i I : 1 3 " f t 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FANNO CREEK FLOOD STUDY UPDATE CITY OF BEAVERTON WASHINGTON COUNTY By' By i Title: Title: Date: Date: APPROVED TO FORM APPROVED TO FORM By: c By: Title Title: Date Date: ' CITY OF TIGARD UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF / CGS /f WASHINGTON COUNTY y: By: Title: Cry .4 General Manager Date: Date: APPROVED TO FORM APPROVED TO FORM By: By: USA Counsel Title: Date: Date: HAMy Documents\SUBSTRAT%FANNO\Fwno FiS restudy IGA.doc 4 ~xf+trstr ~ _ I PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. Riverine Flood Insurance Restudy of i Fanno Creek, Summer Creek, and Ash Creek Washington County, Oregon submitted to: LoriFaha Unified Sewerage Agency 155 N 1" Ave is Hillsboro. OR 97125 j r. , y June. 1997 1 - 1 l f - f \ i TECHNICAL APPROACH I l Introduction This proposal documents the specific scope of work and costs associated with conducting detailed riverine flood insurance restudies of Fanno Creek, Summer Creek and Ash Creek located in Washington County, Oregon. The study area would include areas within the jurisdictions of unincorporated Washington County and the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard. This proposal documents the stream reaches to be studied, specific work tasks and methods, the organization and management of the work effort, and the experience and past performance that uniquely qualifies Kurahashi & Associates, Inc., (KAI) to be the best firm to perform this restudy. This work will be conducted as a detailed FIS restudy. However, the existing hydraulic model and is topographic mapping will be used where appropriate to support the needed modeling. As part of this work, current surveyed cross sections of the stream channels will be obtained about every 1,000 ft and at every structure. Also, channel roughness values will be calibrated using high water marks that KAI obtained during the 1996 flooding, using the hydrology developed for the Fanno Creek Watershed Master Plan (WMP). Finally, KAI will compare the existing and proposed FIS models to resolve any differences in flows or hydraulics in order to prepare a submittal for a physical map amendment from FEMA. This work will proceed as outlined in FEMA's Statement of Work (SOW) dated January 1995, and i according to the requirements that appear in the January 1995 Flood Insurance Study Guidelines and Specifications for Study Contractors, or Guidelines. In addition, digital data submissions will be _ according to the most current edition of FEMA's Standards for Digital Flood Insurance Rate Xfaps. In addition, this project will enjoy greater savings by using KAI because much of the details regarding digital submitaas to FEMA will have alreadv been worked out as KAI performs the detailed restudy of the Nceanicum River system in Seaside and Clatsop County, Oregon. i In addition, however. KAI proposes to use as much as possible of existing detailed mapping information I in order to perform this restudy. In particular, recent topographic mapping, at 2-ft contours will be used where available to extend surveyed channel sections into the overbank areas, in order to span the enure width of the floodpWn. Areas mapped include portions within and near the Cities of Beaverton and Portland. Additional reaches are proposed to be re-flown to collect topography within the floodpWns where KAI determines that existing topographic mapping insufficiently represents the floodpWn areas for the purposes of this restudy. In areas that are re-flown, a DTM will be developed using aerial photogrammetry to directly develop a consistent set of hydraulic model cross sections, floodplain extents, and 2-foot contours. New digital orthophotos are not proposed for this restudy, since this information already is available from other sources and was used to prepare the Fanno Creek WMP. Stream Study Reaches The study area encompasses approximately 13.0 miles of Fanno Creek 2.2 miles of Summer Creek, and 1.5 miles of Ash Creek. The specified reach lengths are listed in Table 1, and their locations are shown on 1 Map 1 using base maps from the Fanno Creek WMP. i I j i t i t I 1 PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates. Inc. Page 2 j FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon Table 1 Reaches to be Studied i { Reach Name Study Limits Approximate Length (feet and miles) 3 Fanno Creek (FC) Tualatin River upstream to Beav.-Hillsdale Hwy. 68,400 l1. 13.0 mi. Summer Creek Confluence with FC to Scholls Ferry Rd. 11,500 ft. 2.2 mi. j Ash Creek Confluence with FC to Hemlock St. 7.900 ft. 1.5 mi. TOTAL: 87,800 ft. 16.7 mi. Work Tasks j 1 The following sections review the tasks that are proposed to be performed as part of this restudy. Included j are the approach, major assumptions about level of effort, and deliverables. Flooding problems will be ' studied in accordance with the Flood Insurance Guidelines and Specifications for Study Contractors (referred to herein as the Guidelines) dated January 1995, and according to the Statement of Work dated January 1995. It must be noted that this study area represents only a portion of the areas previously studied within the legal boundary of the communities and any extraterritorial areas in which the communities have authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances. I KAI will provide all necessary personnel, equipment, materials, services, and facilities, and shall perform all other tasks necessary for, or incident to, the preparation of the Flood Insurance Studies (FIS's) for those reaches to be studied as shown in Table 1, as amended by the contract or project order. The work shall be I i completed in accordance with the provisions contained in the SOW and the Guidelines and within the j j time period to be agreed upon in the Baseline Plan. KAI will subcontract only specialized land or aerial f j survey functions as detailed under Tasks 3.0 and 3.1. Following the acceptance by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) of this proposal, KAI shall prepare a study plan to guide the remainder of the study. Task 1.0. Reconnaissance, Bibliography Data Collection i KAI has already searched for and collected existing information that pertains to flooding in the study area. This included a bibliographic and data search, coordination with local, state and federal agencies, and field reconnaissance of the study area, and photographing reaches above, below, and through the bridges or culverts to be modeled. Specific subtasks are described in Sections 2B and 2C of the Guidelines. As part of this, KAI observed high water surfaces from two recent flooding events of February, 1996 and December, 1996, to support hydraulic calibration. Using these Wgh water marks, KAI will develop a profile of observed flood elevations with which to calibrate the hydraulic model roughness values. ; i In addition, KAI has already collected sufficient digital files needed to create a base map for this restudy, including community maps showing and naming all roads in the floodplain. Sources included USA, the Cities of Tigard, Beaverton and Portland, Washington County, and Portland METRO. KAI anticipates submitting a digital base map that is derived from one or more of these sources, supplemented by any } additional base mapping created as part of this study. Digital files obtained from any source will be j accompanied by the "Digital Data Submission Checklist", shown as Figure A7-1 in Appendix 7 of the I Guidelines. As part of this task, KAI will use recent orthophotos at inch400 scale together with the j quarter section mapping to assist with locating where cross sections will be surveyed. j i i t~ I 1 a PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. Page 3 FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon One important element of this task will be to coordinate with FEMA and involve them in the process of I this restudy. In particular, it will be important for KAI to obtain from FEMA all unpublished information, including any unpublished amendments to the FIS, so that the restudy hydraulic models to be developed as part of this project may be reconciled to them, or any differences adequately documented and explained. 4 Field Reconnaissance KAI has already conducted a detailed field reconnaissance of the study area to determine the type and number of hydraulic structures, and has photographed the stream channel upstream and downstream of j and through bridges and culverts, to suppert values for local channel roughness. ~ I i For this task, KAI will locate cross sections to be surveyed that are approximately 1,000 feet apart along i the 16.7 miles of reaches to be studied in detail, and will locate the optimal number of aerial premark and f ERM points to minimize the surveying needed. Table 2 presents the estimated number of cross sections, together with the number of crossings that were identified from initial field reconnaissance and previous mapping for the study area. Table 2 Characteristics of Detailed Study Area Reaches Reach Name Approi. Length (ft) No. of Sections No. of Structures ` Fanno Creek 68,400 ft. 70 24 Summer Creek 11,500 ft. 13 6 4 Ash Creek 7,900 ft. 9 7 " r 1 TOTAL: 87,800 ft. 92 37 + The number of structures was determined from the existing FIS. USGS topographic maps, and the recent KAI's field reconnaissance of the Study Area for Fanno Creek Watershed Management Study. Aerial Survey Needs Assessment k One final part of this task will be to determine the exact scope of needed aerial surveys in order to properly model the floodplain fringe areas and map the floodplain extents. KAI is very familiar with this !!I area after having essentially completed much of the field investigation work as part of the Fanno Creek I AW. However, it will be necessary to review the 1:4800 aerial photos against the 1:1200 quartersection mapping to determine where additional mapping is appropriate. . f Task 2.0. Approximate Flood Boundaries No approximate flood studies are included with this proposal. All reaches within the watershed for which FIS information has been published were studied using detailed methods. Thus there are no reaches to be restudied using only approximate methods. I Task 3.0. Aerial Surveys i KAI has already obtained detailed floodplain topographic mapping of reaches near the Cities of Beaverton { and Portland in digital format, that were prepared in the early 1990's. These maps were prepared for a plotted scale of 1:1200, and have a contour interval of 2-ft. It is KAI's belief that this trapping will be sufficient for these areas to extend surveyed channel cross-sections into the overbank areas. In addition, j PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. Page 4 i FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr_, Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon 1 KAI has obtained paper copies equally detailed contour mapping for all but a mile of the reaches to be restudied, and much of this mapping was performed or updated in the late 1980's. It is KAI's belief that this mapping has kept pace fairly well with development and near the floodplain. As part of this study, however, it will be necessary to obtain detailed photogrammetric mapping of at least the remaining 4 miles of reaches, including about 1 mile for which no mapping data at all is currently available. A mapping width of about 1,500 feet will be needed in order to include the 500-year floodplain plus a fringe of about 500 feet. For this area, a DTM of the topography will be used to produce 2-A contours, and full planimetric mapping would be performed. This will also facilitate the evaluation of floodplain alternatives. KAI has included a contingency of 10% to cover the re-mapping of several additional reaches where significant alterations to the floodplain have occurred or are proposed as part of the Fanno Creek WMP. These may include areas near Durham Rd., Bonita Rd., and the OES Marsh. i It is therefore proposed to map about l square mile (or 4 miles at 1500 It width), which will require about 18 survey prernark points. The approximate extent for aerial photogrammetric surveys is shown on the series of watershed maps that follow this text including locations of potential premark points. It should be noted that detailed specifications for this task would be developed as part of this restudy based upon coordination between local agencies, the Photogrammetrist, and KAI's land surveyors. In addition, KAI will prepare the overbank sections using the DTM, rather than having them directly prepared through photogrammetry. KAI expects that use of the DTM in this manner will result in considerable savings and more consistent digital work products (i.e. flood extent maps, model sections, and FIRM mapping for the physical map revision), These products will be submitted to FEMA in digital format. j i F j Also, KAI will coordinate with FEMA to determine the optimal combination of horizontal and vertical datums to best meet FEMA goals of using the most current control, while maintaining consistency with previous digital products. At this point, KAI proposes that restudy surveys and data use units of feet, the --1 State Plane projection for Northern Oregon (FIPS Zone 5076), and use the North American Datum of 1983, NAD83 (91) and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) for horizontal and vertical control, respectively. Multiple datums will not be used for this Study, although digital map coverages can be rc-projected between them with a loss of 2-5 ft in accuracy. As specified in Appendix 4 of the Guidelines, photogratnrnetric mapping and surveying will utilize procedures that are appropriate for I"=500'(1:6,000 scale) maps with a 2-foot contour interval, and which satisfy the American Society of Photogranrmetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) 1990, Class I standards. All work will be in accordance with the Guidelines with the following exceptions: • Cross sections will be obtained directly from the DTM and joined with the bank-to-bank sections j surveyed under Task 3.1. They will not be photogmmmetrically surveyed. • New contour mapping will meet ASPRS Class I Accuracy Standards for Large Scale Maps for a 2- foot contour interval. Field accuracy checks are not proposed. The two-times photo enlargements will not be prepared, since cross sections will be located for land survey on the existing planimetric mapping, and will be sectioned from the DTM to be provided under this task. Table 3 summarizes the area to be mapped and the count of premark points for this proposal. KAI proposes that these areas be flown at inch-600 ft scale stereo photo pairs, and that a digital terrain model be developed from them following procedures in Appendix 4, and that detailed planimetric mapping be performed. However. KAI proposes that existing sources be used for the vector base maps for the FIRM ! and Floodway Mapping deliverables under this Proposal. 1 ~J v i j j L~ f ~J 1 J PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates. Inc. Page 5 FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon Table 3 1 Summary of Aerial Photogrammetric Mapping Needs Location Description Approx. Miles No. of Pre-Marks Fanno Creek 2.2 mi. 14 pts. ij Summer Creek 0.5 mi. 4 pts• I Ash Creek 1.3 mi. 4 pts. I Task 3.1. Land Surveys I • I For each flooding source studied in detail. KAI will obtain channel and floodplain cross sections, identify or establish needed elevation reference marks (ERM's), and obtain the physical dimensions of hydraulic G structures, as directed in Section 3D and Appendix 4 of the Guidelines. Necessary dimensions and elevations of hydraulic structures will be established as part of this task. Since all of the study area lies within developed areas, KAI proposes to use traditional survey techniques to locate ERM's, survey Aerial pre-marks, and establish temporary bench marks for cross sections surveys as much as possible in order to minimize the project cost. Procedures detailed in Appendix 4 of the Guidelines will be followed. Depending upon the availability of control points within the urban portions of the study areas. i Because of both the complexity of the hydraulics in this study, and the clear indication that significant changes to channel geometry have occurred, new surveys will be performed for the entire 16.7 miles of the reaches to be studied. At approximately one section per 1,000 feet of stream or river, 92 sections must be surveyed for the main study, plus additional sections (above and below) each of the 41 structures (including smaller pedestrian bridges that also affect channel hydraulics). The number of sections required for the RFP is shown below in Table 4. Table 4 Characteristics of Detailed Study Area Reaches Reach Name Approx. Length (ft) No. of Sections No. of Structures Fanno Creek 68.400 ft. 70 28 ! Summer Creek 11,500 ft. 13 6 Ash Creek 7,900 ft. 9 TOTAL: 87,800 ft. 92 41 + The number o structures was determined om detailed watershed mapping 1 1200 a recent 1:4800 orthophoto of the watershed, and KA1's recent field reconnaissance of the Study Area while preparing the i~ Fanno Creek ;WP. In addition, KAI anticipates that ERM's for the existing FIS will be retained, if found, but will still need to be verified for location and elevation. KAI will establish and record one ERM per approximately 2,500 feet of linear reach or quarter-square-mile of floodpWn studied. If existing ERM's are not found, a 1 different location will be sought, so as to avoid the potential for confusion. KAI proposes to use a consistent horizontal and vertical datum for all surveys performed under both Task 3.0 and 3. 1. as discussed above under Task 3.0. i I I q~ PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. Page 6 FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Sununcr Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon a r Task 4.0. Hydrology KAI will establish flood discharges for the riverine flooding sources studied in detail as pan of this study, as directed in Chapter 4 of the Guidelines. The information from the recent HEC-1 hydrologic model developed by KAI as part of Fanno Creek WMP will be used to develop new FIS hydrology for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods for those reaches within the current study area. In particular, these flows will be used (under a later task) to evaluate the hydraulic capacities of those bridges listed in Table 17 of the WMP as being potentially deficient. but of unknown capacity (since the existing FIS model was clearly unable to provide an accurate capacity). However, existing FIS flows may be retained for submittal to FEMA if they are both greater than those determined for the WMP, but are not too much higher, so that the WMP flows lie outside the statistical standard error range of the FIS flows. i As part of this task, KAI will evaluate the statistical difference between the old FIS and the Fanno Creek WMP design flows, and recommend where one or the other should be used for the FIS restudy. After this, KAI will forward a copy of the summary of discharges plus a description of the hydrologic analysis to USA. KAI can also submit this information to FEMA, the Portland District of the Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (a.k.a. SCS), the USGS, Oregon DSL, and Washington County. In this manner. KAI hopes to avoid needless reworking of the hydraulic modeling from revised flows. Task 5.0. Detailed Hydraulics The US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-2 model (version 4.6.2, revised May, 1991) will be used to f perform the step-backwater analyses to model the traditional 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year FIS profiles, - I following the directions in Chapter 5 of the Guidelines. The result of this task will be a consistent set of HEC-2 hydraulic models (calibrated), flood profiles, mapped floodplain and floodway extents, and tables of discharges. In addition, KAI will develop tables of flood elevations for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year flows for existing, future, and 2010-plan conditions, from the Fanno Creek WMP, in order to support further watershed planning efforts within the studied reaches by USA. An important task for KAI will be predicting the "existing" flood elevations for use in properly modeling the allowable 100-year floodway rise. The four FIS profiles will be modeled using current (i.e. surveyed for this restudy) channel sections, but floodpWn development as it existed when the FIS was first performed. Fortunately, KAI already possesses the photographic work maps for use in making this determination, and has used this information in preparing the Fanno Creek WMP. As part of this task, KAI will prepare model cross sections that span the entire 100-year floodpWn and extend at least 1 foot above the 100-year floodplain elevation. As described previously under the Aerial Survey task, KAI will use a digital DTM to extend the bank-to-bank cross sections to span the full width of the floodplain. Sections will be spaced about one per 1,000 feet, with additional model sections at bridges (typically 6 total are modeled, and 3 often use copied stream sections.) Table 5 summarizes the HEC-2 modeling scope. I In addition, for all HEC-2 models created. KAI will use the FEMA program "CHECK-2" to evaluate the inputs and outputs of the HEC-2 models created for this study. Any irregular values will be noted and resolved. KAI notes, however, that there is already a discrepancy between the level of land survey typically used (one section per 1,000 feet), and the maximum suggested reach length in CHECK-2, 500 feet. Also. KAI notes that the existing (old) FIS models of Summer Creek and Ash Creek appear to use I reach lengths averaging closer to 500 feet. Output results from this program will be submitted along with other digital data files to USA and to FEMA for subsequent technical review for a physical map amendment. 1i j i L~ l~ ~ I PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates. Inc. Page 7 FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr.. and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon Table 5 41 Estimated HEC-2 Model Sections Reach Name Approx. Length (ft) No. of Structures ` No. of HEC-2 Sections Fanno Creek 68,400 ft. 28 210 Summer Creek i 1,500 fl. 6 43 Ash Creek 7.900 ft. 7 44 TOTAL: 87,800 ft. 41 297 + The number of structures was determined from detailed watershed mapping (1:1200), a recent 1:4800 orthophoto ofthe watershed, and ~LII's recent field reconnaissance ofthe Study Area while preparing the Fanno Creek WiiVip. Sections are one per 1,000 fh plus 5 more per bridge. (One is also a channel section.) i , Model Calibration of Roughness Coefficients 4 Roughness coefficients for use in the HEC-2 backwater computations shall first be carefully estimated by experienced KAI engineers, who will consider how roughness might vary with flood states. KAI will also consider if the effective roughness values for the I-D HEC-2 model must be increased to account for significant meanders that may be identified in those reaches to be studied in detail. In addition. it will be - very important to properly estimate roughness values in overbanks to represent only the effective flow area, so that the overbank flow is not overestimated. KAI will fully document in the FIS any use of roughness values to define ineffective flow areas (i.e. using NH cards). i However, KAI will make extensive use of the existing hydrologic model from the Fanno Creek WMP with already calibrated model flows for several recent flood events for which KAI has also noted high water marks. This information will be used to definitively calibrate the channel roughness values in order to reproduce these elevations to within at most 0,5 feet. This will provide much greater calibration than may be typical of FIS hydraulic studies, but is necessary in order to use the calibrated hydraulic model to evaluate the capacities of the bridges included in the detailed restudy reaches. This process will be greatly i expedited through the use of customized modeling spreadsheets developed and used extensively by KAI j staff. I( t l Task 5.1. Profile Concurrence Before proceeding to the preparation of work maps, the flood elevations, profiles, and floodways proposed for the FIS will be reconciled both with the downstream FIS for the Tualatin River, and with all published or unpublished information obtained from FEMA. KAI will identify any discrepancies and ensure a smooth transition between these studies and the existing downstream and upstream FIS of the study reaches. Fortunately, since both the County and the City flooding sources within the study area are to be restudied, ensuring concurrence across jurisdictional boundaries will not be an issue. It will be to coordinate with FEMA and involve them in the process of this restudy. In particular, it will be important for KAI to obtain from FEMA all unpublished information, including any unpublished amendments to the FIS, so that the restudy hydraulic models to be developed as part of this project may be reconciled to them, or any differences adequately documented and explained, i However, KAI will have calibrated in detail the existing hydraulic model using calibrated watershed flows t and observed high water marks. Thus whenever differences emerge between results of this restudy and the previous FIS, KAI will give strong preference to these newer results. KAI will submit to USA a summary I of profiles, existing FIS profiles, and changes in profile and floodway elevations, and will work closely i i a 1 PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates. Inc. Page 8 FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon 7 with USA and FEMA to resolve any perceived external data inconsistencies. As mentioned under the detailed hydraulics task, KAI will work closely with USA and FEMA to determine the extent to which the existing floodway boundary for the current FIS will be retained, in order to expedite the determination of the floodway boundary as part of this study. 1 j Task 6.0. Fuse Map Material li Very little work is proposed for this task. KAI has already obtained suitable base map material for this detailed restudy, and has modified this map to include streets constructed since the original METRO coverages were prepared. KAI will provide this information to USA and FEMA for preparing a suitable community base map for the FIRM, as directed by Chapter 9 and Figure 9A of the Guidelines. Data will be suitable for submission as a digital base map. according to section 9Alb, Appendix 4 and Appendix 7 of the Guidelines. The details of KAI's approach to submitting digital base map data appear under Task 9 Coordination. KAI has accounted for the acquisition of the base map coverages as a Task 1 data search. The main work associated with this task will be to finalize changes to the street coverage, and to ensure that all street names for streets within the proposed floodplain are provided. No extensive drafting is proposed for this task. Task 7.0 Work Map Preparation KAI will provide work maps and index maps showing all of the information required for the preparation of the FIRM by FEMA, as directed by chapter 9 and Figure 9A of the Guidelines. This task will include the work needed in preparing the plots and the GIS data for the FIRM submission, although the details of _ the submission are listed under Tasks 8,0 and 9.0 of the Guidelines. KAI will submit the work map data in digital form, and will submit the mapping coverages created from the HEC-2 modeling (e.g. floodplain/way boundaries, approximate elevations, etc.) in digital GIS format on CD-ROM, as detailed under Task 9 of this proposal. These work maps prepared for submission to FEMA will be done according to Appendix 4 for digital base maps produced using USGS 1:24,000 or better data, and Section 9A lb of the Guidelines. Content will be according to Chapter 9 of the Guidelines, and symbology. according to Figure 9A of the Guidelines. These maps will be submitted at a scale consistent with the scales of existing FIS's for the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard and unincorporated Washington County. f Work maps used internally will be primarily in electronic format, and will include the 2-foot contour topography, point elevation, and the previously prepared plaiumetrics. t ~ Task 8.0 Physical Map Amendment Preparation Since this restudy is of only a portion of the affected jurisdictions, it is not proposed to prepare a totally revised FIS report for any jurisdiction. However, this task includes the preparation of updated entries to I tables of flood discharges, base flood elevations, and the floodway table, in standard FIS report format suitable for inclusion in the published FIS reports. All appropriate data will be submitted, following the outline shown as The FIS Report Data Checklist. Figure C of the Guidelines, regarding content and II organization. KAI's submittal will only address the specific stream reaches studied in detail as part of this restudy. t For each flooding source studied in detail, KAI will submit computer generated profiles in lieu of hand drafted profiles, that conform to the criteria stated in Section 9B of the Guidelines regarding symbology, I t j i 1 i a PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates. Inc. Page 9 FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon scales, layout and other formatting issues of the sheets. The distance and elevation units used will match those from the computer output, the tloodway data table, and the work maps. Throughout the duration of this study, KAI (and subcontractors) will follow the requirements in Chapter 10 of the Guidelines for the review of work for quality assurance. However, Chapter 10 of the Guidelines S will be used particularly in reviewing the profiles, report tables, work maps, and computer generated outputs to ensure that all results are mutually consistent. In particular, KAI will work with any S subcontractors to ensure that data meets WAS for publication at 1:24,000 scale or better and meets FEMA's criteria for release of digital data, as directed in section 9A lb and Appendix 4 of the Guidelines. In addition to the draft FIS report and profiles, KAI will provide a digital FIS submittal according to the directions in Chapter 9 and Appendix 7 of FEMA's Guidelines. KAI proposes to use CD-R's recorded in ISO-9660 format to deliver digital study data to FEMA in a universal format with an established medium and a long shelf life. Such CD-R's may be read by almost any operating system, including the DOS/Windows/95/NT family, Macintosh and UNIX. KAI will coordinate with FEMA to clarify data format requirements as directed in Appendix 7 of the Guidelines. A 10% submittal of digital data will be performed to ensure that the final data submission is complete and fully documented. that data follows laver and color specifications required by FEMA. i The final digital data submittal will include at a minimum the following: • Digital base map files. . • Digital FIS work map files (Including orthophoto base) • Contour files • DTM (Digital Terrain Model) ^•1 • Hard copy plots f • Map index • Data quality report (i.e. metadata file) for each data source • Computer generated profiles (paper and digital) • Digital data submission checklist for each data source • Digital version of the draft FIS report and profiles The digital data submitted will reference a consistent horizontal and vertical datum. KAI anticipates that all digital data produced for this study will use units of feet, the state Plane projection for Northern Oregon (FIPS Zone 5076) and be referenced horizontally to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), and vertically to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Alterative datums j can be used, but multiple datums will not be used for this Study. At this time, KAI anticipates submitting Digital FIS (FIRM) data using Option 3 of Appendix 7 in the Guidelines, in which all lines and areas are coded with attribute codes. The associated digital data would probably be delivered in Arc/Info export format (E00) as uncompressed (text) files. Digital data and attribute definitions would follow the specifications in FEMA's Standards for Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. KAI understands that no COBRA's or otherwise protected areas lie within the study area. As such, most of the other digital requirements regarding quality and composition (i.e. feature types) would be satisfied by delivering cleaned (topologically complete) GIS coverages. 1 Li j PROPOSAL - Kurahaslu & Associates. Inc. Page 10 FIS Restudv of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon Task 9.0. Project Management and Coordination KAI shall coordinate all information developed for the FIS with FEMA's Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) and with couuuunity, state and federal officials involved in water resources programs in the study area, as directed in Chapter 12 of the Guidelines. At the start of the study. KAI will arrange for an announcement to be published in a prominent local paper advising of the planned study and requesting that relevant facts and technical data be submitted for consideration. The content of the announcement will follow the format shown in Attachment I of the ` SOW. I hroughout the duration of the study, KAI shall follow procedures requested by the CCO in coordinating with local officials of the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard and Washington County. KAI will notify the community chief executive officers or other designated official of the start of the study, will keep them advised of the progress of the study, and will give them ample opportunity to provide information for the studv. KAI will also coordinate with the local communities to ensure that mapping data (especially base maps) developed under this study can be made available in the most useful datums and digital formats. KAI will be available to meet with USA or FEMA monthly, or as desired, beginning with the start of the contract. KAI anticipates that the first meeting will be particularly important, as it would serve to select j vertical and horizontal controls, confirm use of CD-R for data delivery, and to confirm the proposed use of data formats (e.g. E00, DWG, or DXF). Also, the initial planning can occur regarding the digital data submission at the 10% and 100% completion points, to ensure that the data transfer proceeds in the most expeditious manner possible. As mentioned previously, KAI will coordinate with USA regarding submitting the FIS flows to local, state and federal agencies for review, so that any problems are identified before the hydraulics are finalized. KAI will also submit to the PO the FIS profiles modeled in HEC-2 prior to mapping the floodplain extent, also to minimize the need for revisions in subsequent work. At the conclusion of the study preparation- KAI shall deliver those items specified in Section IV of the SOW. These items shall be submitted as a Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN) for use by FEMA and FEMA's Technical Evaluation Contractor (TEC). KAI shall submit one TSDN for the watershed study area. As discussed under the report task. KAI will submit these materials in digital format on CD- ROM according to the organization and other requirements in Appendix 7 of the Guidelines. Finally, KAI will be responsible, following the submission of the draft FIS report. for addressing inquiries and issues raised while the study is undergoing technical review and throughout the community appeal process. Thus, KAI will retain copies of the TSDN and associated material relating to the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. ' As part of this. KAI will attend an intermediate meeting with community officials and FEMA regional staff upon completion of the draft FIS. Following that KAI will attend one public meeting following the completion of the draft FIS, quarterly GTM meetings, and telephone communications regarding the study, and time spent to finalize monthly billings. i i U t i ' 1 PROPOSAL - Kurahashi & Associates. Inc. Page 11 FIS Restudy of Fanno Cr., Summer Cr., and Ash Creek - Washington County, Oregon Task 10.0. Fanno Creek WMP Hydraulics Finally, KAI shall use the revised FIS hydraulic model (with current hydraulic conditions and Fanno i Creek WMP flows) to evaluate the hydraulic capacity of the high priority bridges listed in Table 17 of the j Fanno Creek WMP. In particular, this includes all culverts and bridges except for recreational use only. In I addition, KAI will develop rating curves just downstream of up to five potential locations where j significant regrading of the floodphain (or the creek channel) is contemplated. These rating curves will be used to evaluate both the hydraulic (lower local elevations) and the hydrologic (lower downstream flows) benefits that would be expected were these areas developed. The results of this task will be submitted to l USA as a separate technical memorandum, for distribution with both Appendix A (Hydrologic and ' Hydraulic Analysis) and the report, and for use in further watershed planning. i ~ Bridge Capacities i c Bridge capacities will be evaluated by using the detailed stream geometry developed during this restudy, with current (also from this restudy) overbank development, to obtain rating curves of flood elevation versus discharge (flow). The flow that corresponds to the desired capacity criteria (either low chord or flooding of deck) will be related to the expected frequency of occurrence under existing, future, or 2040- plan conditions, to arrive at the frequency of expected flooding. This frequency will be compared with the planning criteria established in the Fanno Creek WMP to determine whether the existing structure is "deficient", and, if so, to estimate the bridge dimensions that would be needed to convey the corresponding design flow, according to the planning criteria for replacement/repair projects. Finally, a cost estimate would be prepared for each CIP project identified in this manner, and a revised Table 17 would be prepared and submitted to USA that would list the prioritized projects and include any bridge replacements and project costs identified as part of this task. f Floodplain Entrancement Projects j KAI will also evaluate the local hydraulic and hydrologic affects from up to five potential projects that are currently contemplated by USA. KAI notes that a final list of projects can be agreed upon once the hydraulic model is calibrated, allowing further time for USA to modify the proposed list, or to refine the specific design to be evaluated. KAI must rely on assistance form USA in the development of these conceptual designs so that specific decisions can be made regarding the extent of landform modifications. Currently, KAI proposes to evaluate the following areas, in addition to the Bridges of Table 17: • OES Marsh / Vermont Tower Area • Woodward Park e Englewood Park • Denny Road and WWTP Modifications KAI expects that this evaluation will involve both modeling the changes in flow from off-line detention effects, plus modeling changed floodplain geometry in both the hydraulic (HEC-2) and hydrologic (flow) models. KAI will submit the results of this task as a brief memorandum to USA documenting the resulting changes to flood flows and elevations from the sites. In addition, rating curves of flow versus elevation j (and frequency) will be prepared so that further design efforts can include this information. i _ I I _ i Fanno Creek Flood Insurance Restudy Time and Cost Estimate - Fanno Creek, Ash Creek, and Summer Creek (16.7 miles) Task Description Pr. E SE PE ET PA SM ST FS Subc.n T.tai $97 582 $70 550 $40 $80 $50 $90 1.0 Reconnaissance, Bibliography 4 4 40 32 5 5,116.00 2.0 Approximate Flood Boundaries rda S 3.0 Aerial Sun'eys (mapping R GPS) S 15,000.00 S 15,000.00 3.1 d Sur,eys 64 88 440 S 49,120.00 4.0 Hydrology 4 4 24 S 2.396.00 5.0 tailed Hydraulics 48 200 510 200 S 66,756.00 5.1 file Concurrence 8 8 16 S 2,552.00 , 6.0 tae Map Material 8 8 S 960.00 7.0 Work Map Preparation 20 40 96 96 S 16,7J0.00 8.0 hysical Map Amendment Preparation 24 40 40 20 36 S 10,8J8.00 9.0 Project hianagement and Coordination 48 24 24 24 5 9,264.00 10.0 ann. Crcck WMP Hydraulic 40 60 80 60 16 S 18,040.00 otal S 196,792.00 Direct Expenses: - Base Map NW,riala S 350.00 .-I (mileage Q 50.301mile) S 120.00 ewspapa Announcement S 120.00 Film and Proceming S 180.00 S 50.00 Copies ta S 200.00 Prin .tal Direct Expensn S 2,000.00 ' rand Total S 193,792.00 Pr. E - Principal Engineer, SE- Senior Engineer, PE-Project Engineer, ET=F-ngincaing Technician; PA=Project Aasistant SM = Survey Manager, ST=Survey Technician; FS - TWO-man Field Survey Crew; Subcon=Subcomultant i i i 7 i ' - . i I .i . r "4.-•s I V •wm I ,r'':~ qtr ~c ~ ~s ~ ,.`11 is ~£I I il€ ~ ~v~ , nil 6i \ \4: i I• a r~ `v I ICI/„ It ;y.;r' ; ~.,s'•, Creek ~ ; d~:~.=~ c , ~ ~ t D~ I ~ Y Y r Yt ! ~ - ~;~,`r. Watershed - I ac ~`f" ,~•J`. `-f'£ I I I I P I E' ~ e gr r v Y .t; 'Y 'r""q".~ e " .p.~ ;:t. %1 ~p :kwon/ .i.w •.1 I ~ ~ y& `•~-~1p s...Ya,.m 3€ ~P z?` ~ mn..o ~r-i ~J.om t °I ~.:.I !trot lfN~osk _ ~ ;I ~ ~'I I : I Watershed Map Symbols „ r.. ~ ~ £ ~ j _ a ~I @1 g; 'v ~ ~ ~ I I @i~y r~ Iw.qL~'~ Votershed ,~I 1I I I S~ y. `•il'.4• = ~ 9oundnr _ `,k„ I I Ike ~ Icy e:~S Y I y,• Y Y,+i...c ~ I Ir' JF .~uaoa_ gl. E` (1S.h C Yly, ~~n •r` ~S: \4 t% ~ st:~r ~~~•i• ~ d,~z, Jurladictlon 5 E % ~ •~`P' `•Jl • £ - - ~ ~ \"e ~ f>= ~ Boundnr =y p,, / ,~`.ja fir el ~ ~ar•~trcl l~"4~g Y i Ir a f:r ~ i. a ».k•: _ ~ ~~r~~vl=~^~,r c ~ Y R i~ i?~ I+ .1 i x,41 HcJor ;5 y: i•• i° ~ ; ~ .-f I 2 oon ' I ~ h; 14 5:uou SI stediv Plpe ~'^~`.'".,~~R;: c Yom' -F.~ Y' ~ 'yia~..oR j •E: ~ ~V/ fi I" I~ 3'~` Mn or .I eu . F~ t ~ ~a,e n• ' ,~i ~ Open `cdi£Lr j I' _ ,r,.~, 7y E: a ~f ~Chnnnel r• 4 uwa I uc! n € ~i Ymam I rl _m_u I _ I";t,. :Iwasn I '==w--I ~h III _i6E HG Jnr - _ Er- 1 I e ~ e I i ®Pond _ I ':Y a Y I j L~ ~ 1 Ike D e _ _ _ ~ 1 r p _ - r. I _ I r.rt. ~ _ I Y.u^~~• _ ~ :Y fu' - .u.- I I, g w , ,-K:9 un „ en'¢ » i . rNO. _ i . G. ..x. ~ u , ~ ~ ~ ~ Y:. _ - _ ~ ~ t - ~ i/e~ of _ Y,~- . _ ~ r . , CITY _ - 3,. T0.1RD ~ c ~ ~J ,=`cI. ~ I Y..~_ ti. ` _ f.. Z _ _ ul y. 1 i' ~ t f y' S r r-..:r ~ ~ , Z ~~T°}. 6' i:rY t ``+~wn~~ £h I i ' P t el : [9 -,c 1' "'``/`•gl - I ~ hr if Ok'Y-.~~~ ~w.-~--•~.~ _ s~ I_x iI_ ~ " ~ s. r: a _ " `i ~ s Fore 11 ;I _ - `~f~ 1 ~ ~-.1 f ' n „~,z ~ . ~ ~ f q - ` k n ~ iFW.2LA5 is .c""`J - -fi ~ ~ ~ ~ r' II ~ - Y ~~`,'~,3 4T ~ _ ~ I Y~ o- ~~t f i _ rw ~ q ~E. ~ ~ _ w _ Y I :Y - I a r p I ~ -~1V2 . ,rra - - -"~°m ~....;~5 3 w.w v ~ F ii : ¢ ~ rya. k yy ..arc! '~b'I .3:.. ; KURAHASHI ,~''-'=r~ .c: . ,'-'~£ro"k . S 1 •t, ~ ~ ~ ; f`"• _~s.._ ~ . I= f' s esctt'..::;i ' & ASSOCIATES. INC. Agenda # 3.5 i of 4 ~ I f t--...... _ • If this notice appaars clearer thin the , ~ AUG 2 41998 document, the document is oI mat•ginnl ,tlaiih•, ; MICROFILMED ' . I,. Y IxcH (:Mwe a a x . IIIIIl11111111~IIlINIIfilldtllllllfi~IDllliil~1181fIli~fllilitlllll1111111I11f II(18ih .,i>-_i f ~ 1S"°:' n I ' to n _ n , ~ llfl 111IIIIIhliilfllllllllllbihltllllllllll~llblllli~luU1UIUIIIfiII~IlIII111(IIIIII1111II~i1 ~ i ! Im I[I1j11~IllQl(llliplW i<i~l - _ r - ~ ; . - - ap j: ' ? ~ ~ ~ r- _ ,---I ~ asis~:,, as '^'7a ~ ~ d' c a° sly y f.,yp* d _ n. i,~ ~ t: ~ WnWr i~1 «k.. s~. ~ I4 EY i ice" Il xC ~ F ~ e ,I ba, 'y - f i; 3 ~ I ,~=;;.Inw .I.~~~ Creek I _ I rte' ~ [ c l - ~ 3 _ Y Ni~A,I : p E Watershed e s x u °I 1 8~ -m ..r.:r _ ~ ! l ~ - - a ~ . 1; , . c d9~Y / a I ~ 6ttwtlfM~ork r ~~4 , a p `I ~1 G i "I Watershed Ala S bols ~ IJ,,~~; :s I _ ~ ~ of I~ p ~ t:. rl .«li,• E` ~ ~`«~.~.'j.«... iPe o~y~~jp ~ I I _ u~ `"°'yl €I I { I ersnea ,.I rt i'.~_:5'" ^ g~ ~rel I rl., ~ :I i~ O a ~t (Boundary 9 ~ n ..a~ +yirv n¢L, r.F 'Ef lI e~ w ~ .:Y _ r F he 'r NL~ ~ ~ V~J ~ ~MOro ~Ivm~" r j I ~ iY YI In I6 Y. IF ~ I ~`I YI lF S Y r~ \ U$.~1. 't : ~ ' ='w 1 F / p _ E `I , i i= , t ~I ; I i~ .nrra:mc<lon I rr Ig.. ~ ~ yE " £I n Fi: ' FI .Iic"„ i Iwa i I "I !m Y1 ~ F I .I Boundary F - ~ $I ' ~ I >C sl .J lY ;I ~ ;I lrYa,,, ~I era I _ I~' 6 e~:wx.n m,is ''g 'drel. Y~~~ i i5i .,I I ` . c a. ~ sYi ~ ~ I-~ 1 I E Y Y ~ Y "~Y✓• r ~ Gosed PI e c ,r EFy. v~ i~ ~.~a~ ' ~-i of W'~'; z~ `s ~ t ~ ~ I I ~ Systen P .n~3 ,.i1 G~~~ Yl t° I .,,.m i I" I iJ 1 r14E~ ^PY ~ :I FI IR "I 5{ ^.;,^~~.I""".`~„I/. ~e e~ n Y ~ a9` ~ I:gi ` ..,Ies -In :~FI a :I ~aI 'I I I Na~or i ' ' , v;~ ~ s i _ _ I ~ `I ° •1 ~,~c! n .I open :'fr a E" - i Channel .,zg~'.S-S~! je .F: is ~r ~~a F~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ e^i ~~'J`" d - E j 14^'di ICI a J j , I. iFE! i$ ~.5n ~ F: I ate. ~ ~Y J ,ny~ d~.~', `Y - , i FTP .d. ~ % `m_L',~[ o`Krr 6i ~s rE yam; ~ 5 I eir ;ski fit, Pond .E . ~ ~ ~r v~~7~-1g"„_ ~ t~.,.~''i; . ' _ e "J°"_ ~ Frl r' 1 :.`ty : ~~;6 - E ~ I b'. rrI iy C:'^"µ " YI ile 1..._. 1 wF"'Y`'~ .5 J'~r., I.t Erij % rm..a .I Y'• u ct c _ _ _ I - ",M weary o-c.P r: - I L~ s• F~- Y' ~ Y`~ ~ Canes ~ ~ ' e _ Yy, ~ F. i Y I I F s Y. Y _ S ~e Ta440 fl• L ~ £I r~~ ~,m, IS ~o i so t 'm ~r "i r~ 4 SRS 'ti ~ w Ilu.w ~ r _ '~w, W I ~ t\ ' 1e - .4 C.r f. im _ 'J ik I ~YL / I~ 1 CIu~ 1 Y YI {v Iii IYi~iY ~ir'.~ ! Ff Ure11 'q. l ^ lY rc 1~' I ~ 1 i Y' iY:l YI "1 I F " YI ~ ,r t ~i .fir _ ~ @!41 ~ ~ ~ eO~ Y~ .I I ~ i ~ !a ~ _ F .c= < ..nan r. Y' q f FI ~ I i I G' Fi:.xra"r" ,.f 'i ..d FI i ~/p we~.~r GI' w;OK r t'£ \ 1 a. Yi EIY ~iYEI :i ~i F .~`[--r~.• ;-t _ r is ey .F.F.+. I - ~ ~!r ~i I i ~~in 1 ~ p. y"- ~.:M` kl.c ~Y~ I 1" FOP I •tj~• it ~~I ~ ~ . E~ f :ti~._ ems(:`\J•"\ Fr £[~C a ~ _ YI I YI ~ f. Yi y ~v \ 9~ FI FI / i~ F I `cyu' _ _ it I i; ~I Y: - ( Shxt3a(4 =L.'~~S 1 i~.~ I' f 'I Y'. Y. Y?r 't ,,a t, r wli I ~r } .i ef.• 6~~" 'ilC~ IuW.r.,Y~i ~I'. ~ I'Yi S. f~~ ~ -,l.^ iy_I _ v ' y._ i, ,c ow... i.. j Sel, Mf~k ~~.ar r _ . j ` I,~r~ ~ ~ti\ ~ F/ I i : ate,... ~ KURAHASHI • =r' ~ ~e IF - 1 1L ~~t~~'i5', IN _ Agenda#3.5 2of4 I - c--~ „ ~ ~ .i''~. ~ r- 1 ~ If this notice appaiirs clem•er than the AUG 2 41998 .'s ;document, the dacumcnt is of maeginnl ,uaiity' j MICROFILMED i 1 t t t. _k - ~ s INCH ('MADE tll GN ' " =x<sc~....;a- ~ . ~...cc~ ~ 1 aa''::5. :..:1..'. ; ~ ~'.6= "19__ 1 U .'-;^ifi3' W :.71;- _ II T°f 11 it-= ; _ _ 71, llullhlllllliidllllHllffll~lullil(i~flf(IIIfl~ilhll flll ~1i1111111~1~Illllhli~ifilllil[~IIIIliiC111IhIil~ll(IIIItl~IIIIIIlIi~1IWiItI([iuUU~IJIIIIIIIItiillilfllillllii~flml t ul ~ruliuZu~uuGu~u u r ~ttiuh _ H ~ _ ~ ;s~ L F°t ~~,,..'i... „n„a,~~ r .(""""x~w;,iw,~4'~~•"YI~3rGrt~I'*+J.~)Gu ~f a'~~ ~t ~~~i r I sib IE a : E'" '~X, i. ` > : ~ 4 s -1. i~ I I ~ I~r-~ ~:c~ , r• I a ; ~ le"„„ F ~ ar `Mn ! ,wwD WaterRhed ~ "-,tcw i f``~y ` s I .tt,,,Y"'~ f ~ r ~,\tglf• ~ F._..._.... = sn t c ~ >!w Yai ud ~ -J : t ~ lam 6.,m ✓:5,~ Iw Ofrsru Ird~exk r y ~'jn1 cJ 5 ~ er i slwne..uc lien.\: IS ;.w`<'?`i.K"c r E ~ 1.-3 n ~ I 6 : ^F Watershed fda S bols ~ I r' wt I ! ~ 1 I ,o - I F I s~r 1' `r f- f n \ Vntershed i ~'"F~1 3 :I " I i S' t• f b 1F i ty+ aI + 't ~J Boundory ~ I ~ y o l~ ae gl 6 - , "r,a~ (81cr~~~ s ~ I k\,~ ~ i I i~ I : lam'''- ~ i f1 ( ~~-"a~5r~ e d e~RC e t 1~+ U.S.A. i \ I~~'r t' ~_~~i ,V,1 ` ~ ~ JurlsdlCtlan - i~ S ~ Boundor l'1 . z' = I - I - ~ I f 1 ^q~ -~-'~,S• I e F I 'w - ' , ~ 1 P ti~ i' ~ ~ !i V":~'•E-' ~I. 'm~ it +•A B,. i MOJor \ Closed I e ~.L/.~ P i t t m- . ~ ~ f' Y~ & ~ ~ . \ 4 J rS 1 ~ $ S'ken \ ~ti F11~ \1 r} wk o i o,w~•r~1~„~ I ° 1 it . ~a I _ "~a~ I Y t °I t , , ' yrDj6 ~.er+gt it rr Ma Jar - - ~ Channel - I -r: e:w, ~n-f~~rr~ei;~s; ~ ~ Fege I @~~ ~ ` a~= ,sj I t _ - E~~, ~ M~Jor i - _ I' u ~"u m m~ r:~~. ~r~ rt;. Lam: A'nw. - _ ` 's • r"^ _ _ Is _ c I I I ~ !Y ~f +f~ I ~ . j : ".r 3!•' •I I I~ t4 I i c. : ~ : ; Cv 5 Figure 11 5. ~ :I 1-: I I I i £t `8: ~~~c e~ .5 4\ t ~ Jigs- ew.. i ~ I r) lts\~: 'itj'' i IS I SUS' :I lgig i ~ ,1~ a_ 3i ~ r. I ~ .u , . ; ~ `t'_-gin a ~ , I b - . I I: ~ ~ "n. fs--::✓ I Y i 4p'~~ s ~~V. 5~rvr rye :4~ _ Y .0131 ~^.Y0.MJJ11 I I, D 1 a t. ~ - S1xt 2 of 4 Y i t1 ! k ~~y~..t. I ,M~i. 1600 fM1 ~ e r g. S i welt ou.w ,n ~k aan ~ u a ~ SHI KURAHA BB~zsrB7 ~ 1 - d,~tQ:' i=: I j" ~ - ~ assoctn~s, rnlc. Agenda # 3.5 3 at4 I Yr I If this notice appears clearer than the ~ j AUG 2 41996 ::6 :'document, the document is of marginal ,uaiih•. ~ MICROFILMED ;I ;1 t t _I ; I f. _ I _ - t I 11 ~ INCH 'MADE dl IXHIF ~ : <?F"'a-~ ; ~ - I = L..' ~ '~tt^ }j ,tl'x tC .'~1S IP II II ~ ~ = ='2E" 9 3B. '..:i II~NIIIIIII~IIIINIIIilldlilllflll~lf[11111 lltdfll ill~ill~llillllllllllfhlli~li(1(III~IIIIIfiIICIIiIIIIIlI1111hIh~1I011111~IIltlilll~lUp1~i11111111~~1111111Illllllli(~Afl - Ili ! m ~i l~tiiliil~uiluahu~tlmull~! ~s~ ..s :Y ~7;L~~ ~ K{ i' id",~'' `;~.y, ~Y ~~"`•~In~`^`""'w°'~'" .s~+s ~ lu. ':.+x•' k .'ww=~~.y:' IWflafd ~ `4 ~ ~~i ' 1. ~ ~ y , ~ ~ ~ j?. z 7 : ~ E: ~ d t4F 3,~ .,;•'b u ~ s _ 4Wl u!>m.`-wi ~ . ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ , ?~nax Y : ~^,~s~ : ~''a., i+r"S .~z ~ ~ ~ •d x.~ yF '~fiA ~ ~ . ~ ,.,a i ¢ ' u ~ ~ ..6 w any kby Y~ yf ' .6~1~~'°Ae, ~ _ V1e08 t, , . .~t ~ s "'E w ~ ~ ",°•~'.s~> 'e"a.,3 nAUnu~ f.~ : „'r~r ~ ~ ..k.,.. WatBl6 9d wauru ~ .en Y ...t 2r: tl •.i•. ~ Y ~ ~ t ~ S'~~, 1 ~ .:.d B.. ~s3a . . A~ .Yy.~I. d r s ; II v ' Baw Yty ao6 ,..tdn j , ' 3y' u. t -',~#4 r B ~ ~ z 1 ~ r 9trwn IIEf~ork ~.8 ~ f £ E ~ .w M1t,~ }•.'r tk : ne i ~r ~ " rLL . ; ~ ' , " f ~ £ r~,,~ _ °f ~ Wafershed Map Symbols `}r C id o3`{ _,r-J{ ?a„ ~ ~y,. ' . ..:.,;r ~.,I~~.'+.~1~~ ~{,,J::';•`.... :4: n or ' "skf'. r ~ I..• .i } x,.~ I ~ . a :.:.?r ' ~ ~ '`""i.. f ~ :'°ar'•FF'f~ F •:''~I t nJ t,~ ~y f. ~ Votershed ~i x,arY ~ :L,f.: f Y v~ ~ -'1 1 ~ w :;:g ✓i: ~ ~gy#~ j.~~q~' i~ $ '*.r 17. Boundary l i ..f ..~_';1 a .-Y"r~ i ' 41 , _ ~ p ~'+i ~ h ~ r ~ffi~ 7A US.A '~f Y ~ „~U , .7y .;F Jurisdiction ~ "`f - .t ~ . .3 N ` .o,a i .w.ol' \~ar. :a ry"e" ' ~ Houndnr Mkr t,:L"x~+~ ~ .8 . t7~+! : R ( ''~Y lmio 'x }.!'rte'" ~{i3 +s , .1_ ~ ~ ~ .ini :n K ~0'°eAr :35~ Major i,.o:..o»' is w~ •L'. ~ .w / e Closed Pipe °~.asnm: zg € '(s. ~ ~ Y ~ 8~~5!€, xoa#. ~ Systen , a ',3: ~ V ' 't,L ~ z ,,d F' Cf' Y ` ~~Sr~°a3 ~ r ~ y; ~ ~ E a oRp) t\~ ~ j5.mra~.. sm ~F .+3`:`+,f i/r' v*d ,xi' .a'", c..?c~i~° -j .'s!@I`>F ~a ~j t~ ,:'h,~ NcJor w.: 1y. t. .~S 73'.L 4, Y{~~,,r ~ ,.Jr .t. ~Chonnel ' ' *.t• 1•s- ~'s f si f \ p,'y f Y 1 nq,7cd c - ~J... P +r!'I ~8f wu„we~ . J'~'~ n ~ ,3. £ r 2 i v 4' d 3 ! ~ A' d r i~'} f ~,ss.r ":~3 :Y.'~~,= f r ~ y rl •ii ,ua f,oov I £I ~t~ ` m ..a rY "wo* ---fit r F ~~-il S f, . v'~u•}•t,.: mrc r. r.:~' i I fir'; ~.4 : ~ a..~, ~ ~~'ls~,•g 5~ a r rmrs : : ( 71ARW'dd ~ 5 ®Pond .l g '.n. i F I °r: ~ r3.: 3tg& - -i i - i U ~ •4..~- w•'" J` ! ~ I ' : ~ ~~w i ~ : j E ~>dm,. 3'mw 5>g fiat j +.'Jf ~ "@ .d~• I,~"r` .N,N'~'- Y i ` rm ~ 7 ~'`-ryr p ~~y yir I .,g ' di, ,r~Z~f terra' a'Y s ^~la' 1 ~ ~ -~5 +s,. - -t ~ rt"a'' S - i E• 1 mr~nr owvsii I ~ av:w . ~ Y ~E Y . c" r ..Y Ya _ e-r=s'- . J I `I ` ~ • ~J r-^ P :ar° ~ L.. y x' `1' y~'y" ~•tr r o p 9epe - ~ e ~_~x µ~%~C•4 v ( 'V~~--1`i •R:! y`_w:zac--~d E 4 q ~g'„~ _ J': ~ ~ '°yr ~7?.~- 4 1. i. i, S' e~W s ~.k' -L;-r'o :ist 6i~~IInIY~'' ~Ya~~~__ _ _ - ~ ~ j ~ ~4 uauc~-. £ - i ` .iii c - --...~5l watn^ ,.+c: I.l„_. Y! = iR^ I w. I :i Yi" a;EY I 7~ Yi'`"`i II :t E_ l 3 Y i 4:~,~: ; I '6' ( Att ~ ~ ~,~f'1'y_=~y3`i'¢iz: •l :r .a or;. .~~`.[L~ '3,. 1'. a4°~i j~=~ Yi~IY iwFwNr j"`/~:.~^d..;mR" ~L -Rb~;~~~ >^i wn„r -a... + '~~1=' ~ - £!z R Y ,w l ~u I f*` I ~~yy,, i 81 7.``}g ,a Bo ."I - - - 4 i i ~i £ r 1~t,,,: ! r..e: ~ Fi/~ure 11 R: ••`,"~i.: _ 1 NOw.vs it , mm Ir-~ ~ G~ may, -'sI ~~.i i yc~ y;f J `:;^-~~°~••I Nih l.F- lAm:- f ~ £ M• i f~J +,n1~ue r~•.~.y~oi ~ ` ~ r' 'J ~ - _ - YI rl ~ ,1,~4ra \ . a~ly~, ~ `~=~1~~~~.-t 'tun c.._n~.. ..3,.. _ --•-4 v -i's`: '-dI `~y;-rl F.'lr1~T j ,t~,~- • fir, Y_; _ ?-j., 4 P; Y~•~ &f Y: e~'•y; i •k`q I 3' :'.•1.'{~ fir. i-'?ar y7''.- 9! K•~• _ ~I ~4 /r•~. ~'~/.~~1.~. rt~.r l_ , - .:d .`l Y':t - - ~;i .x _ ~•-,-`:`~.a - 3 K, Ate' a sxat - Y ~ Y. :wlos • I£:E ~•i, s: " y:: ur'n'. ul,r_ yJur ~1 Via,,,, 9' i / j° n..aa is I 's i a"~~ a:. ~ V§ s*_~ ~ - o„•: .o,. " ; - - Shcet 4 0( 4 I ~ .1 II 4 ~ Y; j - o r~ Y. o~'a R.•~f JI T ` i _ i I I 1. ,uw•r Yr ~ 1 wwar'a ! Sr •R 2 i..: :,mo F I.P r ~ I° i t' f/ r 't•~,.m. ~ i [y~J 1 YI ~ i I i (:5-- I~ sra. naac f I_.-i - ~ .F 5 ~e '1 I I ( ~ V: gFv- Yl iEcw inm.l ~ - ~ . ' -A' w:oa • 1 ~u Y < Y~ 7 ~ 'x'~ Nat. OtlM m 1/1 mM a0~t C- •Y ~ 7 i i I ~ I KURAHASHI o sis% ` ' ~ ;e~'::j 10...=1 it el i I E ' i.: }-I ~ ,~:.:3's & ASSOCIkTES, INC. Agenda # 3.5 4 of4 r~ _ - ' . If this notice appaars clearer than the a ~ggg { UG 24 document, the document is of marginal ,aaiiq~. ~ MICROFILMED _ f~j~~it~~(f - _ - ~i~ I _ .~~}Lj~m"1~} . rte'' s . _ - t INCH MME al dI ~ :r'.-: - . _ ~ ~ _ -•,z: _ _ _ ..z._ . . 1 °bt' ' _..-t.': ;:0 = - ~ ..t' "1 ~ 1 - 12 ,X - 14 . _9S: - It 7 ; ' 11 1t:- r_ '=2I'-'=_t _ :2i 70, dlummh»~ml»uf»idililflfil~I~rTflilf~im~~il1»»~Ihtflfllflfllll[liulil~lif(Iifdffmiiulful'~uftl»►IimlVlf~»u6i»u~ulu»fl»duli~Imlii»fmfl>f» t mo I~Tuu~G»I~fuiliu>W~ i»l~ll - - - ~ .l ~f AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 1997 ra CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Greenburg Road Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement PREPARED BY- A,P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK cP~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL I j Shall City Council approve the Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the Greenburg Road f Improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Recorder to sign the Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement on behalf of the City. INFORMATION SUMMARY ~n intergovernmental agreement among Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington County, and the City of Tigard for design of the widening of Greenburg Road at the Highway 217 Overpass was $ approved by Resolution No. 95-30 authorized by City Council during a meeting on June 27, 1995. The Mayor and City Recorder both signed the resolution on the 27th of June. The road improvement project widens Greenburg Road from Shady Lane to just past the Washington Square Drive Intersection. It provides additional capacity and left turn capability for smoother traffic flow in that area. The project is funded by a combination of j Major Street Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) and Local Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. That original agreement authorized preliminary engineering and design to proceed on the project. This supplemental agreement expands the original scope to include preliminary engineering, engineering design, monitoring of necessary rights-of-way acquisition, bid advertisement, construction inspection and project j management of the project until construction completion. ODOT will be responsible for all aspects of the l project design and construction until completion. Staff has reviewed the Supplemental IGA and finds the agreement acceptable. Original copies of the Supplemental IGA are not yet available for signature, but a draft { copy is provided for information. The final version will be ready prior to the August 26th meeting date and will a be provided as soon as it is available. The project design has basically been completed and the project is ready for bid advertisement. The execution of this supplemental agreement is necessary for the project to proceed to the bid phase, which is scheduled for early September 1997. The project construction is expected to begin in the fall of 1997 and should be completed by late fall 1998. 3 e 1 I I 1. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERFD None FISCAL NOTES The amount of $2,015,000 is available in MSTIP-2 funds provided by Washington County. The sum of $400,000 is added to the project from the STP (Local Surface Transportation Program). The $400,000 includes $359,000 in STP funds and $41,000 in matching funds provided through the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) funding. Matching funds for the STP funding are included in the approved 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program. 11CITY W I DBSUMIGRNSPI GA. DOC I'- i j i t DRAFT: 05 August, 1997 Misc. Contracts & Agreements ' No. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 j THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "ODOT'; WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"; and the CITY OF TIGARD, also a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Elected Officials, i hereinafter referred to as "CITY" entered into Preliminary Engineering Agreement No. 13489 on Said agreement covers design of certain roadway improvements on Greenburg Road at the Highway 217 interchange, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". It has now been determined by ODOT, COUNTY, and CITY that the agreement referenced above, although remaining in full force and effect, shall be amended by this supplement No. 1 in order to include additional items of work and funding. Therefore the above mentioned agreement shall be amended as follows: RECITALS - Paragraph No. 3 of original agreement which reads as follows: "3. Under such authority and for the purpose of providing acceptable traffic patterns on public highways, COUNTY and CITY have requested ODOT to widen Greenburg Road where it crosses Beaverton - Tigard Hwy. to two through lanes in each direction plus other associated improvements ! necessary for the smooth flow of traffic, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". The location of the PROJECT is approximately as shown on the map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A", and by this reference i made a part hereof. This agreement covers only the preliminary engineering and design portion of the PROJECT." I Shall be changed to read: ~ "3. Under such authority and for the purpose of providing acceptable traffic ~ patterns on public highways, COUNTY and CITY have requested ODOT l to widen Greenburg Road where it crosses Beaverton - Tigard Hwy. to two through lanes in each direction plus other associated improvements necessary for the smooth flow of traffic, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". The location of the PROJECT is approximately as shown on the map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A", and by this reference E made a part hereof. This agreement covers all phases of work including Key 08675 EXHIBIT "A" , i L~ M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction, and maintenance. {j RECITALS Paragraph No. 4 which reads as follows: "4. The PROJECT preliminary engineering and design will be financed with a maximum of $215,000 in MSTIP (Major Street Transportation Improvement Program) funds provided by COUNTY and at no cost to i ODOT or CITY." i Shall be changed to read: i - "4. The CITY and COUNTY are financing 100 percent of this PROJECT at f no expense to ODOT. All phases of the PROJECT will be financed with i a maximum of $2,015,000 in MSTIP (Major Street Transportation Improvement Program) funds provided by COUNTY and with a maximum of $400,000 of STP (Local Surface Transportation Program) i and matching funds provided or authorized by CITY under Title 23„ United States Code (USC), and the Oregon Action Plan. All cost overruns beyond the amount shown in contract contingencies will require approval from both City and County. Current contingencies ! estimate is $69,000. In no case will the combined amount of $2,415,000 be exceeded without approval from both COUNTY and CITY a supplement to this agreement entered into as mutually agreed upon by all parties to this agreement." RECITAL Paragraphs No. 7 and 8 shall be added as follows: i 7. ODOT and Washington County entered into agreement No. 6304 on { November 16, 1977 for the installation of traffic control signals at the north and southbound ramp terminals of Beaverton-Tigard Highway and Greenburg Road. Said agreement shall remain in full force and effect with maintenance and power responsibilities being restated in this agreement. 8. The Standard Provisions attached hereto, marked Attachment 2, are by 1 this reference made a part hereof. The Standard Provisions apply to all j federal aid projects and may be modified only by the ODOT, COUNTY, I ~..J AND CITY OBLIGATIONS of this agreement and supplements to this agreement. The parties hereto mutually agree to the terms and ! 2 i a f M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD conditions set forth in Attachment 2. In the event of a conflict, this ' agreement shall control over the attachment, and ODOT, COUNT`(, and j CITY OBLIGATIONS shall control over Attachment 2. For the purpose of this PROJECT only, references in Attachment 2 to "Agency' shall pertain to CITY as this PROJECT is partially financed with CITY's allocated federal funds." ODOT OBLIGATIONS Paragraph No. 1 which reads as follows: 1. ODOT shall, at PROJECT expense, conduct the necessary field surveys and traffic investigations; and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce plans, specifications and estimates." j i Shall be changed to read: 1. ODOT shall, at PROJECT expense, conduct the necessary field surveys j r^ i and traffic investigations; perform all preliminary engineering and design I work required to produce plans, specifications and estimates; be responsible for the monitoring of the acquisition of necessary right-of- way and access control (right-of-way and access control issues are further addressed in the supplemental Right-of-Way Services agreement - No. 13489); advertise for bid proposals, award all contracts, pay all contractor costs, furnish all construction engineering, materials testing and technical inspection, conduct all right-of-way survey and monumentation, and provide PROJECT management services for administration of the contract." ODOT OBLIGATIONS Paragraph No. 2 which reads as follows: "2. ODOT shall, upon execution of this agreement, request COUNTY to forward an advance deposit for the full estimated cost ($215,000) to design this PROJECT." Shall be changed to read: • 1 ' "2. ODOT shall, upon execution of this agreement, request COUNTY to forward an advance deposit for the full estimated cost ($250,000 to design this PROJECT. ODOT will request the advance of remaining U funds from COUNTY and CITY prior to the advertisement of the l 3 i - j , i i M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY i CITY OF TIGARD PROJECT for bid and award. Said remaining funds are to be used to j finance the construction and final monumentation of the PROJECT. { PROJECT costs are not to exceed a total of $2,415,000 without I i approval from both COUNTY and CITY and a fully executed supplement I to this agreement." ODOT OBLIGATIONS Paragraph No. 3 which reads as follows "3. ODOT shall compile accurate cost accounting records and furnish COUNTY with monthly itemized statements of said preliminary engineering and design costs." Shall be changed to read: "3. ODOT shall compile accurate cost accounting records and furnish COUNTY and CITY with monthly itemized statements of said preliminary J engineering, design, right-of-way monitoring, and construction costs. COUNTY and/or CITY may request a statement of costs to date at any time by submitting a written request." ODOT OBLIGATIONS Paragraph No. 4 which reads as follows: "4. ODOT shall, upon execution of this agreement, provide a schedule for preliminary engineering and design work. The schedule will be reviewed and approved by COUNTY and CITY prior to commencing work on the PROJECT. The $215,000 cost for PROJECT preliminary engineering and design work is fixed. Any changes to the schedule or cost estimate j identified by any party to this agreement must be reviewed and j j approved by the other parties to this agreement. A new schedule and cost estimate, as needed, will be provided by ODOT. A supplement to this agreement will be required for any PROJECT cost increase above f $215,000." i Shall be changed to read: "4. ODOT shall, upon execution of this agreement, provide a schedule for preliminary engineering and design work. The schedule will be reviewed and approved by COUNTY and CITY prior to commencing work on the PROJECT. The $250,000 cost for PROJECT preliminary engineering 4 i j i f i M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD and design work is fixed. Any changes to the schedule or cost estimate identified by any party to this agreement must be reviewed and approved by the other parties to this agreement. A new schedule and cost estimate, as needed, will be provided by ODOT. A supplement to this agreement will be required for any PROJECT preliminary engineering or design cost increase above $$250,000." ODOT OBLIGATIONS Paragraphs No. 5, 6, 7, & 8 shall be added as follows: °5. ODOT shall name Washington County and the City of Tigard in the construction contract and performance bond as a beneficiary of said documents, expressly entitled to independently enforce their terms directly against the contractor and surety. ODOT shall specify that Washington County, its Commissioners, employees and agents; and the City of Tigard, its elected officials, employees, and agents shall be named as 'additionally insured' in all insurance documents. ` - 6. ODOT shall provide COUNTY and CITY with a minimum of three weeks j to review and comment on the design and estimates, at completion of ! preliminary engineering and prior to completion of final design. t 7. ODOT shall, upon PROJECT completion and at its own expense, remain `i responsible for maintaining the structural integrity of the Greenburg Road structure crossing over Beaverton - Tigard Hwy. and shall perform signal and ramp meter maintenance and operation of the north and southbound ramp terminals, all illumination installed within the interchange access control limits and any traffic signal interties related to the PROJECT, also at its own expense. ODOT shall retain complete control of the timing established for operation of the PROJECT traffic signals. Any requests for changes in the traffic signal timing will be subject to review and approval by ODOT. I 8. ODOT shall bill COUNTY annually for 100 percent of power costs associated with the traffic signals and related illumination at the north and southbound ramp terminals as previously stated in agreement No. 6304, t attached hereto marked Exhibit 'B' and by this reference made a part hereof." t i COUNTY OBLIGATIONS Paragraph No. 1 which reads as follows: t 5 L I I e } 7 M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD , i "1. The COUNTY herehv grants ODOT the exclusive right to enter onto and occupy COUNTY right-of-way for the performance of the preliminary engineering and surveying, associated with the PROJECT. " Shall be changed to read: i q 1. COUNTY hereby grants ODOT the exclusive right to enter onto and occupy its COUNTY right-of-way for the performance of the preliminary engineering, surveying, inspection, construction, monumentation and i installation of the improvements as outlined herein associated with the PROJECT." f i f j COUNTY OBLIGATIONS Paragraph No. 2 which reads as follows: "2. The COUNTY shall, upon execution of this agreement and notification from ODOT, forward to ODOT a maximum of $215,000 for the estimated costs of preliminary engineering and design of the PROJECT. { Additional advance deposit requests will not be made without a i supplement to this agreement." r Shall be changed to read as follows: t - "2. The COUNTY shall, upon execution of this agreement and notification from ODOT, forward to ODOT a maximum of $250,000 for the estimated costs of preliminary engineering and design of the PROJECT. COUNTY will forward an advance of remaining COUNTY funds 30 days prior to the scheduled advertisement of the PROJECT for bid and i award. Said remaining funds are to be used to finance the construction and final monumentation of the PROJECT. No bid advertisement shall occur until said deposits have been received by ODOT. A supplement to this agreement will be required if the total cost for design, { construction, right-of-way acquisition, and monumentation of this PROJECT is to exceed $2,415,000." COUNTY OBLIGATIONS Paragraphs No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 shall be added as follows: "5. The COUNTY shall, within three weeks, review and approve the L.J PROJECT plans and specifications. t 6 rwwF- i E i r M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 I WASHINGTON COUNTY i CITY OF TIGARD I 6. The COUNTY shall, upon completion of the PROJECT, continue to maintain all roadway and right-of-way within its jurisdiction at its own expense including the roadway surface of the structure crossing over Beaverton - Tigard Highway. County shall also be responsible for alllandscaping and irrigation and all traffic signals and illumination beyond the Greenburg Road interchange. 7. The COUNTY shall, upon completion of the PROJECT, continue to reimburse ODOT annually for all electrical power on the traffic signals and associated illumination located at the north and southbound ramp terminals of the interchange as stated in the previously mentioned agreement No. 6304. Maintenance and power responsibilities for all other PROJECT traffic signals and illumination is to be determined by COUNTY and CITY. _ 8. COUNTY acknowledges the effect and scope of ORS 105.755 and agrees that all acts necessary to complete construction of the PROJECT I which may alter or change the grade of existing COUNTY roads are being accomplished at the direct request of the COUNTY." I 9. The COUNTY shall, at its own expense, obtain all Right-of-way and f Access Control necessary for the PROJECT. Said Acquisition will be monitored by ODOT and is addressed further in the supplemental Right- of-way Services agreement No. 13489. COUNTY agrees that right-of- way activities shall be in accord with the Uniform Relocation Assistance & - Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended, State's Right of Way Manual and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 74D and Title 49, Part 24. All projects must have right-of-way certification coordinated through Region Right of Way offices (even for projects where no federal funds were used for right-of-way, but federal funds were used elsewhere on the project). COUNTY should contact ODOT's Region Right of Way office for ! additional information or clarification. COUNTY shall enter into and execute this agreement during a duly authorized session of its Board of Commissioners. 7 3 M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY j CITY OF TIGARD i CITY OBLIGATIONS Paragraph No. 1 which reads as follows: I "1. CITY hereby grants ODOT the exclusive right to enter onto and occupy its CITY right-of-way for the performance of the preliminary engineering, surveying, inspection, construction and installation of the improvements j as outlined herein associated with the PROJECT." Shall be change to read: "1. CITY hereby grants ODOT the exclusive right to enter onto and occupy its CITY right-of-way for the performance of the preliminary engineering, surveying, inspection, construction, monumentation and installation of the improvements as outlined herein associated with the PROJECT." CITY OBLIGATIONS Paragraphs No. 3, 4, 5, & 6 shall be added as follows: "3. CITY shall within three weeks review and approve the PROJECT plans and specifications, and promptly issue necessary CITY required permits (at no expense to PROJECT or ODOT). i 4. CITY shall, 30 days prior to the scheduled award of the construction contract and upon notification by ODOT, forward an advance deposit for its share of the project construction and monumentation costs. For the advance deposit, CITY shall provide $41,000 in local match and will authorize ODOT the use of $359,000 in CITY'S local STP funds. A supplement to this agreement will be required if the total cost for design, construction, right-of-way acquisition, and monumentation of this PROJECT is to exceed $2,415,000. 5. CITY shall, upon completion of the PROJECT, continue to maintain all roadway and right-of-way within its jurisdiction at its own expense including all landscaping, irrigation, drainage and all pavement surrounding vehicle detector loops. 6. CITY by execution of this agreement, does hereby give its consent as required by ORS 373.030(2) to any and all changes of grade within the 11 CITY limits, if any there be, in connection with or arising out of the j 8 I M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD l j PROJECT covered by this agreement. City, hereby accepts responsibility for all claims for damages from said grade changes." CITY shall enter into and execute this agreement during an official meeting 1 of its City Council. GENERAL PROVISIONS Paragraph No. 1 which reads as follows: °1. ODOT standards shall be used when designing any portion of the PROJECT within ODOT right-of-way." I Shall be changed to read: E 1. All federal requirements must be met for each phase of the PROJECT as + - federal funds will be used on certain elements and phases of the PROJECT. GENERAL PROVISIONS Paragraphs No. 3,4, 5, & 6 shall be added as follows: "3. ODOT, COUNTY and CITY agree and understand that a mutual review of the PROJECT plans and specifications will be conducted prior to ODOT's advertisement for construction bid proposals. 4. ODOT's new access control limits will run along Greenburg Road from Washington Square Road to Cascade Blvd. If right-of-way is purchased for the PROJECT within these limits, it will also include access control. In the areas not requiring right-of-way purchase, CITY and COUNTY agree to not issue any new access permits to Greenburg Road and will look for j opportunities to close existing accesses when redevelopment occurs." 5. This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of all parties upon 30 days' notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. : ODOT may terminate this agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to COUNTY and CITY, or at such later date as may be established by ODOT, under any of the following conditions, but not limited to these conditions. 9 1 i I M. C. & A. NO. 13489 f SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD l a. If COUNTY or CITY fails to provide services called for by this agreement within the time specified herein or any extension j thereof. b. If COUNTY or CITY fails to perform any of the other provisions of this agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from ODOT fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize. i. C. If ODOT fails to receive funding, or appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for the work provided in the agreement. j Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. [ j 6. This agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement f between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODOT to enforce any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODOT of that or any other provision." - i t ~ 10 I j . -J M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY ! CITY OF TIGARD IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. The CITY'S use of STP funds on this PROJECT was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission as a part of the 1996-1998 Transportation Improvement Program (page 47). On March 7, 1996 the Oregon Transportation Commission adopted Delegation Order 2, 111 which grants authority to the Region Manager to approve and execute agreements for work in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. i( APPROVAL RECOMMENDED STATE OF OREGON, by and through its _ Department of Transportation t By } Region Engineering Mgr. By C Region Manager ~ f Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By WASHINGTON COUNTY, by and through its f Assistant Attorney General Elected Officials i By Chairman APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By By Recording Secretary County Counsel Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY OF TIGARD, by and through its Elected Officials By City Att orney By City Mayor 1..~ By_ 11 ~ i 66 F ~J - - it O { M. C. & A. NO. 13489 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD City Recorder Date F,. F' i _ 12 1 { AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 26. 1997 f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for 1997-1998 Pavement 'Major Maintenance Program PREPARED BY: V .Nguyen tl?/ DEPT HEAD OK A. Duenas CITY MGR OK W. Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL i 1 Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for construction of the pavement overlay a portion of the 1997-1998 Pavement Major Maintenance program ? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award to Eagle Elsner, Inc. in the amount of $243,795.44. t INFORMATION SUMMARY 'ty Council approved the 1997-1998 Capital Improvement Program on June 24, 1997. The Pavement Overlay Backlog (Appendix G) of the 1997-1998 Capital Improvement Program Memorandum dated June 12, 1997 lists all paved streets in the City of Tigard that need corrective overlays, repairs or slurry seals. The total pavement ' overlay and repair backlog is about $1,300,000. This year's program for pavement overlay and corrective j maintenance includes 69th Ave., 76th Ave., 109th Ave., 110th Ave., Bonita Road, Pine Street and Tigard Street, r which have been selected from the Backlog list for corrective and preventive maintenance work. The bid opening was conducted on August 12, 1997 with the lowest and highest bids ranging from $243,795.44 to $281,645.00. The Engineer's estimate is $300,544.00 and the low bid from Eagle Elsner, Inc. is within the budgeted amount for the project. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL. NOTES The amount of $807,900 has been allocated from State Gas tax revenue for the PMMP and other street ~ i improvement projects. This amount is sufficient to award the contract for this year's PMMP projects. ! I '---snYVJIDEISUM\97-98PMMP.DOC - { • d AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 26. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for 1997-1998 Slugf Seal Program i PREPARED BY: V. Nguyen V2/ DEPT HEAD OK a CITY MGR OK W. Monahan- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for construction of the 1997-1998 Slurry Seal Program ? STAFF RECOMMENDATION i The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award to Blackline, Inc. in the amount of $45,272.72. { INFORMATION SUMMARY 77 I --,he Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) includes corrective overlays, repairs and slurry seals. The `p'avement overlay project and the slurry seal project are bid separately to attract Contractors that specialize in the respective types of work. Both pavement overlays and slurry seals are encompassed in the PMMP projects. Streets that are candidates for slurry seals are a priority for preventive treatment. From field observation and _ evaluation, the following streets require slurry seal to extend the pavement life expectancy: - Morninghill Drive. - 131st Avenue - Katherine Street. - 127th Avenue. - Wills Place. - Brittany Drive. - 134th Place. - 133rd Avenue. l - 133rd Place. - Sheffield Circle. - 134th Tern - Shore Drive. - Laurmont Drive. - Laurmont Court. 1 - Tamera Lane. - Fairhaven Street. - Fairhaven Way. - 69th Avenue. The bid opening was conducted on August 12, 1997 with only one bid from Blackline, Inc.. The Engineer's estimate is $97,650 and the bid of $45,272.72 is within the budgeted amount for the project. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED =one. i - J1 i s FISCAL NOTES The amount of $807,900 has been allocated from the State Gas tax revenue for the PMMP and other street improvement projects. This amount is sufficient to award the contract for this Slurry Seal project. IIC ITY W IDEIS U M%97.98SIurry. DOC 1 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 8/26/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE LCRB - APPROVE EMERGENCY BID AWARD - BENCHVIEW PLACE SANITARY & STORM SEWER RECONSTRUCTION PREPARED BY: Ed We ner/L ree"AMills DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL j LCRB award of emergency bid for reconstruction of Benchview Place sanitary & storm sewer I 1 f STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Award bid to DaNeal Construction, Inc. for $56,450 i INFORMATION SUMMARY 4 REASON FOR EMERGENCY PROCESS: I _ (wring the 2/96 flood, there was damage sustained to the storm and sanitary sewer systems at Benchview Place. `~fEMA funding has been requested to assist with the payment of this reconstruction. Since this matter is in litigation, it has been difficult to schedule repair. An emergency, under purchasing rule 80.012, needs to be declared and bid awarded for the following reasons: • the City's operational need to have the system repaired before this winter season hits (City still is manually pumping the system once each week during summer conditions); i o FEMA is requiring completion of this project (original completion date was scheduled for 8/9/97); j • slope instability and dangerous construction methods required (does not allow just any contractor to do the job); • City needs to protect the adjacent creek from sanitary sewer surcharges; and i • Conditions are changing (with solids filling the manhole and sewer main above the project area). f . Due to the unusual circumstances surrounding this construction issue, the City has contracted with Murray Smith and Associates to manage and inspect the work done by the contractor. The City is also working in conjunction with Matt Farmer, City's Legal Counsel, since there is current litigation with surrounding property owners. BID AWARD REQUEST Murray Smith and Associates have prepared a quote packet for this emergency work which was shared with three reputable, experienced, and qualified contractors. The engineer's estimate for the work was $60,000. DaNeal Construction, Inc. (3170 SW River&ont Terrace, Wilsonville, Oregon 97070) is the qualified contractor for the job with a bid of $56,450. i 1 " I OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Under the circumstances, staff does not believe any other viable alternatives can be considered at this time. FISCAL NOTES This project will be charged to undesignated sanitary and storm sewer projects in the Council approved Capital Improvement Budget. 75% of the construction costs are expected to be reimbursed by FEMA. f 1 Im/hldxs.bcnchsum.da i :i 3 ' v N rR ~ d N in a'' 110 1 7G~ 1j0Ox~ ` LW ~t a a9 ,g~3~ yg~Y1e m ~j$ ~ ~ a ~gi~bg hl ~ ~~`g ,~6 o7s ~ ° to G i a ` 3 08 g p . ~ 1111„ ~ o 5 ty~s aty' `QO.t~YS ttll'. 111 9 Z ij5t 111;11'6 t~l 1 ! 1 11 1 XL 'N 1 ` ~ a )rr ~ `1 ~ ~ Yc 1 ~ \ ~ C ' 111 ~`~11 I xl^ 1 a~ ~/(11 G ~.l/ Y' y 1l ~ ~ - _ - \ _ r' 1111 '"1'1 ` T Y ~ _ ~I 11 E 1~ rag! 'ag -ell 1 1 1 s i I ~ ~ 2 aa~ ~ 1 A IX l ~ f '1 a o ~ I ; t / / O ~ _ -prArotnlco\Ia\.' , 1 C I AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF g art 27 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Willamette Water Supply Agency - Intergovenmental Agreement PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL To agree in concept to participating in WWSA and working collectively and cooperatively to promote the Willamette River as a viable drinking water source. } i STAFF RECON04ENDATION { i The City Council agree in concept in the draft Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 14, 1997/ to + authorize the Public Works Director, with approval from the City Administrator, to continue working on this Intergovernmental Agreement. This work to involve water rights issues, public relations, Atnd"transactions and cost analysis and other issues related to the Willamette River. INFORMATION SUMMARY This is the draft Intergovernmental Agreement that was discussed in Executive Session on August 19, 1997. The purpose of this agency would be to work cooperatively and collectively to promote the Willamette River as a viable drinking water source. This Agreement would also provide a more unified force in working with Oregon Water Resource Commission in securing water rights and future water treatment plant on a regional basis that is consistent with the newly adopted Regional Water Supply Plan. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Continue purchasing surplus water from City of Portland. 2. Continue purchasing surplus water from Lake Oswego. 3. Find alternative source to purchase surplus water. 4. Build a water treatment facility by ourselves. FISCAL NOTES Financial inpact will be dependent upon the extent of our involvement. e 1 II PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT - une 25, 199:71 ruly 21,1997; u15, 23, 1nne, August 24,.199.7. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT i CREATING THE WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY j THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is entered into by and i between the following parties: Tualatin Valley Water District, a Domestic Water Supply District { formed under Chapter 264 ("I'VWD"), Clackamas River Water, a Domestic Water Supply District formed under Chapter 264 ("CRW Canby Utility Board, a municipal utility formed pursuant to ORS Chapter 225 ("CUB'), I " " , the City of Sherwood, a municipal corporation ("SHERWOOD'), The City of Gladstone, a municipal corporation ("GLADSTONE" the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation ("TIGARD') the it a Lake ege, " munieipa O' LAKE Viand the City of Tualatin, a municipal corporation ("TUALATIN'). RECITALS: } C ' A. WHEREAS, the parties hereto have the authority to enter into this Agreement pursuant to their respective principal acts, charters, and ORS 190.003 et sea.; and B. WHEREAS, the parties with the present exception of SHERWOOD and TUALATIN either hold water rights or have applications pending to appropriate water for municipal and industrial purposes on the Willamette River within that reach of the river from E Lake Oswego to Wilsonville; and i C. WHEREAS, the parties are participants in the Regional Water Providers Consortium ("Consortium") to develop and implement the Regional Water SuPP1Y Plan _ ("RWSP" The RWSP anticipates the use of the Willamette River as a source for a portion of the entire metropolitan region's domestic supply through the year 2050; and D. WHEREAS, the RWSP anticipates that some entities may desire to develop and use the Willamette River prior to broader application of that water throughout the metropolitan region and that the entities hereto presently or in the near future will have water supply needs that could be met by the Willamette River and it may be the most economic, efficient, and available source; and E. WHEREAS, consistent with the RWSP these entities wish to create the Willamette Water Supply Agency ("WWSA") under ORS Chapter 190 to study their local water demands, jointly evaluate water quality and the use of existing permitted rights and future rights and areas of usage, and jointly evaluate and determine potential sites for a water treatment plant, intake and pipeline routing and be the lead agency within the Consortium conceming municipal l appropriation from the Willamette River: and i 1 1 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT C1B\TVWD%TVWD0128.RED t }j I i ~ l i l~ PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT june 25,199:7-, 2 1997. ruly 23 1997 An4ust:14, 1997 ~ F. WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of instituting a public education effort relating I to use of the Willamette River as an appropriate municipal water source and to undertake efforts to keep the Willamette River under consideration as a viable source for local and regional needs; 1 and being fully advised, NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: i SECTION 1. WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY 1.1 WWSA. There is hereby created the Willamette Water Supply Agency ("WWSA"). The members of WWSA shall number 97X79, {7)re (9j. The governing body of each party shall appoint one (1) member. Members of WWSA shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing bodies. The addition of new members shall require the consent of a tuio= diii&-Majority of existing members. 1.2 General Powers and Duties. WWSA shall have the following powers: 1.2.1 To adopt such bylaws, rules, regulations, and policies as it deems necessary in furtherance of the purposes of this Agreement; 1.2.2 To study the best method to develop water sources on the Willamette River between Wilsonville and GladsioneT Scope of work for specific tasks or projecWkpject gevernance and monetary responsibilities shall be negotiated on a case by case basis which may be by addendum to this Agreement; 1.2.3 To perform and exercise pursuant to the Charter or principal Acts of the j parties or by Section 190.003 through 190.250 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, all powers pursuant to applicable charter, ordinance, or state or federal law which are necessary or desirable to efficiently and effectively develop water sources on the Willamette River; 1.2.4 To receive and hold existing water rights and to develop water rights on the Willamette River, and all actions necessary to preserve and protect them, to take all action necessary to design, permit, construct and operate, maintain and replace water intakes, treatment, storage, transmission and distribution facilities, equipment, and rolling stock as agreed ("the System"); 2 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Cte\WWD%lvWwoi2S. RED s 3 PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT june 25, > , August 14, 1997 1.2.5 To issue, sell or otherwise dispose of bonds, securities, or other forms of indebtedness, including the power to issue revenue bonds under ORS } 288.805 to 288.945; 1.2.6 To sell water, adopt system development charges and engage in rate making pursuant to state and federal law; 1.2.7 To engage in public education and public involvement to keep the i Willamette River under consideration as a viable local and regional water f source and to educate the public regarding the viability of the Willamette River as a domestic water source; i 1.2.8 To purchase, own, hold, appropriate, and condemn land, facilities, rights of way either in its own name or in the name of the individual parties hereto to develop Willamette River rights. 1.2.9 The parties acknowledge that WWSA shall be the lead agency and contact ~EE point between the members hereto and the Water Providers Consortium as f to issues concerning municipal appropriation from the Willamette River, i unless otherwise agreed. 1.3 Duration. Subject to Section 3 of this Agreement dealing with termination or withdrawal, the duration of this Agreement shall be perpetual. 1.4 Meetings, Manner of Acting. Meetings of WWSA shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Oregon Public Meeting Law, Oregon Revised Statues Section 192.610 et se g. Four ,(4) Five (ter) members of WWSA shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and if only a quorum is present, a majority of those present shall be necessary to decide any issue except financial matters or new membershi _ abligatiefis. Any decision of WWSA seeking financing or other financial obligation, or other forms of j indebtedness, shall require an affirmative vote of the governing body of each entity that will financially participate in any project. The WWSA member may bind his/her entity without governing body approval if the amount in question is within his/her delegated contracting ( authority. i 1.5 Officers. Annually, at the beginning of each fiscal year, WWSA shall elect from its membership a Chair and Vice-Chair who shall be officers of WWSA who shall serve a term of one (1) year. WWSA shall also appoint a Secretary who need not be a member of WWSA tj who shall be responsible for WWSA's records and shall keep a record of all WWSA proceedings. Officers shall serve at the pleasure of WWSA or until their successors shall be appointed and take i 3 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CIa`.TVWD\Tb'WOO 12S.RED } i I J 1 PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT June 25, 1-997; r_l., 21, 1997; my 23, 1997, Aug .i 14, 1997 i I office. i i 1.6 Budgeting, Accounting, Audits. WWSA shall annually prepare a work plan and an estimate for the next fiscal year and distribute it to the members by February 1 of each year. This work plan shall be referred to as general administrative. It is anticipated that each party shall budget its own staff and funds for costs or provision of in-kind services as necessary. Each party's apportioned share of the general administration expenses shall be determined by the same formula used to determine annual administrative contributions to the Regional Water Supply Consortium. For subsequent projects, for improvements and facilities, each party's apportioned share of the expenses shall be estimated and set forth in addenda to this agreement detailing the scope of work to be performed, participants and ownership, and the amounts so estimated shall be budgeted and appropriated by the participants. WWSA shall maintain financial reports showing its expenditures and receipts by category item for each transaction through the last working day of the preceding calendar month. If necessary, WWSA shall cause an independent audit to be performed and completed by a certified public accountant in accordance with ORS 297.405 et sere within six (6) months following the end of each fiscal year. SECTION 2. SURFACE WATER RIGHTS & FACILITIES. 2.1 Delegation of Powers. The functions of source, management, and water treatment may be performed by WWSA, pursuant to subsequent agreements. Transmission and storage shall be performed by the parties using those facilities. It is the primary intent and purpose of this Agreement to allow the individual entities to develop information, participate in the study and negotiate relevant agreements regarding implementation of recommendations to design, construct, finance, own and operate facilities within their respective boundaries. WWSA may contract with any entity regarding performance of services. WWSA and each individual entity j shall define the scope of individual entity contributions or individual efforts. i 2.2 Contributions of Vested and Pending Water Rights. Presently permitted surface water rights to the Willamette River are held by TVWD (130 mgd) as WRD Permit No. 49240, and MIIT=801~AIILLE _ hereafter "existing rights"). Pending applications before the State Water Resources Department ("WRD") filed by all parties, except SHERWOOD and TUALATIN, are also set forth on Exhibit 1 (hereafter "new rights"). The ! existing and new rights together specify areas of usage covering the service territories of all members of WWSA. Following execution of this Agreement and formation of this entity, the { parties hereto agree to execute all documents necessary to assign ownership of the existing 1973 permits toin WWSA and identify WWSA as the applicant on the pending application for new rights. Thereafter WWSA shall exclusively own and manage the resources subjectaeeerding, to this Agreement. 4- INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT C1 BkTVWDNTVWD012B.RED i i I 11 _ i PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT 25,1997-, july , July , August 14, 1997 june 7 2.3 Allocation of Water and Diversion Point. WWSA shall become the sole holder of these rights. WWSA and its members shall each have a duty of good faith and fair dealing with each other and commitment to reasonably allocate the Willamette River water and manage the System according to an individual member's needs, considering that member's: 1 2.3.1 Capital contribution determined as land is acquired, facilities are constructed or cash is contributed; 2.3.2 Demand forecast for a rolling 20-year time period; 2.3.3 Development and implementation of a water system management and conservation plan consistent with the requirements or guidelines of the Regional Water Plan. 2.3.4 Other factors as agreed by separate addenda or agreements. Subject to Section 5.2 below, WWSA shall identify and approve diversion points along the subject reach of the Willamette River and take necessary action before WRD to allow for withdrawal in the following general quantities at the following diversion points: 1973 Rights Permit # WILSONVILLE 154.6 cfs/99.40 mgd 49240 CANBY/CRW 35 cfs/22.60 mgd 49240 LAKE OSWEGO/GLADSTONE 12.4 cfs/8 mgd 49240 TOTAL 202 cfs/130 mgd 49240 When permits are issued for the new rights, water allocation generally will be consistent with the Regional Water Supply Plan and the points of diversion identified in the applications unless the parties otherwise agree by addendum or separate agreement. 2.4 Administration of Water Rights. By assignment of ownership of the Willamette River water rights, WWSA shall have the full authority to modify, combine or abandon rights and permits and seek new sources through new permits or contracting for stored water for municipal and industrial needs as the members approve. SECTION 3. CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS. 1 5 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CZB,TVN%D\TrvRpoi_s.ttED I ~ a 1 PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT' june 25,1997, july 21,1997; fidy '233, 199, > August I4, #997 3.1 Assets. Without limitation, the existing and new rights enumerated in attached Exhibit 1 (the "System") shall be employed in the System and are hereby contributed by the j parties. Future agreements or addenda will identify other assets and how they are to be accounted for under this Agreement. 3.2 Effect of Membership. Each party's annual contribution towards General Administration shall entitle it to member status and each party shall own an undivided interest ' in the system as reflected, which shall be adjusted by capital contributions over time as set forth in Addenda or by separate agreement. If membership status is maintained, then each party will have the right to equity participation in the construction of new or expanded facilities as they are proposed, have an option to purchase an interest in new or expanded facilities at future times, or to be a wholesale customer. SECTION 4. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. i 4.1 Generally. At such time that facilities are constructed, tttt2ess OtIiJ- ise agreed<1 y the entities financially panc4patuiu in the facifity,?the system shall be operated and maintained by WWSA, WWSA ivkieh may contract with members or others to provide daily management of all or a portion of the System. Operation and maintenance will be determined at that time by the equity participants through subsequent agreement or addendum. _ SECTION 5. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES. 5.1 Proposal to Construct. If any member should desire to construct, expand or modify the System as now or hereafter configured, including the siting of a plant at one of the l r destgna4ed diversion points of 2.3 or at:another location on the Willamette River, it shall notify WWSA and the other members in writing of the proposed construction, expansion or modification + needs ("Project"). WWSA shall have 90 4S"ays in which to determine whether to participate } in the proposed project. The notification shall include cost estimates and a reasonably detailed description of the proposed project. The members, within 90.4-9 days, shall notify the WWSA ! of their acceptance or rejection of participation and cost shares shall be allocated. If notice of acceptance is not received within 90-1$A--days, the proposed project shall be deemed rejected by I the members failing to respond. 5.2 Individual Rights. The parties intend to provide a method of decision'.making by j anticipated diversion points. Facilities constructed shall be in the nine of WWSA but decision making shall be by the participating members as set forth in.the`Project Agreement: If WWSA elects not to construct, expand or modify as proposed by an individual member or members, then by separate agreement or addenda any member or members may proceed with the 1973 rights assigned to that diversion point if the members of WWSA likely to be served by that diversion point or facility approve the technical aspects of the proposal to ensure the project will not be 6 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CIBNTVWDXTVWDO 12S. RED i I i i i f + I l PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT june j > , , , , August 'i4, 2997 mnconsistent with. the RWSP or: future compatibility with individual members systems. If the proposal is found inconsistent or incompatible, the member(s) may use its own water rights held outside this agreement. Under all circumstances, previded -that-no such project shall impair the ability of the System to serve the other members or significantly increase the cost of usage to the other members unless the member(s) undertaking the project agrees to pay the increased unit costs to WWSA or the members which have declined to participate in the expansion. If the m~mbm likely.to be served by the diversion. point or facility ".,~does not approve use of the 1973 rights, then the individual entity may use other water outside this agreement or use the termination provision of Section 7. The parties agree that absent termination, only WWSA may apply for water rights to the Willamette River. i i 5.3 Tigard. In consideration of the afiandonnient of its 1995 permit application #a j appropriate 40 efs, TVWD and the members of WWSA hereby allocate 40 cfs of the 1973 right at the Wilsonvillejdiversion point to Tigard. If Tigard desires 'to construct a Conventional i i treatment plant at Wilsonville, to develop this right and no other members wish to participate; Tigard may proceed without farther approval from ~VWSA or its mernbers, but subject to 5.5 below i i 5.4 Reeulatory Matters. All parties served by a facility shall share proportionately in i cost if expansion or modification is necessary to meet regulatory requirements, unless subsequent f agreement or addenda provides otherwise. 5.5 Option to Acquire Interest. WWSA or a member rejecting a project shall have the option, at any time within ten (10) years of the date of notice of rejection, to purchase an ownership share of the project at a as-mutually agreed upon value of the assets a6& payment terms. - - SECTION 6. SALE OF TREATED WATER TO OTHER ENTITIES. 6.1 WWSA. The members agree that the water rights now existing or hereafter i acquired are for regional application as part of the RWSP. The parties agree to work in good faith to accommodate other users on an ownership, wholesale, mutual aid or emergency basis. Subject to paragraph 6.2, WWSA or its members shall have the power to sell treated water to I other non=ttemberentities at prices determined from time to time by WWSA. t 6.2 Proceeds of Sales. The proceeds attributable to the sale of treated water to an outside entity shall be paid to WWSA. Any distribution of these proceeds shall be as the members agree after expenses and costs of debt service, construction, operation and maintenance are met. { ' 6.3 Transmission Line Charges. Sales to any entity which may require transmission 7 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CI DITV\VD, V.VD013. RED i i - i PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT j une 25,1997; r.. r..23,199-7-, 21, 1997; August24, 2497 --1 1 through lines may be subject to a transmission line charge to be established by the owner. Charges for use of transmission lines shall be collected by WWSA and paid to the owner of the transmission line. j 6.4 Other Charges. Other charges may be established by WWSA as necessary and agreed by the parties. SECTION 7. TERMINATION. 7.1 Notice of Election. Any party may elect to terminate this Agreement and withdraw from WWSA by giving written notice of its desire to WWSA and other member parties. Withdrawal shall be effective one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of notice. Upon the effective date of notice of withdrawal, unless otherwise agreed by the withdrawing party and WWSA, that party shall immediately cease membership in WWSA. The withdrawing entity shall continue to pay its share of, or be responsible for, any preiriously incurred joint debt, and shall hold harmless the remaining members for those financial responsibilities and obligations attributable to the withdrawing party. 7.1.1 If WWSA, after receiving the notice of termination, desires to purchase the terminating interest in the System, it shall notify the terminating member in writing of its desire to purchase the terminating member's interest at lesser of market value or depreciated book value. Such notice shall be _ given within 60 4-8"ays of receipt of the notice of termination. 7.1.2 If WWSA declines, then the one or more remaining members may give notice within 60 days after notice of WWSA's decline of that member's I intent to purchase as provided herein. Unless otherwise agreed, the + purchase shall be purchased equally among the buying members and their j capital accounts shall be adjusted accordingly. E 4 j 1 7.1.3 The price to be paid, whether determined by mutual agreement or a arbitration, shall be paid to the terminating party in full within 12 months following the date of termination set forth in the notice of intent to terminate. If the other party fails to pay the purchase price within 12 months of the date of termination and if the parties are unable to agree upon a mutually acceptable payment schedule, then the terminating member shall have the ri-ht to sell its portion of the facility to any other entity approved by a majority of the governing boards or councils from the y remaining members. t 7.1.4 In the event that the WWSA or the remaining members fail to purchase the f j S - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CIONNtVD%TV%VD01'_S. RED 1 I 7 i i i i L~ I I PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT june 25,1997" i 21,1997-, , August 14 1997 interest of the terminating member within the 12-month period, or in the event the WWSA or the remaining member(s) decline to purchase its interest, then the terminating member's rights and duties shall be those specified in this Agreement until a sale is made to some other entity or some other mutually agreeable disposition is made and the original owner shall remain responsible for all terms and conditions of this Agreement. 7.1.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, because TVWD and 3ALILSODALILL ontributed the existing permitted rights (1973 rights), no withdrawing party shall be compensated for the value of those 1973 rights f j except TV WD If TV WD ecidei l to withdraw from WWSA, it ~either- may: } a) leave the entire 1973 water right with WWSA and WWSA shall j purchase the right as appraised along with the entities' other assets. f However, in the ease eF:TAZ;VD, 0 cfs shall not be valued as part ! of this appraisal and purchased because 'as-it is allocated to E i TIGARD in consideration of TIGARD'S relinquishment of its 1995 permit application; or F F _ j b) leave the allocated portion of the 1973 rights which will be valued and purchased by WWSA and take the unused remainder back to its sole ownership. However, the ease e fTII AID, 40 cfs shall not be valued as part of this appraisal and shall be included in the portion left in WWSA as it is allocated to TIGARD in consideration of TIGARD's relinquishment of the 1995 permit application; or `r \ the ease of 3A T SO*AIIL E, it and - e of its water- Aghts w4hout eempensation by ether entities iF-4 terminates its f I c) :_TVWD it may leave all the 1973 rights and, in i lieu of monetary compensation, receive an. equal atoount,(N cfs) of junior rights under 7.1.6 below. 7A.6 For the parties other than `0TP11T ` TVWD, in the event of J termination, the terminating member shall be entitled to have conveyed to it by W WSA the water rights associated with the existing rights er pending application e€-the terminating member contributed to WWSA4 e-enfi+:. j For example, if the pending applicationa Pefmit was approved for Canby lI U 9- INTERGOVEIL'\1MENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT C1oc-1'VrMTVWDO 128. RED i 1 j i l~ PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT > > > , August 14, 1997 in the amount of 12.4 cfs and Canby it-terminates, Canby shall relinquish all rights and claims to any water allocated to its diversion point under the 1973 Permits contributed by TVWD and WILSONVILLE, and WWSA shall assign to Canby the 12.4 cfs Permit right that Canby t-contributed to the entity. end4Thereafter Canby shall rely only upon that 12.4 cfs water right and have no further right or claim to other WWSA rights. 7.1.7 The parties agree that TIGARD shall have a firm right to 40 CFS of the TVWD 1973 rights in consideration of its abandonment of its 1995 permit application. 7.1.8 The parties agree to cooperate to execute all documents necessary to make water right transfers and assignments. 7.2 Breach. Upon material breach of this Agreement, WWSA or an aggrieved member may seek all remedies available at law or in equity. 7.3 Dispute Resolution. 7.3.1 Method for resolving disputes. If a dispute arises between WWSA and a member or between members regarding breach of this Agreement or interpretation of any term of this Agreement, the parties shall first attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiation, followed by mediation, if negotiation - fails to resolve the dispute. Step One: (Negotiation) The Manager or other persons designated by each of the disputing parties will negotiate on behalf of the entities they represent. The nature of the dispute shall be reduced to writing and shall be presented to each Manager who shall then meet and attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute is resolved at this step, there shall 1 be a written determination of such resolution, signed by each Manager and ratified by the WWSA which shall be binding upon the parties. ! Step Two: (Mediation) i ; If the dispute cannot be resolved within thirty (30) days at Step One, the parties shall submit the matter to non-binding mediation. The parties shall attempt to agree on a mediator. If they cannot agree, the parties shall request a list of five (5) mediators from an entity or firm providing mediation services. The parties will attempt to mutually agree on a mediator from the list provided, but if they 10 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ao\rvwoNTV WDO 12s.RED J PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT june 25, 1997., ju15, 21, 199, juiy 23, , Attgust' 14, 2997 cannot agree, each party shall select one (1) name. The two selected shall select a third person. The dispute shall be heard by a panel of three (3) mediators and any common costs of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties who shall each bear their own costs and fees therefor. If the issue is resolved at this step, a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by each Manager and approved by the WWSA, j 7.4 Jurisdiction of Circuit Court. After exhaustion of 7.3 processes, if the parties i agree, any dispute or claim shall be settled by arbitration under the jurisdiction of the Circuit j Court of the State of Oregon for Clackamas County pursuant to ORS Chapter 36. In the absence of such an agreement, that same court shall have jurisdiction. SECTION 8. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of the parties, signed by all of the parties. Future tasks such as public relations, education or other work deemed I necessary shall be agreed to by the parties through an addendum to this Agreement setting forth the scope of work and method of payment. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 9.1 Merger Clause. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. 9.2 New Members and Assignment. WWSA may accept additional government entities as participants under terms and financial conditions that WWSA deems just and equitable on a case-by-case basis and only upon an affirmative vote of two thirds of the members. Except for changes of organization through entity formation, merger, consolidation or annexation, no party shall have the right to assign its interest in this Agreement (or any portion thereof) without the vrior written consent of a majority of WWSA. j 9.3 Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this f Agreement should be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. {j 1 9.4 Notices. Any notice herein required or permitted to be given shall be given in j writing, shall be effective when actually received, and may be given by hand delivery or by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the parties as follows: I I - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CI0\TVWD\TVWDO I:3. RED t l~ i PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT i june 25 inner. ruj), 21, !nn°- rul 23,1997; August 14, 199'7 Tualatin Valley Water District City of Gladstone Attn: General Manager City Administrator P.O. Box 745 525 Portland Avenue Beaverton, Oregon 97075 Gladstone, Oregon 977027 Clackamas River Water I Attn: General Manager I PaO_ Bax 2439S.E. Mangan Drive Clackamas, Oregon 97015-9398 Canby Utility Board 1 Attn: General Manager P.O. Box 1070 Canby, Oregon 97013 30090 SW Toy,% Center T , p r. City of Tigard E Attn: City Administrator P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 City of Sherwood Attn: City Manager 20 NW Washington Sherwood, Oregon 97140 City of Tualatin 5 Attn: City Manager 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue i Tualatin, Oregon 97062 City of Lake Oswego Attn: City Manager 380 A Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 12 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT C1BXTVWokrvwo0123.REo _ PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT june 1997-, r..l. 21,1997-, r,.i,.23, ~997, August, 24, 1997 The parties hereto are responsible to notify each other of changes and to keep this list current. 9.5 Meetings. Regular meetings of WWSA shall be conducted at such times as WWSA may designate but shall be no less than quarterly. The chairman, upon his own motion, may, or at the request of two (2) members of WWSA, shall by giving notice to members of WWSA call a previously unannounced special meeting of WWSA for a time not earlier than a twenty-four (24) hours after the notice is given, unless an emergency exists. In cases of an I emergency, notice reasonable under the circumstances shall be given. Five (5) members of . WWSA shall constitute a quorum. No action will be taken by WWSA unless a majority of WWSA present votes to support the action proposed, unless a greater number of votes is required. 9.6 Advisory Boards, Technical Committees. WWSA may appoint advisory boards technical committees. The advisory boards shall meet as needed and shall review and make recommendations to WWSA on such matters as WWSA so assigns. A technical committee shall meet not less than quarterly to develop methods of coordination and functioning between WWSA and the entities. 9.7 Attorney Fees. If a dispute should arise between the parties regarding any term or portion of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to such reasonable attorney t i fees as a trial court or arbitrator may award and on any appeal therefrom. t _ 9.8 Counterparts. This Agreement maybe executed in any number of counterparts and by the parties on separate counterparts, any one of which shall constitute an agreement between and among the parties. 9.9 Joint and Several Obligations. For approved WWSA activities, the parties shall be jointly and severally liable to third parties for payment of debts and costs incurred. No party to WWSA shall be liable for damages, debts or claims caused solely by the negligent act or omission by WWSA or other members. The individual entity causing damage by its sole negligence or wrongful act shall be individually liable. I 9.10 Instruments of further Assurance. From time to time at the request of any of WWSA, each member shall, without further consideration execute and deliver such additional j instruments and shall take such further action as may be reasonably required to fully effectuate the purposes of this Agreement. i , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement by the date set forth opposite their names below. TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 13 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CIB\7VWD\T'WD0128.RED U i iI I i l: - r PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT , , , ,August 14, 1997 Date: 1997 By: Rob Mitchell, President 1 By: Tom Jackman, Secretary CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER I- u; Date: 1997 By: Paul Rogers, President By: Lowell Hanna, Secretary CANBY UTILITY BOARD Date: 1997 By: I; Robert P. Westcott r By: Debra Knah a CITY OF TIGARD t Dated: 1997 By: James Nicoli, Mayor l i B\- 14 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT C1 B\rv%YDkTVWD0128. RED PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT june 25,1997-, july 21, 1997, , , August 14, 1997 j ^ Recording Secretary CITY OF WILSONVILLE Dated: 19 7 By Maye , By! Reeer~ing Seeretuy f; Date: 1997 CITY OF SHERWOOD 1 By: Ron Tobias, Mayor. i By: Recording Secretary Date: 1997 CITY OF TUALATIN By: 4, . Lou Ogden, Mayor By: Recording Secretary I Bate: 199- CITY nr. r AKF l1Ql EGO . 15 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Qe%rvwokTVavaizs.KEo 'OVA 1 PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT I!!! june 25, 1997; ju!5,11,1997-, , August 14, 1997 n William Klafrner, Maya r By! Date: 1997 CITY OF GLADSTONE By: Wade Byers, Mayor By: s. Recording Secretary ~ j 1• t III' I , Z 4 1 16 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Cl B~TVWD'%TVWD01?3 RED j ~ - 7 i AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of August 26. 1997 I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation ZCA 97-0001 { PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK-&~4ITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of one parcel consisting of 3.69 acres located on SW Fonner Street, east of SW 121st. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION G - i Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request to the Boundary F Commission and to assign comprehensive plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the city comprehensive plan. INFORMATION SUMMARY f The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of one parcel of land, totaling 3.69 acres, which is contiguous to the City of Tigard. The applicant requests annexation in order to develop the j property as a 14 lot Planned Unit Development in the City. Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an ordinance to change the comprehensive plan and zone designations from Washington County R-5 to Tigard Low Density Residential, R-4.5. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the request. FISCAL NOTES I Since the territory is within the City's active planning area, the City is responsible for the Boundary Commission application fee of $605. F x 1 1 C L ~F L~~wh CL I ob, ` rte, Zvi"' v~ cAAA N ~44 1 t i '~vryl l i i l i PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE i i I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, ON TUESDAY, August 26.199y- AT Z$Q PM. THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL AT TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, LOCATED AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. THE HEARING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE FOLLOWING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 97-0001 FONNER STREET REQUEST: The applicants, DAAL Homes/Eaton Properties, are requesting annexation of Tax Lot 4400 (2S1 38D) into the City of Tigard. The subject site is 3.69 acres and adjacent to the Hunters Glen Subdivision. SW Fonner Street borders the property on the south and west sides. The existing City boundary runs along the north boundary line of the site. Current Washington County designation is the R-5 District (Residential 5 Units Per Acre) which is in conformance with the City's Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. LOCATION: A 3.69 acre parcel that is bordered by SW Fonner on its south and west sides. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138 land classification of I annexed territory. ZONE: Currently Washington County R-5; proposed City of Tigard R-4.5. i TAE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED PILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 323 i (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WIS -i1NG TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN j WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE i PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER August 4. 1997, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE j OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE R'--CORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE NL AT THE F' ,T EVIDENTIARY HEARING [ORS 197.763(6)]. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. i i I L~ 3 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THrr5E { CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS f RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. t FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF---, ! THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT _ TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Laurie Nicholson, AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. i i~ - j CQ el'i Bit II O a U ZCA 91-0001 Fanner Annexation II ~ ~J STAFF REPORT August 4, 1997 D CITY COUNCIL TIGAR TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS i i i 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change Annexation 97-0001 k REQUEST: To annex one parcel of 3.69 acres of unincorporated Washington County land to the City of Tigard and to change the comprehensive plan and zone from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard Low Density Residential/R-4.5. APPLICANT: DAAL Homes/Eaton Properties 4351 SW Cullen Blvd. I Portland, OR 97221 OWNERS: Walter & Yvonne Hordichok LOCATION: WCTM 2S1 313D TL 4400 (see vicinity map). 2. Vicinity Information The subject site is 3.69 acres and adjacent to the Hunter's Glen Subdivision. SW Fonner street borders the property on the south and east sides. The existing City boundary runs along the north boundary line of the site. The site is within the urban growth boundary. 3. Background Information The applicants approached the city with a request to annex the property so the property can obtain sewer service and develop the site as a Planned Unit Development. No previous applications have been reviewed by the city relating to this property. I 1 4. Site Information and Proposal Description i ' I The parcel is a "C" shaped vacant lot that is bordered on the by SW Fonner Street on the south and east sides. Tax lot 4401 borders the property on the east side, which makes the subject site "C shaped, rather than a square shape. The subject site can obviously obtain access to SW Fonner Street from both the south and east sides. Staff has recommended that the portions of SW Fonner that front the subject site be included in the annexation request. There are steep areas around along the riparian corridor, located in the northwest corner of the property. i The applicants have requested that the 3.96-acre site be annexed to the City by means of the double majority method. Representing the owners of more than half the land (100%) and a majority of the registered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be annexed, the applicants have initiated F this action through their written consent. The applicants intend to develop the property as a 14 lot Planned Unit Development after annexation to the city. 5. Agency Comments 1 The Engineering Division, Public Works, Tigard Police and Water departments, Unified Sewerage Agency, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, PGE and GTE have reviewed the proposal and have no objections. John Roy of Public Works has commented that the owner should clear any j vegetation in the right-of-way. This condition cannot be attached to the annexation application, however, these comments will be forwarded to City Code Enforcement after the property is annexed. No other comments were received at the time of this report. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.136 and 18.138. I Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the comprehensive plan based on the following findings: i' 1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied because the Central CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published. 2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to ~ annexed parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water Department, USA and TVF&R have reviewed k { i ~ II rI J I the annexation request and have no objections. Adequate services are available and may be extended to accommodate the affected property. { 3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied. Although this proposed annexation will create a boundary irregularity in the in i short-term, over the long term the area will be annexed and therefore the entire Walnut Island will be part of the City. The Police Department has been notified of this request and has no objection; the affected land is located within the city's urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are j available to accommodate the property. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the community development code based on the following findings: 1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for i annexation proposals, is satisfied because: a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services are available and have sufficient capacity to serve _ the affected site. b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have been reviewed and satisfied. C. The zoning designation of R-4.5 most closely conforms to the county designation of R-5 while implementing the city's comprehensive plan designation of Low Density Residential. d. The determination that the affected property is an established area is based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code. 2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed land, is satisfied because the affected property meets the definition of an established area and shall be so designated on the development standard areas map of the comprehensive plan. C. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends approval of ZCA 97-0001. I ~ t a. STOEL RIVES LLP ~QJAY~ 1~tvu{ ^I A T T ci R N 1. ) S ^ ~IANDARU 1\ILRA\CE CENTER " } V-M S\Y FIFTH AVENUE. SL'ITL 2,109 ..i PORTLAND, OREGON 47:04.1268 Plm,it 1593/_'24-3380 F,,150,3l220.2459 - TL)0(503) 221.1045 Internet'. www t-i mm a August 26, 1997 i- MICHAEL C. ROBINSON - Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson@stoel.com i VIA MESSENGER " Mayor Jim Nicoli Councilor Paul Hunt Councilor Bob Rohlf Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Brian Moore - City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines - Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Eagle Hardware and Garden, Inc. As you know, Eagle - would like to locate a store at the Phil Lewis Elementary School site which the Tigard School District plans to abandon. The purpose of this letter is to explain why Eagle believes i " the connectivity standards for vehicular and pedestrian access and other Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines are neither required nor necessary. Eagle's representatives will also explain why, even without the Tigard Triangle Design Standards as currently written, its development can comply with the goals that the City Council believes should be achieved by large retail development on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue. I J 1. Connectivity through the elementary school site is neither required nor "t practical since the school site is at the end of the Triangle and is bordered by Highway 217; there is nothing to connect to. i i The Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines require the development of the school site to i 4 - accommodate a grid system of vehicular and pedestrian connections. Yet, the site is at the Ri tip of the Triangle and is bordered by Highway 217. Cc,;nections through the site are i 'I PDXIA-90979.1 21097-001:6 Y" 1 $F \ttlE 1'(\Ril ~\D V,\NCUL\tR.\\':\ Ol\ISE GILT LAKE CIT\ 3Y-111l.t<11UC. \ L~ 1 - 1 . 1 STOEL RIVES l.ll• 1 ~ i ' Mayor Jim Nicoli Councilor Paul Hunt Councilor Bob Rohlf I ' Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Brian Moore August 26, 1997 Page 2 i neither practical nor required since the only vehicular and pedestrian access from this site will be to SW 72nd Avenue and possibly to the north to SW Beveland Street. A rigid planning requirement that ignores the reality of a site makes no sense. It also ignores the intent of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan ("MFP"). MFP - Title 6, Section 3(A)(h), "Design Standards for Street Connectivity", recognizes that closed - street systems should be limited to situations where "topography, pre-existing development or j environmental constraints prevent full street extensions." Unfortunately, the Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines do not include this very logical exception for situations such as the Phil Lewis Elementary School site. i The City Council should exempt this site and the west side of the Tigard Triangle from the Guidelines. The Guidelines are not appropriate for this area and are not needed to j _ achieve attractive retail development. 2. The street connectivity standards are inappropriate for the west side of the j Tigard Triangle. The west side of the Tigard Triangle (west of SW 72nd Avenue) is mostly developed with large retail users, does not contain a grid street system and contains very few opportunities to develop a grid street system. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan map designation of "General Commercial" and the Tigard Community Development Code zoning map designation of "General Commercial" for the school site show that Tigard has long _ considered this site to be appropriate for General Commercial development consistent with the development pattern on the west side of the Triangle. The General Commercial zoning district allows all types of retail development, including large retail stores. J Metro's 2040 Growth Concept Plan, which the MFP implements, maps this area as an "Employment" area. The Tigard General Commercial zoning district is expressly exempted i from the MFP's requirement that retail users larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area be prohibited in Employment areas. (See Exhibit 1, MFP Title 4, Section 2(B).) ` Thus, consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Tigard Community Development - Code and the MFP, the school site is appropriate for redevelopment with a large retail store. The Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines do not merely implement the MFP, but go well beyond the MFP's requirement for the Tigard Triangle and are far more restrictive than required by the MFP. MFP Title 6, Section 3(A)(1), "Design Standards for Street ! PDx1A-90979.1 21097-0006 ' I S v • ~ Iii e F7, STOEL RIVES,,, I 1 - Mayor Jim Nicoli Councilor Paul Hunt 1 Councilor Bob Rohlf Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Brian Moore August 26, 1997 j Page 3 Connectivity", applies only to new residential and mixed-use developments, not Employment area development or General Commercial development. Furthermore, according to one member of the Tigard Planning Commission who served on the Tigard Triangle Task Force, the Task Force did not understand that the General Commercial areas of the Triangle were not required to meet Metro's standards. Commissioner Padgett, in commenting on ZOA 97-0003 at the August 4, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, said that: - "Originally the Task Force had looked at the entire Triangle as being MUE zoning. Then late in the process, it was split so j that part of it was CG and part was MUE, with 72nd Ave. being the dividing line. He did not believe it was the intent of - the Task Force to apply the strict Metro grid standards to the J, CG parcels. He said it doesn't necessarily improve connectivity - because they don't connect to anything within the parcel." "He did not believe the majority of the Task Force meant for the connectivity language to apply to the large CG parcels. He believes the language should be even more relaxed for large CG parcels it needs more flexibility. He said a CG parcel is different from MUE, both in size and intent. He noted that most of the CG zone backs up to the freeway and has no where i I to go. There is a need for connectivity from arterials to their { development, but not within the parcels themselves. He stated a 1 need for a third option, one that is site-specific looking at what makes sense for a particular site. Eagle supports connectivity when there is something to connect to. The school site is not appropriate for the connectivity standards. - 3. Eagle Hardware and Garden can develop an attractive and functional store ai this location that achieves many of the goals that the City Council wishes to see in the Triangle. i E The Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines are rigid and inflexible. They do not permit u creative development of a site that recognizes limitations caused by topography, pre-existing 1 PDXIA-90979.1 210974)006 _ ' i - STOEL RIVES Mayor Jim Nicoli Councilor Paul Hunt Councilor Bob Rohlf Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Brian Moore i August 26, 1997 i Page 4 t j development, pre-existing street systems or the opportunity to develop all of the permitted uses in the General Commercial zoning district. Mr. Lindley's report to the Tigard City Council states that the Tigard Triangle Development Workshop "was requested by City Council to specifically test large-scale retail - developments ('big box') against the adopted street plan and design standards." The most common constraint identified by the workshop participants was "rigidity and standards/no room for negotiations (flexibility). Most stated that the standards do not have enough flexibility to eliminate certain 'big box' programs and the varying physical constraints of the Triangle. " - The second most frequent comment concerning constraints identified by the workshop participants was "lack of understanding of large retail needs/site constraints. Many expressed that the standards were unworkable for some large-scale retail users and thought J that it was a lack of understanding of programmatic needs that led to the content of the - standards." j The single-most often made comment regarding opportunities for large retail stores was "embrace big boxes and do it well and meet the City's goals. Many felt that the Triangle provides an opportunity to create a model for good 'big box' development that 1 would meet the needs of the users while at the same time meeting the goals of the City." See Exhibit 2, pages 7 and 8 of Mr. Lindley's August 19, 1997 report.) Mr. Don Miles of Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership submitted a letter to Mr. Lindley commenting on his report. Mr. Miles' comments concerned how to appropriately 1 locate large retail users. Most importantly, he noted "topography must support the development of pedestrian-related uses (pedestrian-oriented development should be directly } accessible from sidewalk). This is difficult to achieve on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue without multi-level development." Multi-level development is neither functional nor possible _ for large retail stores. ! R - Further, Mr. Miles noted that the front door activity should "spill out" into adjacent I outdoor areas. Eagle's conceptual site plan ties the pedestrian sidewalk on SW 72nd Avenue ' to the front door of its store by a pedestrian plaza and a sidewalk connection. i 1 Eagle will show the City Council that it can develop an attractive retail store that J accomplishes the following: PDXIA-909791 21097-0006 i 1 - j j If 1 I 1 STOEL RIVES,,, Mayor Jim Nicoli Councilor Paul Hunt Councilor Bob Rohlf Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Brian Moore August 26, 1997 Page 5 • Provides efficient and workable pedestrian connections from the public sidewalk on SW 72nd Avenue to the storefront entrance. • Provides appropriate vehicular connections from SW 72nd Avenue that do not interfere with the function of that street. I' • Provides for the opportunity for both vehicular and pedestrian connections to SW Beveland Street should such connections become possible. • Provides an attractive landscaped perimeter along SW 72nd Avenue and _ Highway 217. • Provides an attractive pedestrian plaza on SW 72nd Avenue Street with a w pedestrian connection at the transit stop. Y Provides a parking lot that serves the parking function while enabling j . pedestrians to easily reach the store from the adjacent city street. i Metro also understands that design guidelines must be flexible and respond to individual cities' needs and site constraints. Mr. Michael Hoglund, Metro Transportation + j Planning Manager, wrote to Gordon Martin on June 23, 1997. See Exhibit 3.) Mr. 4 Hoglund's letter is included in Mr. Lindley's report. IIII Mr. Hoglund's letter noted that closed street systems may be appropriate, consistent _ 1 with MFP Title 6, Section 3(A), due to topography, pre-existing development and barriers _ ? such as freeways. See Exhibit 3 at page 2.) Mr. Hoglund's letter also notes that the - purpose of the connectivity standards is to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to provide direct I . . access to transit, walking and biking. See Exhibit 3 at page 2.) Eagle's development of the school site can meet these goals without the more restrictive Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines. "j Further, the Design Guidelines go well beyond what the Transportation Planning Rule r requires. The Rule requires safe and convenient pedestrian access and accessways through e t parking lots, not public streets through parking lots. OAR 660.12.045(3)(b). (See Exhibit 4.) Streets and accessways are not required where topography or existing development 1 preclude a connection. OAR 660-12-045(3)(b)(E). .r 1 i t 9 PDXIA-909791 21097-0006 I STOEL RIVES ,.,.v Mayor Jim Nicoli ^ Councilor Paul Hunt Councilor Bob Rohlf Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Brian Moore August 26, 1997 Page 6 The Rule does not require buildings to be located on a street. The Rule requires connections to sidewalks and transit stops. OAR 660-12-045(4)(b). While the Rule allows the City to develop its own standards, it does not require the Design Guidelines that the City has adopted. For these reasons, Eagle Hardware and Garden asks that the City Council exempt the I General Commercial zoning district from the Design Guidelines as presently written. i Very truly yours, , _ Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosures cc(w/encls.) Mr. Pete Gallina (w/encls.) Mr. Mark Weisman (w/encls.) Mr. Tom Sconzo it (w/encls.) Mr. John Hallstrom (w/encls.) Mr. Scott Madsen (w/encls.) Mr. Rece Bly i- ~r I MIA-90919.1 21097-0006 I . t' 1 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan Title 4, Section 2(B) Exhibit 2 Pages 'I and 8 of the Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Report dated t August 19, 1997, by Lloyd Lindley Exhibit 3 Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan Title 6 Exhibit 4 OAR 660-12-045 i u 1 , i 1..i ILL" - i l 1 j TITLE 4: RETAIL IN EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS 498 Section 1. Intent I 499 It is the intent of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept that Employment and Industrial Areas contain 500 supportive retail development. Employment and Industrial areas would be expected to include 501 some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working or living in j 502 the immediate Employment or Industrial Areas; not larger market areas outside the 503 Employment or Industrial Areas. 504 Section 2. Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Required 505 A. Cities and counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and 506 implementing regulations, if necessary, to prohibit retail uses larger than 60,000 square 507 feet of gross leasable area per building or business in the Industrial Areas designated on 508 the attached Employment and Industrial Areas Map. 509 B. This subsection applies to city and county comprehensive plan designations and zoning.. 510 ordinances acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan, which allow retail 511 uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business in 512 Employment Areas designated on the attached Employment and Industrial Areas Map. + 513 These cities and counties may continue to allow the extent and location of retail uses _ allowed in Employment Areas on the effective date of this Fungtiona lan for the specific zones in acknowledged land use regulations listed in E hittf A o s Title. For ~l6 all other zones in Employment Areas, these cities and counties are hereby required to 517 amend their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations, if necessary, to require a 518 process resulting in a land use decision for any retail uses larger than 60,000 square feet 519 of gross leasable area per building or business on those lands where such uses are r 520 currently allowed by any process. The standards for the land use decision to allow any - 521 such retail uses shall require (1) a demonstration in the record that transportation facilities 522 adequate to serve the retail use, consistent with Metro's functional plans for i 523 transportation, will be in place at the time the retail use begins operation; and (2) a i 524 demonstration that transportation facilities adequate to meet the transportation need for i 525 the other planned uses in the Employment Areas are included in the applicable 526 comprehensive plan provisions. If the city and county comprehensive plan designations 527 and zoning ordinances which allow retail uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross _ 528 leasable area per building or business in Employment Areas have not been acknowledged 529 by the effective date of this Functional Plan, subsection 2.C. of this Title shall apply. _ 530 C. City or county comprehensive plan designations and zoning ordinances acknowledged by 531 the effective date of this Functional Plan which do not allow retail uses large7 than 60,000 i 532 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business in Employment Areas 533 designated on the attached Employment and Industrial Areas Map shall continue to ! 534 prohibit there unless an exception is established under Section 3 of this Title pursuant to 535 the compliance procedures of Title 8. Pap 17-Urt u Grovth Mu pm= Pmctml Plan Novembtr 2l. I996 J 7 l X5.336 Section 3. Exceptions 537 Exceptions to this standard for Employment Areas may be included in local compliance plans 538 for: 539 A. Low traffic generating, land-consumptive commercial uses with low parking demand 540 which have a community or region wide market, or 541 B. Specific Employment Areas which have substantially developed retail areas or which 542 are proposed to be or have been locally designated, but not acknowledged by the effective 543 date of this Functional Plan, as retail areas, may allow new or redeveloped retail uses 544 where adequate transportation facilities capacity is demonstrated in local compliance r` - . 545 plans as provided in Title 8. I; . \ I h 546 Title 4, Exhibit A 547 Clackamas County unincorporated 548 Commercial 549 Commercial Industrial 550 Lake Oswego General Commercial `552 Highway Commercial 553 Troutdale i! 554 General Commercial 1 555 Hillsboro 556 General Commercial ,7 557 Sherwood 558 General Commercial 559 Tigard 560 General Commercial 561 Commercial Professional 562 Tualatin 563 Commercial General 3 v 564 Wilsonville 565 Planned Development Commercial P.eeta-.trrb.aGsow MAmteme=Pwx2km&1P1w November 21.1996 - ~ v F71^' . i 1 ranking indicates the number of participants that mentioned the opportunity or constraint r~ in the Final Summary session. OPPORTUNITIES (Final Summary) Ranking Embrace big boxes and do it well and meet the City's goals. (6) J •tlant'felt that the Triangle provides an opportunity to create a model for good "big box development that would meet the needs of the users while at the same time meeting the goals of the City. Provide adjustment process to address constraints. (4) F Many suggested that an adjustment process would enable large scale development to occur in the Triangle. it was envisioned to be less stringent than the variance process and would provide feribiliiy in cases ofslopmg topogropin•, xetlonds or other impediments to large scale retail development. Clarify specific goals of design standards, articulate vision for area. (2) d/ost felt that the standards as written would preclude large single-level, single-entry retail users. The goals and standards do not accommodate all large scale retail programs and should specifically clarify the I. " intent to deny or allow big box developments. f Address constraints to provide certainty. (1) 1 Some thought than flexibility, is essential where pln•sical constraints require special design, if large scale developers with specific development ` programs are allowed to develop in the Triangle Provide service uses within the district. (1) t Some felt that finer grained service uses should be encouraged in the Triangle to help reduce the number ofvehicular trips. In other words, provide services for nearbt• employees. j Develop alternative schemes to illustrate intent. (1) 1 Provide examples that demonstrate how large scale retail would appear given topographic constraints. Tigard can choose its own future, doesn't have to choose big box. (1) C, Land value in the metropolitan area is increasing ~•J of an average rate of approximately 8 percent per year. Considering the forecasts for growth over the next decade, it would appear that there may be no need to rush development. ( The City might look into the future and wait for the desired development proposal in order to achieve the vision for the t City and the Triangle. Lloyd D. Lindley. ASLIL 7 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop l Spencer & Kupper t l ' CONSTRAINTS (Final Summary) Rigidity in Standards/No room for negotiations (flexibility) (8) J Most stated that the standards do not hme enough flexibdirt to 1 accommodate certain "big boy programs and the tar ing phvsicul constraints ofihe Triangle. Lack of understanding of large retail needs/site constraints. (6) Mani expressed that the standards were unworkable for some large scale retail users and thought that it was a lack of understanding of programmatic needs that led to the content of the standards. 1 Large scale retail ambiguous (as it relates to the standards), (3) should it be in the Triangle? j j This constraint relates to the previous constraint in that the standards - do not allow outright buildings larger than110,000 square fee on a single level..4t the same time, the General Commercial Zone designation does allow larger buildings. It seemed that most wanted a clear statement asto whether single level buildings larger than 110.000 square jeer are al/o}ved or not. f 1 _ Acknowledge limits regarding topography. (2) i' Stan felt that more fleribilig• regarding set backs and budding frontage requirements are necessary to accommodate large scale retail users on sloping sites. f~ The issues were mostly centered around the building program andjunetion (number of entry points, location ofentries. parking. loading andsoforth). Mostfelt that a mechanism other than the City s variance procedure would be necessary. Street Plan needed rather than spacing standards. (1) I ? ,host felt that an inclusive street plan would resolve many of the outstanding issues and provide certainty t for the community, land owners and developers. Lack of definition on 72nd - buildings to sidewalk. (1) j Some felt that, given "big box" development, 72nd Avenue 9 would lack definition especially in view of the varying f j topographic conditions along the street. Development is W occurring that is not consistent with the standards and some wondered ijthe vision and the street sections would be valid in the future. Some suggested that the vision for 72nd should not be an office front, pedestrian-oriented street, which the standards require, allowing typical setbacks and not trying to create a main street environment. 300' facade limit is confusing for large retail. (1) Some large scale retail users can not accommodate ~4! variations or multiple entries in their building facades. Some questioned If "big box development is ollowed then tirhi would the standards require facade lengths a ojon(v 300jeet' Llovd D. Lindley. ASL-k 8 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop i Spencer & Kupper ' J FF i 600 TITLE 6: REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY W1i Section 1. Intent 602 Implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept requires that the region identify key measures of 603 transportation effectiveness.which include all modes of transportation. Developing a full array of i 604 these measures will require additional analysis. Focusing development in the concentrated 605 activity centers, including the central city, regional centers, and station communities, requires the ^ 606 use of alternative modes of transportation in order to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion. 607 The continued economic vitality of industrial areas and intermodal facilities is largely dependent 608 on preserving or improving access to these areas and maintaining reasonable levels of freight 609 mobility in the region. Therefore, regional congestion standards and other regional system 610 performance measures shall be tailored to reinforce the specific development needs of the 611 individual 2040 Growth Concept design types. = 612 These regional standards will be linked to a series of regional street design concepts that fully 613 integrate transportation and land use needs for each of the 2040 land use components. The 614 designs generally form a continuum; a network of throughways (freeway and highway designs) 615 will emphasize auto and freight mobility and connect major activity centers. Slower-speed- 616 boulevard designs within concentrated activity centers will balance the multi-modal travel 617 demands for each mode of transportation within these areas. Street and road designs will. j 618 complete the continuum, with multi-modal designs that reflect the land uses they serve, but also 619 serving as moderate-speed vehicle connections between activity centers that complement the D throughway system. While these designs are under development, it is important that - improvements in the most concentrated activity centers are designed to lessen the negative 622 effects of motor vehicle traffic on other modes of travel. Therefore, implementation of amenity 623 oriented boulevard treatment that better serves pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel in the central 624 city, regional centers, main streets, town centers, and station communities is a key step in the 625 overall implementation of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. - 626 It is intended that the entirety of these Title 6 standards will be supplemented by, the Regional 627 Transportation Plan (RTP) when the RTP is approved and adopted by the Metro Council i 628 Section 2. Boulevard Design j 629 Regional routes in the central city, regional centers, station communities, main streets and town 630 centers are designated on the Boulevard Design Map. In general, pedestrian and transit oriented i 631 design elements are the priority in the central city and regional centers, station communities, 632 main streets and town centers. All cities and counties within the Metro region shall implement 633 or allow others to implement boulevard design elements as improvements are made to these j 634 facilities including those facilities built by ODOT or Tri-Met. Each jurisdiction shall amend 635 their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, if necessary, to require consideration or i 636 installation of the following boulevard design elements when proceeding with right-of-way 637 improvements on regional routes designated on the boulevard design map: i 438 A. Wide sidewalks with pedesurian amenities such as benches, awnings and special lighting; ga 20-vrbu cm.,h M,msemea Fuwdoml Ptan November 21.1996 i 4 j 1 B. Landscape strips, street trees and other design features that create a pedestrian buffer o»~ between curb and sidewalk; 641 C. Pedestrian crossings at all intersections, and mid-block crossings where intersection 642 spacing is excessive; i 'J 643 D. The use of medians and curb extensions to enhance pedestrian crossings where wide l 644 streets make crossing difficult; 645 E. Accommodation of bicycle travel; 646 F. On-street parking; 647 G. Motor vehicle lane widths that consider the above improvements; .J 648 H. Use of landscaped medians where appropriate to enhance the visual quality of the 649 streetscape. - 650 Section 3. Design Standards for Street Connectivity _ 651 The design of local street systems, including "local" and "collector" functional classifications, is , 652 generally beyond the scope of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). However, the aggregate effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the regional system when local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes, and local trips are forced onto the regional network. i 655 Therefore, the following design and performance options are intended to improve local 656 circulation in a manner that protects the integrity of the regional system. I I - 657 Local jurisdictions within the Metro region are hereby required to amend their comprehensive i 658 plans and implementing ordinances, if necessary, to comply with or exceed = of the following t 659 options in the development review process: C 660 A. Design Option. Cities and counties shall ens= that their comprehensive plans, _ 661 implementing ordinances and administrative codes require demonstration of compliance 662 with the following: 663 1. New residential and mixed-use developments shall include local street plans that: 1 J 664 a. encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing short, direct public 665 right-of-way routes to connect residential uses with nearby existing and 666 planned commercial services, schools, parks and other neighborhood 667 facilities; and 668 b. include no cul-de-sac streets longer than 200 feet, and no more than 25 669 dwelling units on a closed-end street system except where topography, 9 670 barriers such as raiLmads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers, prevent street extension; and 1 J .._7 P&V 21-trrb&n G.o- MtnaVmcm Pwzxkx al Plan November 21.1996 F 6 M. 1 3 j 622 c. provide bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of- way when full street connections are not possible, with spacing between ?4 connections of no more than 330 feet except where topography, barriers j 675 such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major 676 streams and rivers, prevent street extension; and } 677 d. consider opportunities to incrementally extend and connect local streets in 678 primarily developed areas; and + 679 e. serve a mix of land uses on contiguous local streets; and i 680 f. support posted speed limits; and 3 681 g. consider narrow street design alternatives that feature total right-0f--way of s 682 no more than 46 feet, including pavement widths of no more than 28 feet, 683 curb-face to curb-face, sidewalk widths of at least 5 feet and landscaped 684 pedestrian buffer strips that include street trees; and I 685 h. limit the use of cul-de-sac designs and closed street systems to situations 686 where topography, pre-existing development or environmental constraints 687 prevent full street extensions. - 688 2. For new residential and mixed-use development, all contiguous areas of vacant _ 689 and primarily undeveloped land of five acres or more shall be identified by cities . ! 690 and counties and the following will be prepared: f 691 A map that identifies possible local street connections to adjacent developing 692 areas. The map shall include street connections at intervals of no more than 660 _ X693 feet, with more frequent connections in areas planned for mixed use or dense development. { 695 B. Performance Option. For residential and mixed use areas, cities and counties shall 696 amend their comprehensive plans, implementing ordinances and administrative codes, if j 697 necessary, to require demonstration of compliance with performance criteria in the j 698 following manner. Cities and counties shall develop local street design standards in text j 699 or maps or both with street intersection spacing to occur at intervals of no less than eight, j 700 street intersections per mile except where topography, barriers such as railroads or i 701 freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivets, prevent street I 702 extension. The number of street intersections should be greatest in the highest density 1 703 2040 Growth Concept design types. Local street designs for new developments shall 704 satisfy the following additional criteria: f 705 1. Performance Criterion: minimize local traffic on the regional motor vehicle i 706 system, by demonstrating that local vehicle trips on a given regional facility do i 707 not exceed the 1995 arithmetic median of regional trips for facilities of the same v, 708 motor vehicle system classification by more than 25 percent i ~ a 709 2. Performance Criterion: everyday local travel needs are served by direct, j 710 connected local street systems where: (1) the shortest motor vehicle trip over 711 public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than i ` I r.r u-urbLn crowd, Mm, r-uncoona Plan N~ 21.1996 I, I t l i r-- i 1. '-l twice the straight-line distance; and (2) the shortest pedestri an trip on public right- of-way is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. 714 Section 4. Transportation Performance Standards 715 A. Alternative Mode Analysis 716 1. Mode split will be used as the key regional measure for transportation - 717 effectiveness in the Central City, Regional Centers and Station Communities. 718 Each jurisdiction shall establish an alternative mode split target (defined as non- 719 Single Occupancy Vehicle person-trips as a percentage of all person-trips for all - 720 modes of transportation) for each of the central city, regional centers and station 721 communities within its boundaries. The alternative mode split target shall be no 722 less than the regional targets for these Region 2040 Growth Concept land use a - 723 components to be established in the Regional Transportation Plan. ,I 724 2. Cities and counties which have Central City, regional centers and station 725 communities shall identify actions which will implement the mode split targets- 726 These actions should include consideration of the maximum parking ratios 727 adopted as part of Title 2; Section 2: Boulevard Design of this Title; and transit's 728 role in serving the area. B. Motor Vehicle Congestion Analysis for Mixed Use Areas 730 1. Level-Of-Service (LOS) is a measurement of the use of a road as a share of I 731 designed capacity. The following table using Level Of Service may be r i 732 incorporated into local comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to 733 replace current methods of determining motor vehicle congestion on regional 734 facilities, if a city or county determines that this change is needed to permit 735 Title 1, Table 1 capacities in the Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers, 736 Main Streets and Station Communities: I i ; 737 General Congestion Performance Smadr rds (using LOS*) I i "s Preferred Acceptable Exceeds f Mid-Da one-hour C or better D E or worse 1 Peak two-hoar E/E or better F/E F/F or worse 738 *Level-of-Service is determined by using either the latest edition of the Highway i 739 Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board) or through volume to capacity 740 ratio equivalencies as follows: LOS C -.8 or better, LOS D -.8 to .9; LOS - .9 741 to 1.0; and LOS F a greater than 1.0. A copy of the Level of Service Tables 742 from the Highway Capacity Manual is attached as Exhibit A. ! 743 2. Accessibility. If a congestion standard is exceeded as identified in 4.B.1, cities and 4 counties shall evaluate the impact of the congestion on regional accessibility using the best available methods (quantitative or qualitative). if a determination is made I tM x1-Urb.n om.m i Ma=gt=eac Fueeooaa! Pisa tkember 21.19% Z f i TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE - 660-12-040 Transportation Financing Program (6) Local governments which have or adopt impact fees or system development charges to 0) For areas within an urban growth fund improvements to transportation facilities boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 shall establish lesser fees or charges for persons, the TSP shall include a transportation developments located in transit oriented financing program. developments, pedestrian districts, and other developments which, through enhanced (2) A transportation financing program shall pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities or related include: design features, or demand management - measures, are demonstrated to reduce vehicle (a) A fist of planned transportation facilities trip generation. and major improvements; i (b) A general estimate of the timing for 660-12-043 Implementation of the planned transportation facilities and major Transportation System PLen improvements. „ (l) Each local government shall amend its (c) Determination of rough cost estimates for lend use regulations to implement the TSP. the transportation facilities and major improvemeats identified in the TSP. (a) The following transportation facilities, - services and improvements need not be subject to (3) The determination of rough cost estimates land use regulations except as necessary to _ is intended to provide an estimate of the fiscal implement the TSP and, under ordinary i requirements to support the land uses in the cirmimstmces do not have a significant impact on 1 acknowledged comprehensive plan and allow land use: jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of existing and w % possible alternative funding mechanisms. In addition (A) Operation, maintenance, and repair of to including rough coat estimates for each existing transportation facilities identified in the transportation facility and major improvement, the TSF, such as road, bicycle, pedestrian, port, airport fittaacing plan shall include a discussion and rail facilities, and major regional pipelines and irling"Moll _ ofthe facility provider's existing finding mechanisms terminals; and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms - to fiord the development of each transportation facility (B) Dedication of right-of-wry, j and major improvement. These finding mechanisms mithatinitim of cmm= i n and the construction of may also be described in term of general guidelines or facilities and it oprmements, where the - local policies. improvements tat consistent with clear and objective dimensional standards; - (4) Anticipated timing and financing proviticrss in the wamportauon 6maodng program are (C) Uses permitted Outright under ORS not considered land use decision as specified in ORS 215.213(lxm) through (p) and ORS 215.283(1)(1x) 197.712(2xe) nod, therefam cannot be the basis of through (n), oonsistent with the provisions of { appeal under ORS 197.610(1) and (2) or ORS 660-12.065; and, 197.835(4). (D) Changes in the frequcwy of transit, t (5) The amospcrtaoan financing program shall rail and airport services. F itrpleme a<caesssive plan policies which provide for phasing of majorimprovensrats to encourage infill (b) To the cent, if any, this a s and redevelopment of urban lords prior to facilities tra spoRaticn facility, service or improvement which would cause premature development of concerns the application of a camprebeasive plan ~ i urba sizable areas orcmv , q * - of rural lands to urban provision a land use regulation, it may be allowed uses. without further land use review if it is pertmned t 11 (Mat 1995) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE outright or if it is subject to standards that do not (A) I.aoduseapplicatimsthatrequarpublic requve interpretation or the exercise of factual, policy hearings; or legal judgment. (B) Subdivision and partition applications; (c) In the event that a transportation facility, service or improvement is determined to have a significant impact on land use or to concern the (C) Other applications which affect application of a comprehensive plan or land use private access to roads; and regulation and to be subject to standards that require intecpr=uon or the exercise of factual, policy or legal (D) Other applications within airport noise judgment, the local government shall provide a review corridors and imaginary surfaces which affect and approval process that is consistent with 660-12- airport operations. 050. To facilitate implementation of the TSP, each local government shall amend its land use regulations (g) Regulations assuring that amendments to provide for consolidated review of land use to land use designations, densities, and design decisions required to permit a transportation project standards are consistent with the functions, capacities and levels of service of facilities ' (2) Local governments shall adopt land use or identified in the TSP. subdivision ordinance regulations, consistent with applicable federal and state rrquircmetus, w protect (3) Local governments shall adopt land transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their use or subdivision regulations for urban arms and identified fitnctions. Such regulations shall include: rural coanmuniaes (to roquire:] as set forth below. The purposes of this section are to provide for f - (a) Access control meames. for example, safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and driveway and public road spacing, median control and vehicular circulation consistent with access - signal spacing standards, which are consistent with tho management standards and the function of functional classification of roads and consistent with affected street, to ensure that new development ~ limiting development on rural lands to rural uses and provides on-sits stmt and accessways that densities; provide reasonably direct routes for pedestrian I and bicycle travel in areas where pedestrian and j (b) Standards to protect future operation of bicycle travel is Udy if connections are f roads, transitways and major trarnit corridors; provided. and which avoids wherever possible ' levels of automobile trafRt which might interfere (c) Measures to protect public use airports by with or discourage pedestrian or bicycle travel ocaudling land uses within airport noise corridors and - imaginary surfaces, and by li--g physical harards to (a) Bicycle parl®g facilities as part of air navigation. new multi-family residential developments of four units cr mots, new retail, office and institutional _ (d) A pansies far eoordinaaed review of fuhte: developments, and all trusit transfer stations and land use decitwn affecting trmsporutiw facilities, park and ride Int. corridors or sue; (b) [Fmht a pig safe and (e) A process to apply conditions to cosrve6 t pedestrian and bicycle access within and development proposals in order to minim impacts fimm new sub& siam. placated developments, and protect transportation facilities, ccmdors or sites. shopping ctntens and mdtrsUW parks to nearby residential aria, umsit stops, and neighborhood (f) Regulations to provide notice to public activity centers, such as schools, parks and egemcits providing trwnpatation facilities and shopping This shall immhrde:l 0*4itt: facilities j services, MPOs, and ODOT of: L11118 be snafd ww-& •'-r' =nnd U contenient peded_ rias and bicycle access from within store satbdivisions. mniti-family 12 (wiry 1995) • J rF i o ..x'.r, J-~x•aO+C =.,V0.. W i TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE developments, planned developments, shopping now or at the future considering the potential for centers, and coffimercial districts to adjacent redevelopment; or residential areas and transit stops, and to neighborhood activity centers within one-half mile (iii) Where streets or accessways would of the development Single family residential violate provisions of leases, easements, _ developments shall generally include streets and covenants, restrictions or other agreements accessways. Pedestrian circulation through existing as of May 1, 1995 which preclude a parking lots should generally be provided in the required street or accessway connection. form of accessways. i (c) Where off site road improvements (A) [Sidewalks along arterials and collectors are otherwise required as a condition of in urban aressJ "Neighborhood activity centers" development approval, they shall include includes, but is not limited to, existing or planned facilities accommodating convenient pedestrian schools, parks, shopping areas, transit stops or and bicycle travel, including bicycle ways along employment centers. arterials and major collectors. - r. (B) [Bikeways along arterials and major ([old) For ptapows of subsection (b) "safef,l collectors;) Sidewalks shall be required along and oonv®mt [and adequate)" means bicycle and arterials, collectors and most local strern in urban pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements areas, except that sidewalks are not required along which: controlled access roadways, such as freeways. (A) Are reasonably free from ha=n=ds, (C) [Where WymptiCc, separate bike or particularly types or levels of automobile traffic pedestrian ways to mi„imi~r travel distances within which would interfere with or discourage pedestrian and betweenthe areas and developments listed above.) or cycle travel for short trips. - Cul-de-sacs and other dead-end streets maybe used as part of a development plan, consistent with (B) Provide a reasonably direct route of ' the purposes set forth in this section. travel between destmetions such as between a transit stop and a star; and, - (D) Local governments shall establish their own standards or criteria for providing streets and (C) Mat navel needs of cyclists and accessways consistent with the purposes of this pedestrians considering destination and length of section. Such measures may include but are not trip; and considering that the optimum trip limited to: standards for spacing of streets or length of pedestrians is generally 1/4 to 1/2 mile. accessways; and standards for excessive out-of- direction travel. ([dle) [Provision of illnternal pedestrian circulation [in] within new office parks and I (E) Streets and accessways need not be commercial developments shall be provided required where one or more of the following through clustering of buildings, consawtion of conditions exist: J [pedestrian ways, skywallcs, where appropriate,] accessways, walkways and similar techniques. - (i) Physical or topographic conditions make a street or accessway connection (4) To support transit in urban arras impracticable. Such conditions include but are not containing a population greater than 25,000, where limited to freeways, railroads, steep slopes, the area is already saved by a public transit system wetlands or other bodies of water where a or where a detamination has been made that a connection could not reasonably be provided. public transit system is feasible, local governments shall adopt land use and s,bdivision regulations [to (ii) RuDclings or other existing development require:) as provided in (a)-(O below. `i on adjacent lands physically preclude a connection i j 13 (May 1995) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (a) [Design of t]Transit routes and transit (c) Local governments may implement 1 facilities shall be designed to support transit use 4(b)(A) and (B) above through the designation of through provision of btu stops, pullouts and shelters, pedestrian districts and adoption of appropriate optimum road geometries, on-road parlang restncuons ®pkemeating measures regulating development and similar facilities, as appropriate. within pedestrian districts. Pedestrian districts must comply with the requirement of 4(b)(C) (b) New retail, office and institutional above. buildings at or near [exL ig or planned] major transit stops (to] shall provide for [preferential] convenient ([c]d) (New industrial and commercial pedestrian access to transit through the (following] developments to] Designated employee parking measures[:] listed in (A) and (B) below. areas in new developments shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. (A) (Orienting building entntnoes to the transit stop or station;] Walkways shall be provided ([d]e) [An opportunity for e]Existing connecting building entrances and streets adjoining development shall be allowed to redevelop a the site. pardon of msting parking a= for transit oriented cues, including bus stops and pullouts, bus shelte•, s, (B) [Clustering buildings around ,it stops; park and ride stations, transit oriented and,] Pedestrian connections to adjoining developments, and similar facilities, where properties shall be provided except where such a appropriate. connection is impracticable as provided for in OAR - 660.12445(3)(b)(E). Pedestrian connections shall ([elf) Road systems for new development j connect the on site circulation system to existing or [which] shall be provided that can be adequately proposed streets. walkways, and driveways that served by transit, inchtdmg provision of pedestrian j - abut the property. Where adjacent properties are access to existing and identified future transit - undeveloped or have potential for redevelopment. routes. This shall include, where appropriate, ` streets, accessways and walkways on site shall be separate (bicycle and pedestrian ways] accessways laid out or stubbed to allow for extension to the to minimize travel distances. adjoining property. ((d]g) Along existing or planned transit (C) [Locating buildings as close as possible to routes, designation of types and densities of land transit stops.]Ici addition to (A) and (B) above, on uses adequate to support transit. sites at major transit stops provide the following: _ y. (5)~ ' In NVO areas, local governmems shall (k) Either locate buikdings within 20 feet of a fttlmd use and subdivision regulations to rectum i the transit stop, a transit street or an intersecting reliance on the automobdde which: street or provide a pedestrian plaza at the transit stop or a street intersection; (a) Allow transit oriented developments (TODs) on lands along transit routes; (ii) A reasonably direct pedestrian connection between the transit stop and building (b) Implements a demand management entrances on the site; program to meet the measurable standards set in the TSP in response to 660-12-035(4). (iii) A transit passenger landing pad accessible to disabled persons; (e) Implements a parking plan which: Ov) An easement or dedication for a (A) Arbiev s a 10'/• reduction in the passenger shelter if requested by the transit number of parking spear per capita in t :s M -PO provider; and. area ova the Planning period. This may be acocxnplished ibrough a combination of restrictions (v) Lighting at the transit stop. on development of new parking spaces and I 14 (May 1995) 1 . r- - 1 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE requirements that existing parking spaces be 660-12,050 Transportation Project redeveloped to other uses; Development (B) Aids in achieving the measurable (1) For projects identified by ODOT standards set in the TSP in response to 660-12.035(4); pursuant to OAR 731, Division 15, project development shall occur in the manner set forth in (C) Includes land use and subdivision that Division. regulations setting minimuar and maximun pang requirements; and, (2) Regional TSPs shall provide for coordinated project development among affected (D) Is consistent with demand management local governments. The process shall include: programs, transit-oriented development requirements and planned transit service. (a) Designation of a lead agency to prepare and coordinate project development; (d) Require all major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments to provide either a (b) A process for citizen involvemem, nnsit stop an site or connection to a a it stop along including public notice and hearing, if project a transit tnmlc route when the transit operator requires development involves land use decision-making. - such an improvement. The process shall include notice to affected ttzitpcrtation facility and service providers, MPOs, (6)• In developing a bicycle and pedestrian and ODOT. cimdntian plan as required by 660-12.020(2)(d), local _ governments shall identify improvement to facilitate (e) A process for developing and adopting bicycle and pedestrian trips to meet local travel needs findings of compliance with applicable statewide in developed areas. Appropriate improvements plarm g goals, if any. This shall include a process should provide for more direct, convenient and safer to allow its to aclmawledged bicycle or pedestrian travel within and between comprehensive plant where such amendments are residential areas and neighbarbood activity centers (i.e. necessary to accommodate the project; j schools, shopping, transit stops). Specific measures include, for example, constructing walkways between (d) Alm ocess for developing and adopting cut-de-sacs and adjacent roads, providing walkways findings of compliance with applicable between buildings, and providing direct access adcrowledgod comprehensive plan policies and land between adjacent uses. use regulations of individual local governments, if any. This shall include a process to allow LtwrtJ government shall establish standards ammdmentt to acknowledged comprehensive plans Ar local streets and aecaawaya that minimae or land use regulations where such amendments are pavement width and total right-of-way consistent necessary to accommodate the Iroject• with the operational needs of the fatuity. The intent of this requirement is that local governments (3) Project development involves land use consider and reduce excessive standards for local decision-making to the extent that issues of streets and accessways in order to reduce the cost compliance with applicable requirements remain of construction, provide for more efficient use of outstanding at the project deveopmeat phase urban land. provide for emergency vehicle access issues may include, b-t. are not limited to, while discouraging inappropriate traffic volumes c=Phxwe with regidstim Protecting or regulating and speeds, and which accommodate convenient development within fl oodways and other hazard pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Not areas identified God 5 resottra areas. estuarine and withstanding subsection (1) or (3) of this coastal shoreland arm, and the Willamette River local street standards adopted to mat this Greenway. Where project development involves requirement need not be adopted as land use land use dt+cisionmtldng, all unresolved issues of with applicable acknowledged regulations. compliance eve plan policies and land use 15 (May 1995) i ll a j TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP 5 j REPORT Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA ' Spencer & Kupper 4 I j AUGUST 19, 1997 I 17 r. . li DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP I # TIGARD TRIANGLE G i. DEPORT i I j Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA } Spencer & Kupper AUGUST 19, 1997 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop CONTENTS 1. Background 2. Mission 3. Workshop Process f 4. Opportunities and Constraints 5. Conclusions 6. Next Steps 7. Appendix • Tigard Triangle Development Workshop • Participant Roster and Vitae • Workshop Results • Tigard Triangle Task Force Goals and Principles and Perceptionnaire • Tigard Triangle Perceptionnaire Results • Weisman Design Group Correspondence, 7/25/97 • Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Correspondence, 8/15/97 • ABR, Inc. Correspondence, 8/18/97 • Weisman Design Group Correspondence, 8/18/97 • E. D. Hovee & Company Correspondence, 8/19/97 • Warren Tyler, Sienna Architecture Co. Correspondence, 8/19/97 l.J Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLa Spencer & Kup per % i Does the City want to allow larger "big bor" retail developments in the Tigard n Triangle? BACKGROUND In early 1996, Tigard City Council authorized staff and a consultant team to prepare a street plan and design standards for the Tigard Triangle. Two previous planning efforts sparked opposition from local residents, businesses and property owners. A task force was formed, composed of an inclusive representation of Tigard Triangle private and public stakeholders. In brief, City Council adopted two packages of plan and code amendments, first the Street Plan on December 30, 1996, which included Comprehensive Plan Policy and Map changes including a street plan and improvement program and a new Mixed Use Employment designation. Areas west of 72"d and on the eastern edge of the Triangle are zoned General Commercial while the balance of the area is Mixed Use f Employment. Additionally, City Council requested that the task force immediately develop specific design standards for the entire Triangle. On March 25, 1997, City . Council adopted Design Standards for the entire Triangle as an amendment to the Community Development Code which added a new section to the new Mixed Use Employment zoning district. Design standards apply throughout the Tigard Triangle. The public involvement process used to develop the adopted policies involved as many of _ the Triangle's businesses, property owners, residents and tenants as were willing to participate. The task force met twice monthly over a nine month period to work out a vision, issues, land use designations, a street plan and design standards that would best meet the needs of all who have a stake in the Triangle. "Perceptionnaires," which are a nonscientific sampling based on questions related to land use, issues and opportunities in the area, were circulated by mail and at public meetings. Results of the perceptionnaires are found in the Appendix and were used as an outreach tool to involve more people than I those who chose to attend the public meetings. The recommendations from the Task Force were intended to meet the State Transportation Rule, and Metro and neighborhood goals for the area. The primary goal is "to create a mixed use employment district that is complementary to the rest of the community and the region." Guiding principles for land use, transportation, urban design and environment were prepared by the Task Force to direct the qualitative administration of the new policies. They are as follows. Guiding Principles-Land Use and Transportation • Support the Tigard Triangle's position as a location for a variety of commercial, office, f 1 business park and research uscs. I Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA I Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper a • Capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific Highway, Highway 217 and I-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the entire region. • Recognize that accessibility is the key to a successful mixed use employment area, and that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to the Triangle. • Support transit and other modes in order to maximize their potential. • Create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes to be satisfied during a single visit to the Triangle, and distributes those trips over a broad period o the day. • Add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth. t Guiding Principles-Urban Design and Environment • Include a safe, secure and convenient pedestrian system within the Tigard Triangle that links i internal uses, and connects to the city-wide system. 1 • Integrate within new development the significant natural features found within the Triangle. • Use streetscape as a key element to create a high quality image for the Triangle and to i establish people-friendly spaces. • Assure that transitions from existing low density residential uses to mixed use employment uses occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas. • Allow for the opportunity for residential uses within compatible employment areas. Over the course of several months the Task Force crafted a vision statement to guide changes in the Triangle and to assure continuity in the character and quality of future development. Below is the Tigard Triangle vision. Design Standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principles adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscope to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of i the area. i 4 The design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle within both the C-G and the MUE zones. y Lloyd D. Lindley, ASU 2 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop f Spencer & Kupper I The task force produced the two documents which City Council adopted. With the adoption of these two policy documents and acceptance by die Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon State Division of Land Conservation and Development, the Tigard City Comprehensive Plan and Development Code were amended to create a comprehensive plan for the Triangle. The Street Plan provides the framework for incrementally developing a fundamental and continuous street system within the Triangle. The plan identifies major and minor arterials and two local collectors. It also recognizes the Oregon Department of Transportation's "Tool Box" projects that were adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission to accommodate future traffic volumes on the regional transportation system as well as in, and around, the Triangle. Today, there are a limited number of access points around the Triangle and 3 arterials that connect a discontinuous street grid. The Triangle a consists of over 300 acres or an area of about the same size as downtown Portland. Under 1 the new Mixed Use Employment and existing General Commercial zoning, it is possible i to accommodate approximately 2 million additional square feet of retail, office, service, and business development. However, performance criteria is necessary and included in the plan to assure connectivity in the street system to more evenly distribute traffic j throughout the Triangle. Ultimately, a balanced transportation system within the Triangle i would be provided. s - The Design Standards describe the qualitative characteristics of the Triangle. They contain directions for locating buildings and parking along public rights-of-way and define the character and quality of the street environment for all streets. Like the Street Plan, the Design Standards provide certainty and consistency over the long term. They also assure that the intentions of the Tigard Triangle Vision, Guiding Principles and } Goals are met. Over the past three months, during informal council work sessions, City Council has I heard discussions regarding the Street Plan and Design Standards from primarily two land owners in the Triangle. The Tigard School District owns a ten acre parcel in the southern most end of the Triangle, and plans to raze an existing grade school and develop a large scale retail use on the site. ABR, Inc. owns a large parcel southwest of the 72" and Dartmouth intersection and also plans for large scale retail users. The two land owners and representatives expressed concern regarding Street Plan and Design Standard limitations to building ground floor square footage, set backs, required glass, building articulation and entrances. According to the land owner representatives, the Design Standards rendered those properties undevelopable for large scale (over 100,00 square feet). City Council directed staff to analyze concerns and evaluate the consequences of the Design Standards to large scale retail users. j i j Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 3 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop j Spencer & Kupper i 1 I 1 T~ ARC tANGLE. ~ZOt4iNG CLASSIFICA~IONS ` y. C.G a, an C.G I` ry C.G t ~1~ I \ ` FT-l i I C" Commerclal w General MUE -,ed Use Employment eveloPment I planned D , 0 4000$0 Feet 1 ~ . 'a i MISSION The Tigard Triangle Development Workshop was requested by City Council to specifically test large scale retail developments ("Big Box') against the adopted Street Plan and Design Standards. Experts in areas of large scale retail development, urban design, transportation, and economics were invited to participate with identified property owners and stakeholders in a half-day workshop. The Tigard Triangle Street Plan Developer's Workshop Mission was: to test and evaluate the opportunities and constraints presented by the adopted Tigard Triangle Street Plan and the Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines within the General Commercial zone (CG). The standards and guidelines were tested using large scale retail projects of over 60, 000 square feet i j. WORKSHOP PROCESS The workshop format included an open forum and small group work sessions. The 1 participants were selected from a range of commercial development interests as well as a representative from the School District and represented a balanced perspective. The workshop was open to the public for observation. Participation was limited to the invited attendees who were charged with working through an aggressive agenda. A detailed list of participants including contact information and curriculum vitae is available in the f appendix. Following is a list of participants, staff and consultants. NAME TITLE COMPANY CITY STATE PARTICIPANTS I Eric Hovee Real Estate Economist E.D. Hovee & Associates Vancouver, Washington ` Tom Kloster Growth Management Metro Portland, Oregon Gordon Martin Developer ABR Inc. Tigard, Oregon Don Miles Architect, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Seattle, Washington Urban Designer Partnership Xavier Rueda Architect Selig/Lee/Rueda Portland, Oregon Architects & Planners i - i Steve Sanders Retail Dvlpmnt. Urban Solutions Vancouver, Washington Thomas Sconzo Architect Sconzo Hallstrom Arch. Bellevue, Washington Brian Scott President, Livable Oregon inc. Portland. Oregon Executive Director Warren Tvler Principal Sienna Architecture Co. Portland. Oregon J Mark Weisman President Weisman Design Group Seattle. Washington i i i Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLa 4 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper i J.. 17 NAME TITLE COMPANY CITY. STATE STAFF Nadine Smith Planning Supervisor City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon Jim Hendryx Community Devel- City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon opment Director Will D'Andrea Assistant Planner City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon Julia Hajduk Assistant Planner City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon CONSULTANTS Lloyd Lindley Urban Designer Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Portland, Oregon ? Workshop Facilitator John Spencer Planning & Develop- Spencer & Kupper Portland, Oregon ment Consultant 44 Participants were provided with background materials prior to the Workshop and asked to consider the following questions: • At what point, and to what degree, does the Street Plan encourage or hinder development within the CG zone? Describe 5 opportunities and 5 constraints. • At what point, and to what degree, do the Design Standards encourage or hinder development within the CG zone? Describe 5 opportunities and 5 constraints. • Can large scale retail development occur and simultaneously enhance 72nd 1 Avenue as a walkable primary mobility street that supports and encourages transit ridership? A primary mobility street serves all modes of transportation: trucks, transit, pedestrians, cars and bikes. • How can large scale retail development compliment and encourage the Mixed Use Commercial zoned lands within the eastern half of the Triangle? What are the top 3 potential opportunities and constraints? • In the case of extreme physical site conditions, which legislative procedure. ' Variance or Adjustment, would assure adequate review and protection to the public? What criteria should be used to evaluate a request? • How could these standards be modified to work while meeting the vision? i Participants were divided into two groups during the workshop and given a base map showing the Tigard Triangle. Both groups were supplied with scales, markers, and tracing paper to brain storm and illustrate their ideas and concepts. Using the above questions as a catalyst, each group identified opportunities for development, constraints to consider, Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLa 5 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper I _ _ ~ F and then summarized their findings. The groups were given an hour to prepare and present their conclusions. CONCLUSIONS Many participants felt that the City should decide if "big box" retail reflects the community's values, character, quality and goals of the City. None of the participants suggested that the Street Plan and Design Standards are inappropriate and some felt that certain large scale retail users could locate in the Triangle under the requirements imposed by the Street Plan and Design Standards. However, the most important question of the day was, given that the standards and street plan allow outright, single level buildings of 110,000 square feet, does the City want to allow even larger "big box" retail developments in the Tigard Triangle that are more characteristic of those currently found in the area? The group concluded that the standards and street plan are rigid with little room for negotiations and indicate a lack of understanding of large retail users' needs. It was also concluded that large scale retail is an ambiguous use under the current standards. Some felt that more acknowledgment of the topographic constraints of the Triangle is needed and that a complete street plan, instead of spacing standards, is necessary to provide certainty. wJ The group felt that there are opportunities to embrace "big boxes" and do them well while at the same time meeting the City's goals. Also, some thought that a network of pedestrian-oriented streets should be developed to tie together the mix of uses in the district and to make connections to neighboring areas and transit service. It was felt a mix of uses should border these streets (a veneer of fine grained pedestrian-oriented. uses might be built up against a big box retail user, as is demonstrated in the Eagle Hardware site plan on SW Beveland Street). If big box retail is the only thing on the block (an "island"), there is no way to develop the cohesiveness (street orientation) necessary to convey a sense of community. Further, the City should provide an adjustment procedure to address specific site constraints such as topography and to clarify the specific purpose of individual design standards to better articulate the vision for the area, especially relating to big box developments. During the large group wrap-up session, the participants were asked to call out their top two opportunities and constraints that were presented by the street plan and design standards. Many opportunities and constraints were discussed during the large and small group sessions. A brief description of the day's discussion is provided in italics below { each of the opportunities and constraints. Typically, "Some" indicates 3 or fewer comments, "Many" represents 4 to 8 comments, and 8 or more is termed "Most". A i~ transcription of all of the recorded comments from the workshop is found in the 1 appendix. Below are final summary statements from the large group round table. The i Lloyd D. Lindley.ASLN 6 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper i 4 0 7. 1 ranking indicates the number of participants that mentioned the opportunity or constraint in the Final Summary session. OPPORTUNITIES (Final Summary) Ranking Embrace big boxes and do it well and meet the City's goals. Marry felt that the Triangle provides an opportunity to create a mode! for good "big box" development that would meet the needs of the users while at the same time meeting the goals of the City. f i Provide adjustment process to address constraints. (4) Many suggested that an adjustment process would enable . large scale development to occur in the Triangle. It was envisioned to be less stringent than the variance process and would provide flexibility in cases ofsloping topography, wetlands j or other impediments to large scale retail development. Clarify specific goals of design standards, articulate vision for area. (2) Most felt that the standards as written would preclude large single-level, single-entry retail users. The goals and standards do not accommodate all large scale retail programs and should specifically clarify the intent to deny or allow big box developments. Address constraints to provide certainty. (1) Some thought that flexibility is essential where physical constraints require special design, if x large scale developers with specific development programs are allowed to develop in the Triangle Provide service uses within the district. (l) Some felt that finer grained service uses should be encouraged in the Triangle to help reduce the number of vehicular trips. In other words, provide services for nearby employees. Develop alternative schemes to illustrate intent. (l) f~ Provide examples that demonstrate how large scale retail would appear given topographic constraints. Tigard can choose its own future, doesn't have to choose big box. (1) Land value in the metropolitan area is increasing at an average rate of approximately 8 percent per year. Considering the forecasts for growth over the next decade, it would appear that there may be no need to rush development. i " The City might look into the future and wait for the desired development proposal in order to achieve the vision for the City and the Triangle. i Llovd D. Lindiec,:1SL-, 7 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper CONSTRAINTS (Final Summary) Rigidity in Standards/No room for negotiations (flexibility) (8) Most stated that the standards do not have enough flexibility to accommodate certain "big box" programs and the varying physical constraints of the Triangle. Lack of understanding of large retail needs/site constraints. (6) Many expressed that the standards were unworkable for some large scale retail users and thought that it was a lack of understanding of programmatic needs that led to the content of the standards. i Large scale retail ambiguous (as it relates to the standards), (3) should it be in the Triangle? This constraint relates to the previous constraint in that the standards i do not allow outright buildings larger than110,000 square fee on a single level At the same time, the General Commercial Zone designation does allow larger buildings. It seemed that most wanted a clear statement asto whether single level buildings larger than 110, 000 square feet are allowed or not. Acknowledge limits regarding topography. (2) Marry felt that more flexibility regarding set backs and building frontage requirements are necessary to accommodate large scale retail users on sloping sites. The issues were mostly centered around the building program and junction (number of entry points, location a.JJ of entries, parking, loading and so forth). Most felt that f a mechanism other than the City's variance procedure would be necessary. I Street Plan needed rather than spacing standards. (1) Most felt that an inclusive street plan would resolve many of the outstanding issues and provide certainty for the community, land owners and developers. Lack of definition on 72nd - buildings to sidewalk. (1) Some felt that, given "big box" development, 72nd Avenue would lack definition especially in view of the varying topographic conditions along the street Development is occurring that is not consistent with the standards and some wondered ijthe vision and the street sections would be valid in the future. Some suggested that the vision for 72nd should not bean office -front, pedestrian-oriented street, which the standards require, allowing typical setbacks and not trying to create a main street environment. 300' facade limit is confusing for large retail. (1) Some large scale retail users can not accommodate variations or multiple entries in their buildingfacodes. Some questioned, If -b4¢ box" development is allowed then why would the standards require facade lengths of only 300 feet? + Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLa 8 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop 1 Spencer & Kupper i - ~ f J _ l - 1 OPTIONS TO CONSIDER The results of the workshop offer clear choices for the City Council to make. As options, the Council may choose to: 1. Retain the standards as written j According to workshop participants, this would preclude the ability to develop some large scale retail uses over 110,000 square feet without clear and flexible adjustment procedures. . - i 2. Exclude the CG-zones properties in the Triangle from compliance " with the design standards. " i This would create a different appearance for those properties in the CG zone from those developed in the MUE and would affect the ultimate appearance of the streetscape within the Triangle. It would allow large scale development to occur under existing standards with the resulting continuation of existing building types and design. 3. Require all development in the CG zone for floor plates over 110,000 i square feet to comply with four of the following seven standards: / 1. Requirement for access at 660' intervals 2. Requirement for pedestrian access at 330' intervals f 3. Requirement for building entrances at 300' intervals 4. Requirement for buildings to be placed 0' - 10' from the property line 5. Requirement for buildings to occupy 50% of street frontage 6. Prohibition on parking location occupying more than 50% of frontage 7. Ground floor window requirement This would require that development achieve partial compliance. . 4. Allow uses over 110,000 square feet to be exempt from the above seven standards. C This would retain the landscaping, building materials, building entrance and other design requirements while exempting large scale retail development from those requirements i ii that they have indicated are unworkable for their product. 1 i f i Llccc ,-c!c.. ! 9 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper i - 77 - Tigard Triangle Development Workshop APPENDIX • Tigard Triangle Development Workshop • Participant Roster and Vitae • Workshop Results • Tigard Triangle Task Force Goals and Principles and Perceptionnaire j • Tigard Triangle Perceptionnaire Results • Weisman Design Group Correspondence, 7/25/97 i i • Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Correspondence, 8/15/97 • ABR, Inc. Correspondence, 8/18/97 • Weisman Design Group Correspondence, 8/18/97 • E. D. Hovee & Company correspondence, 8/19/97 • Warren Tyler, Sienna Architecture Co. Correspondence, 8/19/97 I t. S: Llovd D. Lindlev, aSL-\ Tigard Triangle Development Workshop i Spencer & Kupper ! ,i. l~ I i 1 CITY OF TIGARD „ Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Workshop Participants FROM: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor {mod t^{- DATE: August 8, 1997 SUBJECT: July 22nd Work Shop Discussion Paper Attached is the draft discussion paper that Lloyd Lindley has prepared for your review. The paper is intended to reflect the results of the July 22nd work shop on the Tigard Triangle Design i Standards and their relationship to large scale retail development. I i Please review the paper and relay to Lloyd any comments or corrections that you have by noon on I August 18th. We will be finalizing the report and providing a copy to Council on August 19th. A meeting is scheduled to discuss the paper with City Council on August 26th. Lloyd's e-mail address is "protractor@msn.com" ; his phone number is 503-224-9188, and his FAX number is 503-227-5810. ® j l ~ - -a , DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP REPORT Y- i TIGARD TRIANGLE DRAFT if r f Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Spencer & Kupper AUGUST?, 1997 . Tigard Triangle Development Workshop CONTENT 1. Background 2. Mission 3. Workshop Process 4. Opportunities and Constraints 5. Conclusions 6. Next Steps 7. Appendix • Tigard Triangle Development Workshop • Participant Roster and Vitae f • Workshop Results f • Tigard Triangle Task Force Goals and Principles and Perceptionnaire f • Tigard Triangle Perceptionnaire Results • Weisman Design Group Letter l UOrd D. Lindler, :ISL-f 8/8/97 Spencer & Kopper 1 - 7 Lloyd U. Lindley ~1SLa Ud D.,Ign 11,- Off,- II„~'ruwl pb-mg Panland. o• n `f^_y)i 03._'-~.71HH L-d-pr drrh,tcclur• w 5 i' raa 503.227. ill IO Does the City want to allow larger "big bor" retail developments in the Tigard Triangle? I BACKGROUND In early 1996. Tigard City Council authorized staff and a consultant team to prepare a street plan and design standards for the Tigard Triangle. Two previous planning efforts i sparked opposition from local residents, businesses and property owners. A task force was formed, composed of an inclusive representation of Tigard Triangle private and public stakeholders. In brief, City Council adopted two policies, first the Street Plan on December 30, 1996, which included Comprehensive Plan Map changes where certain Residential and Commercial Professional use areas were redesignated to Mixed Used j Employment. Additionally, City Council requested that the task force immediately ! develop specific design standards for the entire Triangle. On March 25, 1997, City Council adopted Design Standards for the Triangle as an amendment to the Community 1 Development Code which added a new section to the new Mixed Use Employment zoning district and for areas west of 72"d and on the eastern edge of the Triangle that are zoned General Commercial. i A public involvement process involved as many of the Triangle's businesses, property owners, residents and tenants as were willing to participate. The task force met twice monthly over a nine month period to work out a vision, issues, land use designations, a street plan and design standards that would best meet the needs of all who have a stake in the Triangle. "Perceptionnaires," which are a nonscientific sampling based on questions I related to land use, issues and opportunities in the area were circulated by mail and at public meetings. Results of the perceptionnaires are found in the appendix and were used as an outreach too! to involve more people than those who chose to attend the public meetings. The recommendations from the Task Force were intended to meet the State Transportation Rule, and Metro and neighborhood goals for the area. The primary goal is "to create a mixed use employment district that is complementary to the rest of the community and the region." {I j Guiding principles for land use, transportation, urban design and environment were prepared by the Task Force to direct the qualitative administration of the new policies. They are as follows. Guiding Principles-Land Use and Transportation i • Support the Tigard Triangle's position as a location for a variety of commercial. office. business park and research uses. ~ J N t I t L~ I 1 • Capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific Highway, Highway 217 and 1-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the entire region. • Recognize that accessibility is the key to a successful mixed use employment area, and that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to the Triangle. • Support transit and other modes in order to maximize their potential. • Create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes to be satisfied during a single visit to the Triangle, and distributes those trips over a broad period o the day. • Add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth. 1 Guiding Principles-Urban Design and Environment • Include a safe, secure and convenient pedestrian system within the Tigard Triangle that links internal uses, and connects to the city-wide system. • Integrate within new development the significant natural features found within the Triangle. j • Use streetscape as a key element to create a high quality image for the Triangle and to - establish people-friendly spaces. • Assure that transitions from existing low density residential uses to mixed use employment uses occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas. I • Allow for the opportunity for residential uses within compatible employment areas. r Over the course of several months the Task Force crafted a vision statement to guide i changes in the Triangle and to assure continuity in the character and quality of future development. Below is the Tigard Triangle vision. Design Standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principles adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. J All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non t( I ! single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of 1 the area. i i The design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle within both the C-G and the MUE zones. Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 2 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop - Spencer & Kupper i 1 { j i - 1 Mod _ I t i The task force produced two documents which the City Council adopted. The first included an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan transportation element to adopt a street plan. Additionally, criteria for implementation and zone changes creating a new Mixed Use Employment Zone were adopted on December 30, 1996. The second document contained qualitative and technical design standards for private development and street design and was adopted on March 25, 1997. With the adoption of these two policy documents and acceptance by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon State Division of Land Conservation and Development, the Tigard City Comprehensive Plan and Development Code were amended to create a comprehensive plan for the Triangle. The Street Plan provides the framework for incrementally developing a fundamental and continuous street system. The plan identifies major and minor arterials and two local t collectors. It also recognizes the Oregon Department of Transportation's "Tool Box" projects that were adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission to accommodate future traffic volumes on the regional transportation system as well as in, and around, the Triangle. Today, there are a limited number of access points around the Triangle and 3 arterials that connect a discontinuous street grid. The Triangle consists of over 300 acres or an area of about the same size as downtown Portland. Under the new Mixed Use Employment and existing General Commercial zoning, it is possible to accommodate approximately 2 million additional square feet of retail, office, service, and business development. However, performance criteria is necessary and included in the plan to _ assure connectivity in the street system to more evenly distribute traffic throughout the ! Triangle. Ultimately, a balanced transportation system within the Triangle would be j t provided. i The Design Standards describe the qualitative characteristics of the Triangle. They contain directions for locating buildings and parking along public rights-of-way and define the character and quality of the street environment for all streets. Like the Street ! Plan, the Design Standards provide certainty and consistency over the long term. They also assure that the intentions of the Tigard Triangle Vision, Guiding Principles and Goals are met. i Over the past three months, during informal council work sessions, City Council has heard discussions regarding the street plan and design standards from primarily two land owners in the Triangle. The Tigard School District owns a ten acre parcel in the southern most end of the Triangle, and plans to raze an existing grade school and develop a large scale retail use on the site. ABR, Inc. owns a large parcel southwest of the 72" and Dartmouth intersection and also plans for large scale retail users. The two land owners and representatives expressed concern regarding Street Plan and Design Standard limitations to building ground floor square footage, set backs, required glass. building j articulation and entrances. According to the land owner representatives, the standards rendered those properties undevelopable for large scale (over 100,00 square feet). City - Council directed staff to analyze concerns and evaluate the consequences of the standards to large scale retail users. t I j Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 3 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer R Kupper 1 IF I I, 1 r I TIGARD TRIANGLE i ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS I C-G C-G (PD) _ C-G s I ( 1~ I ,I S I f C-G General Commercial 7 MUE Mixed Use Employment N (PD) u Planned Development 0 400 800 Feet ~ /rrtied'i® ~ J ! S i I 1 =f 7 1 MISSION The Tigard Triangle Development Workshop was requested by City Council to specifically test large scale retail developments ("Big Box') against the adopted Street Plan and Design Standards. Experts in areas of large scale retail development, urban design transportation, and economics were invited to participate with identified property owners and stakeholders in a half-day workshop. The Tigard Triangle Street Plan Developer's Workshop Mission was: to test and evaluate the opportunities and constraints presented by the adopted Tigard Triangle Street Plan and the Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines within the General Commercial zone (CG). The standards and guidelines were tested using large scale retail projects of over 60,000 square feet r j WORKSHOP PROCESS The workshop format included an open forum and small group work sessions. The participants were selected from a range of commercial development interests as well as a s representative from the School District and represented a balanced perspective. The 1 workshop was open to the public for observation. Participation was limited to the invited 1 attendees who were charged with working through an aggressive agenda. A detailed list of participants including contact information and curriculum vitae is available in the appendix. Following is a list of participants. j NAME CO. Julia Hajduk City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon k " Eric Hovee E.D. Hovee & Associates Vancouver, Washington Tom Kloster Metro Portland, Oregon Gordon Martin ABR Inc. Tigard, Oregon f Don Miles Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Seattle, Washington i Xavier Rueda Selig/Lee/Rueda Arch. Portland, Oregon & Planners Steve Sanders Urban Solutions Vancouver, Washington I I Thomas Sconzo Sconzo Hallstrom Architects Bellevue, Washington f I i Brian Scott Livable Oregon Inc. Portland, Oregon Warren Tyler Sienna Architecture Co. Portland, Oregon l Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 4 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper 1 Mark Weisman Weisman Design Group Seattle Washington Nadine Smith City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon Jim Hendryx. City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon Will D'Andrea City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon Lloyd Lindley Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Portland, Oregon John Spencer Spencer & Kupper Portland, Oregon Participants were provided with background materials prior to the workshop and asked to consider the following questions: • At what point, and to what degree, does the Street Plan encourage or hinder development within the CG zone? Describe 5 opportunities and 5 constraints. • At what point, and to what degree, do the Design Standards encourage or hinder development within the CG zone? Describe 5 opportunities and 5 f constraints. i • Can large scale retail development occur and simultaneously enhance 72nd Avenue as a walkable primary mobility street that supports and encourages j ' • J transit ridership? A primary mobility street serves all modes of f transportation: trucks, transit, pedestrians, cars and bikes. i • How can large scale retail development compliment and encourage the Mixed Use Commercial zoned lands within the eastern half of the Triangle? What are the top 3 potential opportunities and constraints? t • In the case of extreme physical site conditions, which legislative procedure, i Variance or Adjustment, would assure adequate review and protection to the public? What criteria should be used to evaluate a request? i • How could these standards be modified to work while meeting the vision? `l Participants were divided into two groups during the workshop and given a base map showing the Tigard Triangle. Both groups were supplied with scales, markers, and tracing paper to brain storm and illustrate their ideas and concepts. Using the above questions as a catalyst, each group identified opportunities for development, constraints to consider, and then summarized their findings. The groups were given an hour to prepare and present their conclusions. i " Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 5 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper L! 1 CONCLUSIONS Many participants felt that the City should decide if "big box" retail can reflect the community's va!ues, character, quality and goals of the City. None of the participants suggested that the Street Plan and Design Standards are inappropriate and some felt that certain large scale retail users could locate in the Triangle under the conditions of the Street Plan and Design Standards. However, the most important question of the day was, given that the standards and street plan allow outright, single level buildings of 110,000 square feet, does the City want to allow larger "big box" retail developments in the Tigard Triangle that are more characteristic of those currently found in the area? The group concluded that the standards and street plan are rigid with little room for negotiations and indicate a lack of understanding of large retail users' needs. It was also concluded that large scale retail is an ambiguous use under the current standards. Some felt that more acknowledgment of the topographic constraints of the Triangle is needed I and that a complete street plan, instead of spacing standards, is necessary to provide j certainty. I The group felt that there are opportunities to embrace "big boxes" and do them well while at the same time meeting the City's goals. Further, the City should provide an adjustment procedure to address constraints and clarify specific goals of the design standards that j better articulate the vision for the area especially relating to big box developments. _ During the large group wrap-up session, the participants were asked to call out their top i _ two opportunities and constraints that were presented by the street plan and design standards. Many opportunities and constraints were discussed during the large and small group sessions. A brief description of the day's discussion is provided in italics below each of the opportunities and constraints. A transcription of all of the recorded comments from the workshop is found in the appendix. Below are final summary statements from the large group round table. The ranking indicates the number of participants that mentioned the opportunity or constraint. OPPORTUNITIES (Final Summary) Ranking Embrace big boxes and do it well and meet the City's goals. (6) Many felt that the Triangle provides an opportunity to create a model for good -big box" development that would meet the reeds of the users while at the some time meeting the goals of the City. J~ Provide adjustment process to address constraints. (4) Many suggested that an adjustment process would enable j large scale development to occur in the Triangle. It was envisioned to be less stringent than the variance process and would provide flexibility in cases of slopine topography. Ivetlandc p Lloyd D. Lindlev, ASLA 6 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper t _ '17 i 1. _ . f or other impediments to large stele retail development. . i Clarify specific goals of design standards, articulate vision for area. (2) Alost felt that the standards as written would preclude large single-level, single-entry retail users. The goals and standards do not accommodate all large scale retail programs and should specifically clarify the intent to deny or allow big box developments. , Address constraints to provide certainty. (1) Some thought that flexibility is essential where physical constraints require special design, if large scale developers with specific development I programs are allowed to develop in the Triangle s Provide service uses within the district. (1) Some felt that finer grained service uses should be encouraged in the Triangle to help reduce the number of vehicular trips. In other words, provide services for nearby employees. Develop alternative schemes to illustrate intent. (1) Provide examples that demonstrate how large scale retail would appear given topographic constraints. f: Tigard can choose its own future, doesn't have to choose big box. (1) Land value in the metropolitan area is increasing at an average rate of approximately 8 percent per year. Considering the forecasts for growth over the next decade, it would appear that there may be no need to rush development. The City might look into the future and wait for the desired development proposal in order to achieve the vision for the City and the Triangle. i CONSTRAINTS (Final Summary) Rigidity in standards/No room for negotiations (flexibility) (8) Most stated that the standards do not have enough flexibility to accommodate certain "big box" programs and the varying physical constraints of the Triangle. Lack of understanding of large retail needs/site constraints. (6) Many expressed that the standards were unworkable for large scale retail users and thought that it was a lack of understanding of programmatic needs that led to the content of the standards. Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 7 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper ti , Large scale retail ambiguous (as it relates to the standards), (3) should it be in the Triangle? This constraint relates to the previous constraint in that the standards do not allow outright buildings larger than 110, 000 square jeer on a single level. At the same time, the General Commercial zone designation does allow larger buildings. It seemed that most wanted a clear statement as to whether single level buildings larger than 110,000 square jeer are allowed or not. Acknowledge limits regarding topography. (2) Marry felt that more flexibility regarding set backs I and building frontage requirements are necessary to l accommodate large scale retail users on sloping sites. ; : . j The issues were mostly centered around the building program and function (number of entry points, location of entries, parking loading and so forth). Most felt that a mechanism other than the City's variance procedure I would be necessary. Street Plan needed rather than spacing standards. l j Most felt that an inclusive sheet plan would f resolve many of the outstanding issues and provide certainty for the community, landowners and developers. ~J Lack of definition on 72nd - buildings to sidewalk. (0) Some felt that, given "big box" development, 72nd Avenue would lack definition especially in view of the varying topographic conditions along the street. Development is occurring that is not consistent with the standards and some wondered if the vision and the street sections would be Z valid in the future. Some suggested that the vision for 72nd should not be an office -front, pedestrian-oriented street, ff which the standards require, allowing typical setbacks t Y and not trying to create a main street environment. 300' facade limit is confusing for large retail. (0) Some large scale retail users can not accommodate variations or multiple entries in their building facades. Some questioned, If "big box" development is allowed j then why would the standards require facade lengths of only 300 jeer? - I t I , I _ Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 8 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Spencer & Kupper • ~I 1 " OPTIONS TO CONSIDER The results of the workshop offer clear choices for the City Council to make. As options, the Council may choose to: 1. Retain the standards as written According to workshop participants, this would preclude the ability to develop some large scale retail uses over 110,000 square feet without clear and flexible adjustment procedures. j 2. Exclude the CG-zones properties in the Triangle from compliance with the design standards. This would create a different appearance for those properties in the CG zone from those developed in the MUE and would affect the ultimate appearance of the streetscape within the Triangle. It would allow large scale development to occur under existing standards with the resulting continuation of existing building types and design. _ " . . 3. Require all development in the CG zone for floor plates over 11,000 i square feet to comply with four of the following seven standards: 1. Requirement for access at 660' intervals 2. Requirement for pedestrian access at 330' intervals 3. Requirement for building entrances at 300' intervals 4. Requirement for buildings to be placed 0' - 10' from the property line 5. Requirement for buildings to occupy 50% of street frontage 6. Prohibition on parking location occupying more than 50% of frontage 7. Ground floor window requirement This would require that development achieve partial compliance. 4. Allow uses over 100,000 square feet to be exempt from the above seven standards. This would retain the landscaping, building materials, building entrance and other design requirements while exempting large scale retail development from those requirements j . that they have indicated are unworkable for their product. ( j j I 1~ I Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 9 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop i Spencer & Kupper t Tigard Triangle Development Workshop APPENDIX E:. ~ r Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 813/97 Spencer & Kupper .yr j 1 Tigard Triangle development Workshop July 22, 1997 The Workshop Mission The mission of this development workshop is to test and evaluate the opportunities and constraints presented by the Tigard Triangle Street Plan and the Tigard Triangle Design 4 Guidelines within the General Commercial zone (CG). We will test the standards and guidelines using large scale retail projects of over 60,000 square feet. Tigard Triangle Vision Over the past 18 months, an advisory committee developed a vision for the Triangle and a ! Street Plan and Design Guidelines. Below are the guiding principles and attached are the . Street Plan and Design Guidelines. Design Standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principles adopted for the Tigard f Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in { non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. ' The design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle within both the C-G and the MUE zones. General Description This workshop focuses on commercially zoned lands to the west of 72"d Avenue. There i are large tracts of undeveloped parcels of 10 acres and greater mixed with single family homes and large scale retail developments. Relatively little flat ground exists in the , Tigard Triangle. Generally, the west half of the Triangle slopes from 72"d Avenue down i to the west at approximately a 5% gradient. Wetland areas are identified alone I-217 and ~ Dartmouth. Access to and iu«< the TriauKle is limited by 1-5 on the east, I-217 on the south and west. and Highway 99 on the north. Primary access to the west half of the Triangle is from Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA t 7116i97 Spencer S. Kupper k1k L- J i I-217 and Highway 99 via 72nd Avenue. Additional access in the north is from Highway 99 via Dartmouth. A fragmented and discontinuous street grid exists. However, all traffic to and from the west half of the Triangle must travel on 72nd or Dartmouth to exit the area. The Street Plan provides a way for creating continuity and connectivity within the Triangle. It provides incremental street and access way development that is consistent with regional and state planning principles for connectivity. Recognizing the limited number of access points in and out of the Triangle, the primary objective of the plan is to create a balanced transportation system that distributes trips within the Triangle on a variety of streets. Ultimately the plan provides choices. The Design Standards provide the fundamental requirements for improving the character and quality of the arterials and local streets within the Triangle. Advisory committee members unanimously chose 72nd Avenue as the focal point of the Triangle and recommended that it look similar to Sequoia Parkway which is just south of 1-217. It was recommended that buildings be set closer to the roadway and be more visible than those along Kruse Way and that gateways be located at 1-217 and Highway 99.. Also, the ! j advisory committee requested that buildings have windows and that blank walls should be avoided. Further, a median in 72nd was recommended, but with the condition that it j contain low growing plants with trees that preserve views to and from buildings and across the avenue. I Some questions to consider are: The following questions are provided to help facilitate the workshop. This is not f homework, however, these questions are intended to help participants orient to the issues. • At what point, and to what degree, does the Street Plan encourage or hinder development within the CG zone? Describe 5 opportunities and 5 constraints. • At what point, and to what degree, do the Design Standards encourage or hinder development within the CG zone? Describe 5 opportunities and 5 constraints. • How can these standards be modified to work while meeting the vision? • Can large scale retail development occur and simultaneously enhance 72nd Avenue as a walkable primary mobility street that supports and encourages transit ridership? A primary mobility street serves all modes of transportation: trucks, transit, pedestrians, cars and bikes. • How can large scale retail development compliment and encourage the Mixed Use Commercial zoned lands within the eastern half of the Triangle? What are the top 3 { potential opportunities and constraints? f j Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 2 7116197 Spencer & Kupper I 9 - 7 I In the case of extreme physical site conditions, which legislative procedure, Variance or Adjustment, would assure adequate review and protection to the public? What criteria should be used to evaluate a request? • How do the Design Standards impact large scale commercial development? What aspects, and to what degree, do they prohibit typical big box development? • What are the economic imparts of the Design Standards? Workshop Guidelines • Try to get all of your ideas on paper. • Before you begin each task, take a few minutes to discuss ideas, options and an approach. • Work quickly to refine ideas and alternatives. • A facilitator will be provided who will help record and draw thoughts and ideas. i Your facilitator will help illustrate how your ideas and alternatives apply to the sites. However, feel free to draw as much as you wish. • Use simple shapes such as circles, arrows, squares, etc. to depict ideas. • Use as much paper as you need. • Include short descriptive sentences that help explain your ideas. - j • Use familiar colors such as green for open space, red for paths, etc. • Trace over the base maps that are provided to illustrate your ideas and alternatives. • Do not get stuck on details. Record the issues you cannot resolve and come back to them later. They are likely to be resolved as the process moves ahead. • Members of our consulting team will rove around to help answer questions. • Most importantly, have fun. • Designate a team spokesperson. At the end of the allotted time, we will place each of the groups' diagrams, opportunities and constraints on the wall. A spokesperson from each group will have 5 minutes to explain each team's design. ' f Llovd D. Lindley, ASLA 3 7716/97 Spencer & Kupper 1! \ACAO\JDOS\1995\95 702.01\CEI FILE\1'UN-DOC\5f021E3(lU j E n i , r , Lo 04 1 ~ Ch Q- ---0 i. ° to ra ( pt _ ~ d~ 1 ~ f it - N zzz t 1 f -1 r 1 ~ i • f ( Ir 0 1 1 . `AAA J$ I1 , 1 a ~ I rl }W. 72NA AV114VR 1 Y PUNRB D ACRM CM&MCIAL D-ML r II i vna cevl~oa',~rr. 7 7 r• CITY OF TIGARll tfu-couN1Y c17NTl~t a«a•~w ►7i1t nn v..,....-+ p~+yj~,~7A'RY ORADRdO PIJW woeomwr~fac 0•r a.a na. ne•. 4W a...« ra+n w.m. 1 i I 1 a.~a,o,a• r•II,ne _ Landscape Plan . i T. es ~WCO.Aw. GF 6F - 9F Isometric view at entry \ - - GE - 6E - 6 = section through entry walkway 1 I EAGLE HARDWARE AND GARDEN i AREAG~ Tigard, Oregon i 1 x { Tigard Triangle Development Workshop 7 n ROSTER NAME CO. Julia Hajduk City of Tigard I Eric Hovee E.D. Hovee & Associates l Tom Kloster Metro 1 1' . Gordon Martin ABR Inc. Don Miles Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Xavier Rueda Selig/Lee/Rueda Arch. & Planners Steve Sanders Urban Solutions f Thomas Sconzo Sconzo Halistrom Architects - 1 Brian Scott Livable Oregon Inc. i Warren Tyler Sienna Architecture Co. Mark Weisman Weisman Design Group Nadine Smith City of Tigard Jim Hendryx City of Tigard Will De' Andrea City of Tigard 1 Lloyd Lindley Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA j John Spencer Spencer & Kupper i Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLa City of Iii_ard Spencer & Kupper t { - Tigard Triangle Development Workshop PARTICIPANT VITAE Eric Hovee Principal E. D. Hovee & Company I E. D. Hovee & Company is a consulting firm providing economic and development services to public agency, non profit organization and private clients. The firm conducts economic and market research, facilitates community and business assessments, prepares economic development and diversification strategies, and assists in project implementation. Since its inception, the firm has been directly involved in assignments resulting in more than S5 billion of planned and completed capital investment from public and private sources. Mr. Hovee received the John Warner Yardley Award for Senior Thesis in Economics while at the University of Pennsylvania where he studied Economics and Urban Studies. Tom Moster { Project Manager Metro Tom Kloster is the project manager for the Regional Transportation Plan at Metro. Tom has been with J Metro since 1993, and worked previously in local land use planning in the Portland area, He is a Portland J native, and earned a Bachelor's degree in Geoscience at Oregon State University and Master's degree in Urban Planning at Portland State University. Tom is a member of the American Institute ojCertified G { Planners and American Planning association. i Gordon Martin I(1 ABR, Inc. L Gordon Martin is a property owner and developer in the Tigard Triangle. Don Clifford Miles, FAIA Associate Partner Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership Don Miles has over 30 years of experience as an architect and urban designer. He has specialized in public and commercial facilities, community development guide plans, and historic preservation. He is a frequent lecturer, has been a consultant to numerous cities and business people throughout the country, and is a G published author and analyst of design issues relating building to their external environments. He has been responsible for master planning and urban design guidelines for a number of publicly and privately developed projects. He has also been responsible for site and master planning efforts including The Master Plan for the Capitol of the State of Washington, the University of Washington, Whitman College, and the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Campus. Mr. Miles has been responsible for the planning and urban design elements of a number of major transportation projects including the Banfield Light Rail project in Portland: the Boise Downtown Major Public Open Space, Street Improvements and Transit; the Everett Multi-Modal Transportation Center; and the Pedestrian Corridor, Major Public Open Spaces, and CBD Transit Center Plans for Bellevue. Mr. Miles holds a Master of Ciry Planning in Urban Design and Master of Architecture from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Architecture from the Universiry of Washington. i Lloyd D. Lindlev, ASLA I City of Tigard Spencer & Kupper t "r -1 i ` Tigard Triangle Development Workshop i Steven R. Sanders i Principal Urban Solutions As President of Shanedling Development, Beverly Hills, California, Mr. Sanders supervised and managed a S152 million portfolio which included several KMART anchored shopping centers. He was responsible for supervising development, facility maintenance, lease-up, collection of rents and eventual sale of the portfolio. As Project Coordinator and Loan Officer for the Portland Development Commission, Mr. Sanders re-wrote PDC's affordable housing finance program through a series of consensus meetings with non-profit housing groups and city housing organizations. He supervised and coordinated master planning, development, lighting, landscape, disposition and infrastructure construction for the 25 acre RiverPlace urban renewal district including construction of SW River Parkway and the Pacific Gas Transmission Headquarters (150,00 sq. fQ. Mr. Sanders coordinated Pre-development and Disposition Strategy for 7.4 acres of vacant property available for development where project obstacles included contaminated ground and ground water, wetlands and a flood zone. Mr. Sanders holds a Bachelor of Science degree from California State University. Thomas A. Sconzo, AIA Founder, Principal Architect Sconzo Hallstrom Architects Mr. Sconzo has had thirty-five years of experience in commercial, retail, and multi-family architecture. He opened his own firm in 1976 after fourteen years of employment with two large firms in the Seattle area. Mr. Sconzo has designed in excess of ten million square feet of commercial, industrial, office, retail, multifamily, single family, and public facilities. The firm's construction budget varies, with an average of approximately 525,000,000 to 530,000,000 during the past five years. In addition, he has been involved in numerous large scale office/warehouse and retail projects in South Center and Tukwila during the early years of development. Major projects were Levitt's Furniture, Doces f Home Furnishing, Segale Industrial Park (100,00 acres), buildings for Westinghouse and General Electric, ` and distribution centers for J.C. Penney, Bon Marche, and Frederick & Nelson. In addition to Pay 'N Pak stores, located in sixteen states with over 100 stores, recent projects include Eagle Hardware and Garden, Future Shop, Office Depot, United Buy & Sell, Sears HomeLife and REI. Brian D. Scott President and Executive Director . Livable Oregon j Beginning his career as a landscape architect and urban planner, Mr. Scott became convinced that limiting sprawl and reviving inner-cities cannot be accomplished through urban design alone. This discovery turned his work toward making cities work - for people, for business, and for government. His work at Livable Oregon takes him to communities throughout Oregon to help Oregonians build livable communities through downtown revitalization, education, and advocacy for good development. Mr. Scott served as chair of the City Life demonstration of infill housing in Portland. He personally launched a renaissance of downtown living in Albany by rehabilitating the upper floor of a commercial f building as an apartment. He chaired the Land Conservation and Development Commission's Task Group on Development Inside Urban Growth Boundaries. He is currently a member of the Willamette Valley Livability Forum and on the board of directors of the International Downtown Association. He holds a I Master of Landscape Architecture degree and is completing work on a doctorate in urban studies. 1 ~ f j Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 2 City of Tigard { Spencer & Kupper i L~ Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Warren A. Tyler, A1A Senior Project Manager Sienna Architecture Selected project experience includes Fred Meyer Retail Centers in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska and Utah; Hedges Greene Retail Center, Portland; Shurgard Storage, Portland; Albertson's, Grants Pass; San Rafael Shopping Center, Portland; New West Plaza, Bend; HomeBase, Portland; Folsom Square, Folsom, CA; and Lake Elsinore Chief Auto, Lake Elsinore, CA. Mr. Tyler is a member of the American Institute of Architects, International Council of Chopping Center, Architecture Health Panel and National Fire Protection Association, Health Care Division. Mr. Tyler holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the j University of Oregon. Mark Weisman, ASLA Principal WeismanDesignGroup t As founder and principal of WeismanDesignGroup, Mr. Weisman has worked extensively with most City, Count and State agencies on a range of private developmental projects. He is completely familiar with the complex maze of overlapping requirements, and has successfully completed projects and approvals that involved many different clients and issues, His primary interests lie in site planning, urban design and the development of large scale projects. Mr. Weisman has taken an active role in the approvals on many of the firms commercial and multi-family projects. These include Canyon Park Business Center, Costco Headquarters, Poulsbo Place, Island House, 106 Plaza, Washington Mutual Tower, and work at Redmond Town Center. Since he has been so actively involved with mixed-use projects for the last 17 years, he understands how to achieve the Client's goals I: and objectives, while at the same time crafting an approvable and interesting project which is well positioned in the market place. This principal involvement in projects provides a strong guarantee that the approval process will go as planned with no surprises to minimize client risk. + L i. i i i + Llovd D. Lindlev, ASLA 3 City of Tigard Spencer & Kopper + ~I i { _ SELIG/LF~~JRtJHDA i XAVIER E. RUEDA ff Ll Selig/Lee/Rueda Architects & Planners 213 S.W. Ash street Partner Portland. Oregon 97204 tel. 503 224 0173 Xavier Rueda graduated from the University of Oregon with a Bachelor fix 303.224. 4836 of Architecture in 1966. Upon graduation, he worked with architectural firms in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (1967-1968) and Burlington, Vermont (1969- 1972), where he was in charge of several projects including hospitals, educational facilities, medical centers, shopping centers, housing for single & multi-family, condominium and apartment projects. Mr. Rueda obtained architectural registration in 1972 in the State of Vermont and was certified to the National Council of Architectural Registration Board in 1973. Architectural registration: was obtained in 1975 in the State of Oregon. In 1984, Mr. Rueda successfully f' completed the Arctic Regions Engineering Course through the University of Washington and obtained Architectural Registration in the state of Alaska and later the same year in the State of Arizona. In 1973, Xavier returned to Oregon and joined the firm of Rockrise, Odermatt, Mountjoy, Amis, P.C. where his primary responsibilities were technical coordinator and project management which included the j Columbia Gorge Aerial Tramway and mufti-family housing { developments. I Mr. Rueda Joined Sefig/Henslee Architects as a Project Architect in ~ 1975. His primary responsibilities were project coordination from planning through construction of educational facilities which included design of Elementary, iv lddle and High Schools. Planning includes sites ranging from 10 acres to 64 acres, In 1982, Xavierjoined Cooper Consultants, Inc. as Senior Staff Architect where his primary responsibilities included coordination of all Architectural projects. Projects included Correctional Facilities,: Educational, Industrial, and Office Facilities for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in South Dakota, Arizona and Alaska. As of July 1987, Mr. Rueda joined Selig/Henslee/Lee in partnership and the Firm Name was changed to Selig/LeelRueda. Since 1975, Mr. 1 Rueda has been working with City and govemmentagagencies in the greater Portland Metropolitan area to design functional institutional sites that co-exist in harmony within existing neighborhood communities. A R C H I + T E C T S I tit P L A N N E R S 1 t - Elio" Tig< rd Triangle Development Workshop PARTICIPANT LIST NAME CO. ADDRESS CITY/ST. ZIP PHONE Julia Ilajduk City of Tigard 13125 SW Ilall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503.6394171 Eric I lovee E.D. I lovee & Associates PO Box 925 Vancouver, WA 98666 503-230-1414 Tom Kloster Metro 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232 503-797-1832 Gordon Martin ABR Inc. 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 503-620-2477 Don Miles Zimmer Gunsul Frasca 1191 2nd Ave. Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98101 206-623.9414 Xavier Rueda Selig/Lee/Rueda Arch. & Planners 213 SW Ash St. Suite 201 Portland, OR 97204 503-224-0173 Steve Sanders Urban Solutions 12919 NE Highway 99 010-175 Vancouver, WA 98686 360-806-0708 `I'11onnas Sconzo Sconzo I lallstrom Architects 919-1241h Ave. NE Bellevue, WA 98005 206-455-3203 Brian Scutt Livable Oregon Inc. 921 SW Morrison Suite 508 Portland, OR 97205 503-222-2182 Warren Tyler Sienna Architecture Co. 411 SW 6111 Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1602 503-227-5616 Mark Weisman Weisman Design Group 2329 E. Madison Seattle, WA 98112 206-322-1732 Nadine Smith City of Tigard 13125 SW Ilall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 Jim I lendryx City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 Will Dc' Andrea City of `Tigard 13125 SW I tall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 Lloyd Lindley Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA PO Box 9068 Portland, OR 97207 503-224-9188 John Spencer Spencer & Kopper 3533 NE 24th Avenue Portland, OR 97212 503-282-9853 Lloyd 11. Lindley, ASIA City of Tigard Spencer & Kupper % ; i DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP V TIGARD TRIANGLE i RESULTS 1 Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Spencer & Kupper AUGUST 8, 1997 a j t Tigard Triangle Development Workshop OPPORTUNITIES (Final Summary) Ranking Embrace big boxes and do it well and meet the City's goals. (6) Provide adjustment process to address constraints. (4) Clarify specific goals of design standards articulate vision for area (2) Address constraints to provide certainty. (1) " . Provide service uses within the district. (1) Develop alternative schemes to illustrate intent. (1) Tigard can choose its own future, doesn't have to choose big box. (1) j CONSTRAINTS (Final Summary) ! Rigidity in standards/No room for negotiations (flexibility) (8) i Lack of understanding of large retail needs/site constraints. (6) Large scale retail ambiguous (as it relates to the standards), (3) should it be in the Triangle? Acknowledge limits regarding topography. (2) Street Plan needed rather than spacing standards. (1) Lack of definition on 72nd - buildings to sidewalk. (1) 300' facade limit is confusing for large retail. (1) i OPPORTUNITIES (Large Group) Opportunity for standards to provide for large scale retail. Create mix of uses with a higher standard in environment. i Market driven reality, flexibility in standards to allow for unique conditions. Create architectural diversity. Lloyd A Lindley, ASL.d 8/8/97 1 i Spencer & Kupper Tigard Triangle Development Workshop Topography offers opportunity for creative designs. J How standards impact "Big Guys". Pedestrian uses. Building community - a new, more inclusive way of thinking. - Community opportunity to create permanence and longevity. Plan large sites for more development or redevelopment. i Create non-arterial connectivity.. Create good transportation plan without precluding development. Investigate ways to accommodate difficult site circumstances. CONSTRAINTS (Large Group) Conflict between community desire and market retail reality. ' To accommodate pedestrian and bicyclists in an environment like this. ; . Looking at the unique needs without looking at realities of today. Standards force developers to "play games" simply to meet standards. Desire of property owners. rtk Standards confusing in relation to users vs. sites' reality. No provision for compatible smaller uses. Making pedestrian connections workable and usable. Only vehicle for flexibility is a variance. Freeway access to site limited/restricted. Funding for future access improvements. Too many constraints on development makes it too costly to develop. _J Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 8/8/97 7 Spencer & Kupper j r LZ Tigard Triangle Development Workshop i ! GROUP A I multi-entrance multi-tenants more flexible If you have retailer that uses same layout - too restrictive. Certain retailers precluded-size, costs, location, use , function, parcel size. Have to allow for slopes - if flat, could still have box. A. ' Bulk of people will drive. t No pedestrians going across freeway. I I Possible development of another building - office. E Potential marketing - with good connections, will be OK for retail. If future retail pads face street, can big box face otherwise - offset with other activity. Can you meet standards with a future phase? Variance - adjustments, ! Don't go through variance process. Intent is to bring buildings up to major arterials - will 72nd actually be a pedestrian street? Is there enough public benefit to justify standards on 72nd? 1 p. Y - Retail on street enhances public experience. ODOT withdrawal. i Sink wail into ground and put building next to street. 1 Eagle under contract with School District. Variance because of topography and use. Requirement is that there be use on the street - does not necessarily have to be the big box. Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA 8/8197 Spencer & Kupper 3 _ J , 1 Tigard Triangle Development Workshop 60' buffer to another building - Unified Building Code. Standards do not preclude Eagle from building on site - they do have to build wall - does this meet the standard? i Wall with glass - "nonsensical". A big pad requiring a level site will cost much more to move it next to the street. Unless in a downtown/town center situation, does it really enhance the street to have buildings next to street? For topo reasons, can someone substitute a false wall? r' Exclusions to standards because of topography or environmental reasons. What could the exclusions be? Is there something that could be given in exchange for meeting all the criteria? Park? What does this do about setting a standard for future development? Develop review criteria for special conditions and proposals. j No room for flexibility when reviewing plans for conditions of approval. Is large scale retail use a desired use for the Tigard Triangle? If so, need to develop special criteria. Need pedestrian flexibility - need continuity and connectivity. Define point of local origin as front door for pedestrians. Define point of origin as curb cut or access point for vehicles. Strict grid system works best for cars, but does it work for pedestrians? i Retrofits to existing uses - Infill. Most onerous things in Standards is the setbacks (0'-10'). Next is 330 rule - building facades. This is a hindrance to large scale retailers. LloN.d D. Lindlev. ASL.d 818197 4 Spencer & Kupper I J Tigard Triangle Development Workshop II i GROUP B Criteria for as many parking spaces as close to building as possible. 2% slope on parking lot. Need "flat" building (not stepped) to meet use needs. Think about adding to design by making front door activity visible from street. Add retail uses along 72nd Street frontage (cafe' in Garden Center). Question of 72nd Street as major pedestrian connection. Allow on-street parking if it is intended to be used as a pedestrian connection? i Add and integrate additional uses at 72nd Street, How to interest single use users to consider additional uses. Does site plan allow for future development? I Pursue phasing for some requirements - do we allow? Do we require performance standards? i Should pedestrian emphasis be east/west or north/south? Open space/public space? Overall district signs to identify development ( and directions)? Flexibility for meeting 330'/660' standards (for large sites, unique users). Future street plan? Negotiate now instead of at time of application. Emphasize pedestrian connections at intersections? Align existing/proposed drives for future streets. What happens if phasing opportunities aren't built? _ I~ Continuity between east/west streets crossing 72nd. i Integrate neighborhood facilities and adequate landscaping. Flexibility or adjustment to standards for building over 100,000 square feet? Conditional use? or ! process set up and special specific guidelines/provisions? Need to define guiding principles for sidewalk relationships. Floyd D. Lindley, ASLA 8/8197 5 Spencer & Kupper I I I :7 t July 30, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: TIGARD TRIANGLE TASK FORCE FR: JOHN RE: FURST DRAFT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES Following is a first draft Goals and Principles for the Tigard Triangle based on the Task Force discussiois during the meeting on June 25, 1996: Primary Goal: To create a mixed use living and working environment that is complementary to the rest of the community and the region. 1 ! Guiding Principles: Support the Tigard Triangle's position as a regionally significant location for a variety of commercial, office and light industrial businesses. I Capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific Highway, Highway 217 and I-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the entire region. _ Recognize that accessibility is the key to a successful mixed use employment area, and that the automobile will accommodate the vase majority of trips to the Triangle. Support transit and other j modes in order to maximize their potential. Create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes to be satisfied during a single visit to the Tigard Triangle, and distributes those trips over a broad period of the day. Add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth. Include a safe, secure and convenient pedestrian system within the Tigard Triangle that links internal uses, and connects to the city-wide system. Integrate existing stream/drainage corridors into an open space system. j Assure that transitions from existing low density residential uses to mixed use employment uses occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas. ~ triswPlos~.c"'^-f O 7~ a caoyi-joff yh~ 7-f1G -111111-111;"- ~,ryyt~c41Z.,44I-n ,.sn r""~~ii~G .~.uyt4h~ur.~' ~ vsu-w .~fu /oya-C [.~luGt aUhor.-G /'CSC + a,e~i~l c¢ Ael ColxLrcGvci4~- Jpliicy~~zc~c.t7~ Llt1e~5. U ° ~'az/~cLc, ~es.~lµ.GS~ ~~o-r.Lv.~,t {~5 doas.~(/ /r^ccl~2. - JYfs[G~cc~~ . - u I _ E a 4 I 1 EPs A NEW ANGLE ON THE TRIANGLEI i And we want to hear from you! Join us at a e■ OPEN HOUSE Au9u $st 6:3~ Pm to discuss lan ise... tra ie...eommereial development... and other issues related to the Triangle Loceui'oa: kwo #a// M25 SW Na// B& Spoosaref69►:Nre Eas~ClFoo~N}r;Gs o~ Ti'". ~ V = i 1 0305 rvi %COGAN OWENS COGAN. PO-2 ! D~a i WELCOME TO OUR TIGARD TRIANGLE OPEN HOUSEI August 1, 19% Town Sall } Tonight you have the opportunity to pardcipate in helping decide the future of land use, trgfftc, commensal development and other trsues related to the "TNangle". t. There are numerous opportunities for you to express your perceptions and opinions. When indicated, please use the notepads, stickies or dots freely. ! Your participation is valuable as the TNangle Task Force develops its recommendations. We will be back in the fail to present several alternatives for public review and comment. - Task Force and CIT members, city staff and consultants are available to help you and answer any questions. TAKE YOUR TEWE AND HAVE FUN! 6:30 - 7:00 pm Get acquainted; review exhibits 7:00 - 8:00 : Presentation, questions and comments 8:00 - 8:30 Further opportunity for comments and observations on graphic displays ! Ii Task Force: Jim Corliss, Mark Edlen, Robert Gerding, Kathy Godfrey, Jerry Koberiine, Gordon Martin, Mayor Jim Nicoll, Mark Padgett, Don Pollock, Michael Ray, Ken Rosenfeld, Tim Roth, Rick Saito, Paul Simmons, Mary Tobias, Mary Weber, Darlene Wozniak LJ uU 1n1 Lf ems.:/7614 1994 TIGARD TRIANGLE PROJECT Perceptionnatre The City of Tigard has recently approved a new and important Tigard Triangle Study. The purpose of the project Is to examine the present and future opportunities for land use, traffic, commercial development and other issues for this Important piece of land. Our mission is to develop goals, objectives and an implementation strategy that will be in the beat interests of all the people the Triangle serves. As a first step In our study, we want to hear from you! Whether you are a resident, business owner or visitor, your answers to this perceptionnalre are very important. 1. I am b ♦ An employee in the Triangle ❑ ♦ Business owner In the Triangle ♦ Resident In the Triangle ❑ ♦ Visitor in the Triangle ❑ i ♦ Other ❑ 2. I shop in Triangle stores ❑ At lent once a week 1 ❑ At least once a month 3. The stores I patronize most frequently are: I 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being unsatisfactory, 5 most satisfactory, please rank the following in the Triangle: Unsatisfactory Satisfactory ' 1 2 3 4 5 Parking Traffic Variety of shopping opportunities (i Y E 0lSill4"iy7 "ll:0ti $508_684 7297 CITY OF TIGIRD 0002/006 Question 1 lam: , An employee in the Triangle A business owns in the Triangle ~ _ A resident of the Triangle A visitor in the Triangle Other landlord of residential or business property Question 2 1 shop in Triangle stores: At least once a weak ~t - At least once a month Question 3 k The stores I patronize most frequently are: Costco Cub Foods f j Tigard Cinema PetSmert Landmark Ford - _ Office Max Restaurants Other businesses I No comment • - Question 4 ` i J d- - 08/04/97 13:37 $503684 7397 CITY OF TIGARD X003/008 l On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=unsatisfactory, 1 2 3 4 5 6=most satisfactory) please rank the following: Parldng Traffic NH•+ra. HHi Variety of shopping opportunities ••••O•'•• • „ Pedestrian ease/safety aM +aa• " { Bicycle easWsafety H+HNN .r. Street fightIng •H • Mix of housing and commercial Looking 2 to 5 five years ahead, the most important problems that need to be so!vBd in the Tigard Triangle are: (Most often comments from perceptionnaire) Planned development Improvement of infrastructuro:Gghting, sewer, roads •HaaHN (m and out) of area .arHa•aa t Preservation of environment (wetlands and trees) i r Improvement of brkeways/sidewalks ae• Widen main throughfares ",'t c No comments Question 6 Do you have any suggestions for solving the problems: (most common suggestions) - - I Plan for a light-nil stoplmulti-modal transportation 11 Zoning as a control to protect environment Consistency In landsoping and design of buildings 08/01/97 12:37 $503 681 7297 CITY OF TIGARD ®003/008_ Make area MOM user-friendly for bkes and •m _ pedestrians More residential, less commercial More commerciA less residential Other comments No comments Question 7 Anything else you would like to add: No comment City has been wasting time by not making a decision F' 1 Mixing housing and commerical is stupid. No more ' 6~64RJA(~dC>tttc or bike tf then: was a way to F r.: a&, the residents alone 72nd Avenue needs help Meeting was vary helpful Question 8 yes no I' Resident of Tigard? Other resident (where) Portland « Wilsonville Newberg i Beaverton Mate Female } Age: under 12 L 13.25 ll 26-35 i 36.55 Over 55 r..••e.e. i Mailing list requests: Mr & Mrs. PhD Peters -~e 6430 s. W. Roundvee Court 101 Portland, OR 97219 i I J. ' i '~nGroup~~ _ - tandXwe 901mca" Site Pt=u q Dmelot mental Planuuq July 25, 1997 1 Mr. Lloyd Lindley - Lloyd Lindley, ASLA P.O. Box 9068 I Portland, OR 97207 Re: Eagle HardwardDesign Workshop 1 Tigard, Oregom Dear Lloyd, i I enjoyed attending the workshop on Tuesday, July =d- This letter is a follow up to our discussion at the end of the workshop whae we made it clear that the narrowly focused concerns of the group regarding the flaws is the Tigard Triangle i Standards as they relate to the big box users, do not deal with all the issues of oomcern to Eagle Hardware. The list was not t i all inclusive became it focused on the Inge iw= but neglected the small issues which are also critical to the success of a large user on a retail site in the triangle. The purpose of this letter is to clarify Eagle Hardware's additional issues so that your white paper can fully describe the issues at hand to the City Council. At the same time, we also request the chance to review the white paper which you are preparing as a summary of the meeting prior to its delivery to the Council so that we may have a chance to comment on it ` I. The following Building Design Standards will also require modification. 1. Ground FloorW`imdows: Some flexibility will need to occur given the way that a large retail user clusters windows at the entry side of the building. j 2. Roof and Roof Lines- We desire some flexibility on this revision since it does not appear to apply to our building site. The following Site Design Standards also pose problems for Eagle Hardware as written and will require some flesdbillty or modifieation: 1. Building Placement on Major and Minor Arterials: The direction of the group suggested that it is unreasonable to place a build-mg along Vd because of the topography and the other sohitions lute landscape and or walls would suffice. We would require the flexibility to work this out with the City. 2. Building Setback, Sind the topography of the Eagle site does not allow for buildings along 72°d street, then the building setback requirement will need to be modified. i . 3. Parking location and Landscape Design: f Both working groups agreed that the site plan as proposed by Eagle makes sense and it includes parking adjacent to 72e0. The Site Design Standards will need to be modified to allow for parking adjacent to the right-of-way. f These items should be considered in addition to the list compiled at the workshop. 1 would appreciate it if you could convey these thoughts to the Council in your white paper. Thank you for your help and consideration of these important issues. Iy. Mark Weisman, ASLA WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC., P.S. cc Mr. Pete Gallina, Eagle Hardware Mr. Tom Sconrv, Scones Hallsrom Mr. Jim Hemdryx, Development Services Manager, City of Tigard I 2929 East Madison - { Searue. Wastitpton 9M12 + 12061322.1732 e I ZII4LMER. GUNSUL FRAkA PARTNERSHIP 206/623-9414 11 1191 Second Avenue, Suite 800 (fax) 206/623-7868 Seattle, Washington 98101 i FAX COVER SHEET To Llovd Lindlev Date August 13, 1997 Time 4PM Fax No. 503-227-5810 Operator From Don Miles Name vm Project Project Name Tigard Triangle Workshop Number 90445.01 Number of Pages (including this page) 1 1 SUBJECT: Workshop Summarv 1 i i REMARKS i In general, the summary is excellent. I would like to emphasize a few points that I made Our goal is hi ilding community (not building something complementary to community). • A network of pedestrian-oriented streets ehould be developed to He together the mix of uses in the district and to make connections to neighboring areas and transit service. • A mix of uses should border these streets (a veneer of fine grained pedestrian-oriented uses might be built up against a big box retail user, as is de monstraled in the Eagle Hardware site plan on SW Beveland Street). If big box retail is the only thing on the block (an "island"), there is no way to develop the cohesiveness (street orientation) necessary to convey a sense of community. • Topography must support the development of pedestrian-related uses (pedestrain-oriented development should be directly accewtble from sidewalk). This is difficult to achieve on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue without multi-level development. • Pedestrian-oriented elements of big box retail should be related to the street grid. The front door activity (displays, espresso stands, etc.) should spill out into adjacent outdoor areas. The drive to or by the front door should be on axis with the street grid and pedestrian walkways provided which tie to sidewalks on adjacent streets. These features enhance the perception that the big box use is fronting on (oriented to, a citizen of) the street (and therefore part of the community). 1 • People know what a big box is (what to expect when they get there) and they do not need to see a big parking lot or big sign to know they are there. Small, pedestrian-scaled signage (of the type often used to designate directions to City Hall, Public Library, Community Center, etc.) could be developed to direct people at street intersections to big box retailers i (recognizing them as the community activity centers they arc). Similarly, gateposts could i . be developed where access drives meet the street. These features would further reinforce the connection between big box and the street (the integrating element of the community). ` t If you do not receive all of the above pages, please contact Operator as shown above. Thank you. # 1 GQ-110 i ' 3 i ' From : ABR Incorporated PHONE No. 50Z 620 12-12 ~iuq. 18 199- 11:26AM PO1 ! ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223.8604 Phono: (503) 620-2477 PnxNoice mail (503) 620-184' j. '1'1.I.I:C.OPITsR TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET i - DA'I M R/1 R/97 TIM T': TO: Lloyd D. Lindley CITY, STATE, COUNTRY: Portland, Oregon U.S.A. TELEPHONE (503 ) 327-5810 PLrASJ: CONFIRM (503) 620-2477 PAGES: -fr 7 (INCLUDING COVER SHEI:'l) SUBJECT: Review of work session summary notes. i j SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: ! _ i From PER Incorporated PHDIE No. 503 620 1842 Aug. 18 1997 11:26AM P02 ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 Fix/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 August 18, 1997 I Lloyd D. Lindley ! P.O. Box 9068 Portland, OR 97207 VIA Fax RE: Review of work session summary notes Dear Lloyd: I ~ - Metro's primary concern for planning vehicular and pedestrian movement is to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage mass transit use by snaking it convenient for pedestrians to walk to transit. The threat of Metro and ODOT invalidating the Triangle Plan if the 660 street and 330 pedestrian grid system is not strictly implemented no longer exists. Metro has recommended definitions to terminology used in the implementation of the Performance Option adopted in the Triangle Design Standards. By Metro's own standards, acceptable pedestrian and vehicular access will be achieved in the Triangle if the Performance Option is implemented using their definition of Point of Local Origin as follows: The "front door' of every building is the. Point of Local Origin for pedestrians and the "public street right-of-way" abutting the property is the Paint of i Local Origin for vehicles. Metro's letters dated June 23, 1997, and July 28, 1997, confirm these definitions. - . J On page 9, "Options to Consider," item 3. "Require all development in the CG zone for floor plates over 11,000 square feet to comply with four of the following seven standards" was never articulated and agreed upon by the study group. Sincerely, j Gordon S. Martin i j Enclosure II • . i .ao +u.~n~w.~ ~v..u nvr vur I ro.iinn u. u.~nu. v,rrr r+r~ . METRO June 23, 1997 Gordon S. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Avenue ! j Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Urban Cruzuth ManagernentTunc£ional Plan Issues, Tigard Triangle Dear Gordon: This lctlci SUnllYlaTl2eS and elaborates on the Metro staff comments made at our meeting I ' of June 2 regarding issues associated with implementation of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGN11-P) in the Tigard Triangle area. L1 file. meeting and in this letter, we are attempting to assist the parties in implementing the UGMFP. Our comments explain our approach to administering the UGMFP provisions. Resolutions of 4 ' any disputes or application of specific provisions must be addressed by MPAC and the f Metro Council. ' General Comments As noted at the meeting, the authority for land use and transportation implementation actions within this area resides with the City of Tigard and with the Oregon Department nt'1'ransportation (OD OT). The City has ultimate land use approve.! authority and i both the City and ODOT have responsibility for the area's street and highway system. We will be contacting them both to update theta on our conclusions and clarifications, identify any additional issues, and determine if additional action is necessary. We also noted at the meeting that the UGMFP was intended as a set of interim measures E to help begin if7ipicmenting tilt: iccgiun 2G-;O Cro;vili Co~~cCpl. The UG' M1TI' implement_ the n gionat adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept by requiring local adoption of specific revisiotti5 to Comprehensive I'lans and zoning aua development codes. Further, local elected. officials, through MPAC, requested that Mciro adept the UGMFP - requiremcnts. To that extent, the UGMFP is not strictly a Metro document. It was developed through cunsuisus of all jurisdictions and the public. The UGMFP represents it set of measures that arc minimum standards. I lowever, Metro staff would generally support instances where local jurisdictions exceed the minimums where a public process has determined it appropriate. I Finally, we also recognize that many of these requirements are new and do not have a history of implementation techniques. We therefore expect a certain amount of j flexibility in meeting the letter of these requirements, while also expecting that the intent 4( U of these requirements will be maintained. - l f I From PER Incorporated PHONE No. 503 520 18.42 Aug. 13 1?97 11:27AM Poo - 1 Gordon ivlartin, )r. june 23, 1997 Page 2 i Specific Continents Following, are our responses to specific comments and questions raised at the meeting. 1. Continent: The group asked for clarification as to llte general intent, purpose, and benefits of the Vesign standards for Street C:onnecttvify ue required in Title 6, Section 3 tf the LIGNIM f Response: The UGMFF notes that the effectiveness of the, regional i transportation system is impacted when local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes- Lmal traffic is then forced onto the regional network. In j addition, the preliminary tesulls of Metro's Sheet Ucsig;n Study (currently underway) show that street connectivity reduces vehicle miles of travel by 9 providing; direct toules to the collector and arterial system; :ctrl that additional 1 connections are conducive to increased use of alternative modes (route direct access to transit, walking; and biking is less circuitotts, etc.). 2. Comment: Public street rights of-way and other developnnent requirements (landscaping, sidewalks) will render the properties in fire area undevelopable. i Response: Metro staff noted at the meeting that we have supported the j concept of "skinny" streets in the past as one way to help maximtzc densities within developments and to avoid overbuilding streets where traditional rights-of- j way seem excessive. For example, the City of Portland allows :ighls-of-way as narrow as 46 feet to some areas. This is significantly less than normal minimum right-of-way requirements of 60 feet for local streets. We would support exploring the option of skinny streets with the City of Tigard for strccts internal to commercial and/or mixed use developments within the Triangle. We also noted that pedestrian connections (primarily sidewalks) are required from streets to building entryways under the Transportation I'lanning Rule. Those connections should already be included in the developable land calcztlations. Similarly, landscape requirements are generally the rule, not the exception within most local codes, and have been for a number of years. Landscape requirements should also already be included in any developable land calculations and should not be a surprise to most developers. 3. Comment: Can "T" intersections lh: inc!udcd as part of the 8 to 20 street connections Per ntile calculation (street connections at intervals no less than even] 660 feet)? i ' Response: We noted that the UGMFP does not specifically address this question. However, our preference is for full intersections in order to maximize traffic operations and safety. We also understand that circumstances may result f i in a few partial connectiots in certain areas. Whetluvr the intersections are lull or partial, we would expoct the 8 to 20 standard to be met on both sides of a street f { where conditions allow. Title 6, Section 3.A.i.h. and Section 3.13. describe the 1 situations where closed street systems may be necessary. These situations may result due to topography, pre-existing; development, barriers such as railroads or 1 freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams or rivers. i t i 1 - Cordon Martin, Jr. June 23, 1997 Page 3 4. Comment: Carr private streets be included as part of the 3 to 20 street co"nertions per mile calculatinu? Respviev: Public strect9 are the preference. However, private sireotc may be allowed but should generally have the appearance of a public eight of way and by adequately constructed tv accuitunodate the si>.e and weight of vehicles common to the street function and underlying zoning. By the term "appearance," the streot should include: curb mid sidewalk, appnupreate lane markings, and should connect with other private yr puhlii. %Lrcct,. To be counied, private taroets most allow free public accefs and circulation. 5• Comment: What runs intertde•d try ilia tern, "local originunder fire herforutanrr. Oplim, nf'Vitlc 6, Scction I.B.2? Response: Asa set of minimum standards, Section 3.B.2 was written for residential areas or mixed use arras that include: re idt,uial. It was emderstood that in those areas, buildings are set either at the streut or at a short, insignificant distance back from the property line consistent with State Transportation Planning Rule requirements: There was no need to differentiate whether local origin was the property line or the front door. Where drafted, this section was not written for large commercial only land uses. As I stated at the meeting, if Meb'o staff were I asked to re-draft the laziguage for large commercial developments, we would likely recommend that the front door be the point of local origin. With the front door being the point of local origin, it would ensure a shortest path for pedcstriatu to a designated collector or arterial street. Any re-draft of the UGMFP would require ~.J MPAC and Metro Council action. I hope this letter helps you and (lie meeting participants better understand our Functional Plan and %N411 help facilitate thc process for development in the Tigard 1 Triangle. As we agreed, I would appreciate you circulating, this letter to the other non- staff meeting; participants. If you have questions or if 1 may be of further help, please call me at 797-1743. Sincerely, Michael I loglund f 't'ransportation Planning Manager cc Tom Kloster Mary Weber Larry Shaw Leo lluff, ODOT Jim I Iendryx, City of Tigard i F I METRO July 28, 1997 Gordon S. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Ti a rd, OR 97223 Subject: Point of Orig4n for Motor Veldch--q J Dear Gordon: As a follow-up to uty June 23 letter regnrdingTigard Triangle Planning issues, this letter I Is Intended to rusyund to an additio:utl question you had regarding Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). As noted in our previous letter, we stated that these letters attempt to assist the parties in implementing the UG1%1FP. Our comments explain our approach to administering the UGMFP provisions. Resolutions of _ 1 any disputes or application of specific provisions must be addressed by MPAC and the Metro Council. We also rioted, and we repeat here, that the authority for land use and transportation implementation actions within this area resides with the City of Tigard and with the f Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The City has ultimate land use approval authority and both the City and ODOT have responsibility for the areas „ street and highway system. Again, we will update them on our following clarification. Finally, we again note that the UGMFP represents a set of measures that are minimum standards. However, Metro staff would generally support instances where local where a public recess has determined it exceed the rrttttt jurisdictions •mumti c P P appropriate. In your most recent request, you ask how the term "local origin," as stated in Title 6, Section 3.B.2. of the UGMFP, applies to a local origin for a vehicle trip. As noted in our j June 23 letter, the torn "local origin" was oriented toward- residential or mixed-use areal .There was no need to differentiate whether lucid origin was the property line or i the front door. As noted earlier, if Metro staff were to re-draft the language, the point of local origin for pedestrians would likely be the front door. 'the objective would be to make the trip as short and convenient as possible for pedestrians. If asked to re-draft the point of origin language for motor vehicles, we likely would begin measuring front the public street right-of-way. This is because the "point of origin" i measure is intended to ensure that public streets provide a direct street route between private properties and collector and arterial streets. Site design tools can better address front door orientation on private property to public streets. The State Transportation ` U Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-045) provides guidance to local jurisdictions regarding o r I 1 i I Gordan Martin, Jr. )uly 28, ]997 Page 2 j site private street- and veliiclo circulation. 'fhc UC:MFP was not intended to augmmt those. requirements. 1 hopo this response addresses your late-st concerns. Sincerely, G Michael Hoglund Transportation Planning Manager ~ . cc Tom Kloster a Mary Weber Larry Shaw Jim Hendrvx, City of TiV, j f j I i I r TV l„t ir.e r-_ Lz:- rn~a .u. _Ub ..__.._v v~ esi~Uroup w land3=a ArOiWMde We Plumo . 0@w*oomerml Plam q . August 18, 1997 Mr. Lloyd Lindley, ASLA Lloyd Lindley ASLA I P.O. Box 9068 Portland. OR 97207 Re: Response to Workshop Eagle Hardware & Garden Tigara Oregon Dear Lloyd, This loiter is a response to the draft report dated August 8, 1997 on the development workshop for the Tigard Triangle, My crimmrnts are specifically related to the portion of the documem starting with Conclusions on page 6. My responses are organized with the same section headings as the docurrent, where appropriate. CONCLUSIONS response): i T disagree with your conclusions and I believe that they inaccurately reflect the response of the group. First of a1L I do not believe that any of the participants felt that certain large scale retail user could locate in the Triangle 1 under the conditions of the street plans and drawing standards as they are now. If they felt that way prior to the workshop, T am sure their perspective changed. OPPORTUNPITES (My response): 1. I do not think it ores accurate that many people felt that the Triangle Standards provided rn opportunity to t create s model for good big box dcvelopmemt Your editorial at the bottom of each topic does not accurately ^ ' characterize the responses. 1 ' 2. Your description of the adjustment process ignores our discussion about flexibility, based upon the building WM in this case, large scale retail development 7. 1 don't recall anyone discussing Tigard's choice to exclude big box users from the Tigard triangle I would appreciate seeing the actual handwritten summaries from the meeting to compare those to your summary. l CONSTRAINTS (Alv response): Your editorials below the items are inconsistent with the items themselves. For example, you noted under the 5th constraint item that most felt this to be true, yet you have indicated only one respondent who voted this way. I think there are a number of locations where your editorial is inconsistent with the actual stated feedback of the group. OPTIONS TO CONSIDER (,ify response): 3 _ The a options that you cited do not describe the range of options considered by the group. For example, the options cmnsiderrd do not provide flexibility just for the items a large retail user needs. They arc essentially: '7 sale la911nj:_n>?t:'. { Mr. Lloyd Lindley WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC., P.S. Lloyd Lindley. ASLA Auy st 18. 1997 Eagle Hardware, Tigard, Oregon Page 2 1 retain as written, exclude commercial, comply with 4 of 7 arbitrary st-,min is, or exempt the 7 standards. What happened to the options which we discussed which would build flexibility in where needed. I think one additional option would be to build the flexibility in which we discussed. which will give the large retail t=r Oic flexibility to implement their program. At the workshop, people's thoughts were organized an some large scale boards. I would appreciate it if you could reduce and incorporate these into the final packet so that we can more accnratcly re:vimy your conclusions is relation to our comments. Thanks for the opportunity to review your summary. Please feel free to call me to discuss them further. - ~a rc1Y, cam/ I N. W . an, AS f _ WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC., P.S. MR/fjma y i cc: Mr. Pete; Galling. Eagle Hardware - " Ivlr. Tom Scnnzo, Sconzo Hallstrom Mr. Mike Robinson, Stod Rives J Ms. Nadine Smith City of Tigard i i _ .l 17 A u9-19-97 11:58A E.D. Hovaa 3 ComPany 360-696-8453 - P.01 E. D. Hovee Company Economic and Development Services FAX MEMO To: Lloyd Lindley Fax 503-227-5810 From: Eric Hovee Subject: Comments for Final Report - F Date: August 19, 1997 # of pages: 1 Tigard Triangle Developers Workshop Thank you for inviting me to participate in the Workshop. I thought it was an excellent opportunity to discuss this topic which is being debated nationwide. I have two suggestions to - - consider: - • Item 3 under "Options to Consider' might add Requirement for Pedestrian Access at either 330 feet or 660 feet. • Further, we might reduce the ground floor window requirement. However, I would hate to give up on it totally. 1 ! E"JM enclosure j 951 Officers Ro%v • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, RYA 98666 '3r0, 696.9870 . 1503, _°0_1-E4 • Pax. 13501 "p_ 453 _ r. - - From: Warren Tyler Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 1997 9:00 AIA To: Lloyd Lindley Subject: Tigard Triangle I Lloyd: ' I apologize that I wzs unable to review the draft discussion paper in a more timely manner. In my reading this morning however, I find it to be well done. Good work! i Probably the only comment I would have relates to page nine. You state that the results of the workshop offer clear choices for the City Council... and then you outline four options. Unless I just I missed them, I do not recall discussing these options at the workshop. A discussion of these different options would have been r• . interesting. I believe most developers and big-box users would , prefer either option two or four. Some combination of the items in number three would be helpful for the entire area and might make the standards more palatable. i I believe that if the Council selects option four, they will be quite suspect as being too accomodating to big-boxes. However, big-boxes are a reality in this area and the piecemeal development that may result by really excluding them may not be what the Council desires either. { Are you going to make a recommendation for the Council to choose a particular option? Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the workshop. I found it to be informative and interesting, Warren Tyler S f , r 1. l - r t_ , AGENDA ITEM # lJ 7 FOR AGENDA OF _8/26/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE ZOA 97-0003 (Street Standards Adjustment in the CG Zone of th Tigard Triangles PREPARED BY:-Nadine Smith DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve an amendment to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards to include an option to allow "skinny streets" that are privately owned and to amend the standards to clarify that freeway signing is allowed within the Tigard Triangle. STAFF RF OMM .NDATION Staff recommends that the amendments be adopted. INFORMATION SUMMARY 3n March 11, 1997, City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle that incorporate specific requirements for street connectivity. To add flexibility to the standards, staff was directed by City Council to j provide an option through an adjustment process to meet the street connectivity standards through the provision of a private street with a narrower right of way width in the CG zone. Additionally, City Council requested that staff clarify in the standards that freeway signing as currently allowed by the development code, continues to apply to the Triangle. This issue was brought before the Planning Commission on August 4, 1997. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the street standard adjustment process by denied by Council and that the provision to clarify the allowance of freeway signs be approved (see attached minutes). OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 71 none FISCAL NOTES none i j it 4. I Agenda Item: ~I Hearing Date:August 26, 1997 Time: 7:30 PM i STAFF REPORT CITY OF TIGARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY 1 i CASE: FILE NAME: Street Standard Adjustment in the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 97-0003 PROPOSAL: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned, "skinny" street to meet the connectivity standards in the Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8(f). Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. I~ II STAFF RECOMMENDATION f r i Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments according to the findings found in Section III of this report. I Staff Report City of Tigard20A 97-0003 Page 1 _ j i ' a III BACKGROUND INFORMATION On March 11, 1997, City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle that incorporate specific requirements for street connectivity. To add flexibility to the standards, staff was directed by City Council to provide an option through an adjustment process to meet the street connectivity standards through the provision of a private street with a narrower right of way width in the CG zone. Additionally, City Council requested that staff clarify in the standards that freeway signing j as currently allowed by the development code, continues to apply to the Triangle. ` It should be noted that City Council's direction was to consider only these two issues and not to reconsider any other Triangle design standard at this time. On August 4, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendments and recommended that the City Council deny the street standard adjustment provision and approve the sign freeway sign provisions (see attached minutes). i IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS LCDC Goals: _ Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was j advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, J and all other impacted agencies. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing f ' t adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. Goal 12 - Transportation. Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic 3 transportation system. The proposed amendment to allow private streets at a lesser right of way width will continue to meet Goal 12 requirements for safe, convenient streets and will allow this to be accomplished in a more economic way in that less area of a lot will be {i devoted to pavement and that area may remain in private ownership. This will relieve the City of maintenance responsibility and will allow a developer to devote less area to meet ? connectivity requirements. I 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 statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for comments and had earlier commented in a letter (attached) that they recommended the use of skinny streets to meet connectivity standards and could accept the use of private streets to meet those standards under certain circumstances. Staff Report City of Tigard20A 97-0003 Page 2 t i -1 2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for comments was sent to the East Citizen Involvement Team and was legally advertised. 2.1.2 - This policy requires the opportunity for citizen involvement on planning efforts through the CIT process. The CIT notification process has been followed for this zoning ordinance amendment request. 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 July 11, 1997. 8.1.1 - This policy requires that the city plan for a safe and efficient street system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The ability to meet ` adjustment criteria to provide a private, skinny street will allow a safe, efficient transportation system and accommodate future growth. i j 8.1.2 - This policy requires that the City coordinate with other local, state and federal ° f jurisdictions. The City has requested comments from all appropriate agencies. None j have commented in writing on the specific proposals as of this writing. S 8.1.3(a) - This policy requires that development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by the appropriate authority. The proposed development ! code amendment sets out a method for an alternative provision of transportation facilities ! be approved by the appropriate authority. 8.1.8(f) - This policy defines the requirements within the Tigard Triangle for street spacing. Since the proposed amendments allow this policy to be met through an alternative provision, this policy is met. Community Development Code: Chapter 18.30 - This code section establishes the procedures for legislative amendments to the Community Development Code. Tigard Triangle Design Standards The provisions of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards have not yet been codified into the Development Code. The first two paragraphs of the introductory comments to the provisions express the intent of the design standards. They are as follows: ! 1 "Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and 1 renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design i standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard j Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a 1 convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing ! streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other Staff Report City of Tigard20A 97-0003 Page 3 i 9 .22 i i - i development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvements projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle." i The proposal to modify the standards to allow flexibility in one aspect of provision of connectivity under specific circumstances will continue to meet the goals and intent for the development of the Triangle, in that it provides flexibility while still requiring connections within the Triangle. The proposal to modify the signing standards to allow the continued use of freeway I oriented signs reflects the past commitment of the City in considering where such signing 4 is appropriate. The specific changes to the Design Standards are indicated in attached Exhibit A. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering, Planning, and Public Works have reviewed this proposal and offer no comments specific to the proposal. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS As of the writing of this report, no agency comments have been received. 7/9/97 PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith DATE Planning Supervisor Staff Report City of Tigard20A 97.0003 Page 4 t t a ^ Exhibit A / New language is indicated by bolding. Existing Lanauaae: A. Street Connectivity. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. 1. Design Option i a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 E feet. f e b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. 2. Performance Option a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. } 't b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is _ no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. Additional Language: 3. Special Adjustment for CG Zone within the Tigard Triangle The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility in meeting the need for vehicular i connectivity on sites in the Tigard Triangle that are zoned Commercial General. This provision Is not intended to eliminate the need for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, but to allow flexibility in location and design. This will allow the provision of a privata street with reduced right of way widths from that of a local street under certain circumstances as defined below. The Planning Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application to provide a private street to meet the requirements found in Section of the Design Standards for the Tigard Triangle. The requirement for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity may be met in the following way: a. A private street may be built to public structural standards at a minimum width of 48 feet of right of way with 24' of improvement, curb to curb, and six foot sidewalks separated by six feet of landscaping. b. The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate on site parking exists to allow the elimination of on street parking on the proposed street and to allow the reduced right of way width. c. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed private street provides vehicular circulation through the site and opportunities for connectivity to surrounding areas. l . E ~ d. Private streets shall be allowed by the creation of an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that the City may take jurisdiction of the street if required in the determination of the City Engineer to meet area circulation needs. To clarify signing standards: New language indicated by bolding D. Signs. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.114 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the CG and MUE zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R-25 zone (18.114.1306); non-residential developments with the C-G zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones (18.114.130C), including the allowance for freeway oriented sign(s), and non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone (18.114.130D). i /may I. LLRPLNWADINMTRI/WGMADJ.DOC F L ' i 1 i M ETR O June 23, 1997 Gordon S. NW-dm Jr. 12263 SW Tnd Avenue Tigard. OR 97=3 ~ Subject: Urban Growth Manaaenent Functional Plan ls=cs; Ti and TrionSk f S Dear Gordon { This letter summarizes and elaborates on tine Metro staff comments made at our meeting of June 2 regarding issues associated with implementation of the Urban Growth Managetnent F,mcdonal Plan (U(24M in the Tigard Triangle area. In the meeting and in this letter, we are attempting to assist the parties in implementing the UGMFP. Our eontatents -'-tin our approach to administering the UGMFP provisions. Resolutions of any disputes or application of specific provisions must be addressed by VPAC and the Metro Council General Corranaris f ;'_~s noted at the meeting, the authority for land use and tansportadon implementation f { ons within this anew resides with the City of Tigard and with the Oregon Department of Transoortadon (ODOT). The City has ultimate land use approval authority and both tie City and ODOT have responsibility for the area's street and highway system. We will be contacting them boot to update them on our conclusions and clarifications, identify any additional issues, and detesmute if additional action is necessary. We also noted at the meeting that the UGff-P-vas intended as a set of interim measures to hcip beget implementing the Region 2040 Growth Concept The UGMFP imolements the regional adopton of the 2040 Growth Concept by requiring: local adoption of v specific revisions to Comorelu= ere Plans and zoning and development codes. Further, loco elected officials, through MPAC, requested that Metro adoot the UGti1F? requiremeats. To that extent, the UGtiiFP is not st:iriv a Metro doc=tent. It was develooed through consctstts of all jurisdictions and die pubtic- The L:GMF? represents a set of measures that are minimum standards. However, -Me--o staff would grenerally support instants where local jurisdictions c _ the minimums where a public process nas deter-tined it appropriate. Fatally, we also r ecogtize that many of these requirements are new and do not have a :tistorr of imDlementadon tee=tniques. We thererore expo a certain amount of 3e:&iIity In Meeting the letter of these requiremtcus, while also expec?_ng that the intent of these reauizerne us will be maintained. j U g _-tea 1 Paye Specific Comment; f FoQowing are our responses to specific comments and questions raised at the meeting. ~-y Camme t: The group asked for d~cuiaet an to the generd intent. purpose, and ) 5enej:ts of the Cesigs Standards for Street Corurecrivity as required in Title 6, Section 3 of the LICUFP. Response The UGNIFP notes that the effectiveness of the regional transportation system is impacted when loaf travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes. Loeul tszifie is then forced onto the regional network. In addition, the preliminary results of Metro's Street Design Study (currently underway) show that street connectivity reduces vehicle miles of travel by f providing direct routes to the collector and arterial system: and that additional connections are conducive to increased use of alternative anodes (more direct access to transit, walking and biking is less circuitous. ebC). 2. Comment: PuMie street rights-qf-=y and other deadopment rrquar=nts (TandswM3• suleaxtffa) mr71 reader the properties at Ac area undecekpabfe. j Response Metro, staff noted at the meeting that we have supported the concept of 'skinny' steels in the pastas one way to help maximize densities y within developments and to avoid over-Melding streets where traditional rights-of- j way seem excessive- For example, the City of Portland allows rights-ofway as narrow as 46 feet in some areas. This is significantly Ims than normal minimurn right-o&way requircanents of 60 feet for local streets. We would support exploring the option of skinny stints with the City of Tigard for stn-ets internal to commercial and/or mixed use devr1optamts within the Triangle. We also noted that pedestrian connections (primarily sidewalks) are required from streets to building mtryways under the Transportation Planning Rule: Those connections should already be included in the developable land calculations. Suxu Lady, landscape tequ iremerus are gesaerally the rile, not the exception within most local codes. and have been for a number of years. Landsmpe requirements should also already be included in any developable land calculations and should not be a surprise to most developers. 3. Coma t: Cat T uttersect-ons be &duded as r ¢rt of the s to 20 scree. corine -arcs per =rile rslctlatum (street cannettimrs at atter'-als no less than every 660 fret)? Response: We :noted that the UGN(FP does not spedHcally address this question. F•Iowever, our prefereue is for 64 intersec--ons bra orx:e: to maximize Malec operations and safety. We also understand that circumstances may result in a few vartial connections in chin areas. Whether the into secdons are full or f bas-.:al, we would ex=ec: the 3 to 20 standard to be =net on boat sides of a street ;vine--e conditions allow. Title 6, Sec`on 3-Al-h. and Section 33. describe the situations where dosed street systems may be necessary. These situations may j resuit due to topography, pre-e;dsting development barriers such as railroads or roeways, or environmental constraints such as major s: •eams or rive_^s_ l f ':!5t: .3 Comirumt: C1n private st, ccts be induded cs part of :he 3 to 20 street wnncctians per mile mlcllation £ Respons= Public streets are the preference. However. private streets may be 11 ( allowed but should generally have the appearance of a public right of way and be adequately constructed to accommodate the size and weight of vehicles common to the street function and underlying zoning. By the tercet -appearance.' the street should include curb and sidewalk, appropriate lane markings, and should connect with other private or public streets. To be counted. private streets must allow free public access and circulation. 5. Comunen : What was intended by the term 'local origin' under the Performance Option of Title 6. Section 3.8.2? j Response: As a set of minimum standards. Section 3.82 was written for residential areas or mixed use areas that include residential. It was understood that in those areas, buRdings are set either at the street or at a short, insignificant disc nce back frogs the property line consistent with State Transportation Planning k Rule requirements. There was no need to differentiate whether local origin was the - propaty line or the front door. When drafted. this section was not written for large commercial only land uses. As 1 stated at the meeting, if Metro staff were asked to redraft the language for large comtmr rcal developutentx, we would likely recommend that the front door be the point of local origin. With the front door being the point of local origin, it would ensure a shortest path for pedestrians to a designated collector or arterial street Any re-draft of the UGM•P would require MPAC and Metro Council action I hope this letter helps you and the meeting participants better understand our runcdonal Plan and will help facilitate the process for development in the Tigard '"Triangle. As we agreed. I would appreciate you circulating this letter to the onus nom- '--taff meeting participants. If you have questions or if I may be of further help, please call me at 797-1743. I Sincerely, W=Nael Hoglund - Transpormtion Planning Manager cc Tom' -Coster ~,la.-v Were: • j Lary Shaw Leo Huff, ODOT T.:; HEM&:1x, Cty of Tigard I ti F7. j. r i CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 4, 1997 i 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Griffith, I Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar j Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Collson and DeFrang i - Staff Present: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Commission was advised that the next meeting would be August 25, 1997. i 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0003 STREET STANDARDS j ADJUSTMENT IN THE CG ZONE OF THE TIGARD TRIANGLE REQUEST: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. ' Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the r 1Y Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1-5, and I north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8 (f). Community Development Code Chapters 18.30, Triangle Design Standards. ZONE: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE). STAFF REPORT Planning Supervisor Nadine Smith presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She reported that Council had requested this specific standard be brought back for consideration, as well as to clarify freeway signing. She referred to Exhibit A in the staff report for the new language. She said this would add another option for I street connectivity in the Tigard Triangle. She said Council felt this particular language was appropriate enough to be separate from any other considerations to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page s i 1 'r changes in the design standards and wanted it to go through the process prior to any other changes. Smith said this language would allow for the standards to be met through a private I street rather than a public street. She said the existing language provides a design option which requires a public street every 660 feet, or a performance option which requires local street spacing of approximately 8 street intersections per mile. Smith advised that the additional language provides for private streets that could be met at a skinnier standard and the street could also count for landscaping requirements. She said this provides for connectivity, allows it to remain in private ownership, allows the City not to have maintenance responsibilities for all the streets, and allows a developer to incorporate a normal driveway with pedestrian and landscaping enhancements to meet the standard that would normally require a public street. j { 1 Commissioner Holland asked if a developer could control who uses the private street. Smith answered no, that the street would have to remain open to the ` public. She said there is some concern that by allowing private streets, they may not be maintained properly. She noted a provision in the language that, if necessary, allows the City Engineer to require the street to become public. President Wilson asked about the right-of-way in terms of private development. Smith answered that the right-of-way would be privately owned, but there is a standard width the developer has to meet for pavement, as well as sidewalk and i landscaping. ql~ Smith said Council has also asked for clarification that freeway signs will still be allowed in the Triangle. Commissioner Neff asked about the wording "take jurisdiction" in #3d. Smith answered that it means to take over the jurisdiction, but does not mean to condemn. She said the intent was to allow for the City to take over if the private right-of-way became unusable. She reported that Council had concerns about more private streets, but with this language we would have the ability to have properly maintained private streets. It also allows more flexibility for people trying to develop in the Triangle. Smith said that where there is large lot development, this would give the developer another option to meet the access requirement, basically by providing a commercial driveway with some landscaping and sidewalks. j i 3J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 2 F. 3 3 i t - j 'i t 3 i Commissioner Padgett remarked that he does not like the terminology "take jurisdiction". He asked how the City addresses poorly maintained streets now, I outside the Triangle. Smith answered that we do not take jurisdiction of them. Padgett then asked if there would be a separate standard for the Triangle. Smith answered that this has been requested by City Council and that it may be the start of something citywide. Padgett asked, because of the narrowness of a private street with no onstreet parking, if this could diminish parking. Smith noted that normally retail developers on large lots provide much more parking than is necessary. She said that even under the 2040 plan, which has maximum parking, the 2040 standards are not that t different from ours. f PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR No one signed up to speak in favor of this proposal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Mike Robinson, 900 SW Fifth, Suite 2300, Portland, OR 97204, testified that his law firm represents the Act III Theaters and Eagle Hardware. He referred to copies of letters that he sent to the Commission (Exhibits A and B). He said his clients reluctantly do not support amendments to allow narrow streets, however j _ this position might change. { Robinson listed 3 reasons for not supporting the change. First, his clients do not ' believe it makes it easier to develop large CG parcels in the Triangle. He noted that the streets would still have to be 48'. Also, the streets would not necessarily be designed to serve users on the site, but instead would distribute local traffic in the area. His clients don't feel they should be required to assist the city in moving traffic to other areas unless the impacts of their development require it. Second, Robinson referred to criterion #3d. He said the phrase "take jurisdiction" means take over. He said if the point of the language is make sure the road is ' t maintained, there are better ways to do it. He noted that the language says "...determination of the City Engineer to meet area circulation needs." He said this does not sound like a concern of whether the road is being maintained. He suggested the possibility of requiring a maintenance agreement with the property owner, then the City has the right to do repairs and bill the property owner. He also brought up the scenario of tenants who have a long term lease. In that case, the tenant may not have permission to give away their landlord's land. Third, Robinson said the adjustment process is difficult to use. He said the Metro Functional Plan, Title Two, requires all cities to eventually establish a cap on parking. He noted that too much available parking would persuade people to use a car rather than walking or using mass transit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 3 f i I 1 i i Robinson recommended deferring action until Council takes a broader look at the design guidelines. Commissioner Padgett observed that adoption of the new language might not make it easier to develop property, but it does not make it harder. He noted that having another option does not make it mandatory. Robinson questioned whether there is a need for connectivity standards in the Triangle. He referred to the Metro letter which states the connectivity standards section was not written for large commercial only land uses. i t Robinson stated that this language does not take into account whether a site requires connectivity or whether there's anything to connect to. { Commissioner Griffith asked why City Council wanted to break this specific item out of the package. Nadine Smith answered that Council heard from various sources that there are problems for developers of large retail users and that Council requested staff to come back with suggestions for more flexibility in the standards. She said Council found this language to be more flexible and appropriate. i Smith reported on a workshop that was held to discuss retail development and the _ design standards. She said a report would be sent back to the Council which should give them the information they need to decide what works and what doesn't i work. She said Council wanted to move this particular piece forward. Darlene Wozniak, 14200 SW Fern, Tigard, OR 97223, stated she had been on the task force. She acknowledged that she had missed several meetings, but did not believe that the standards were finished correctly. She feels that the standards need "tweaking" and does not believe the problems can be fixed piecemeal. She E urged taking time to work on the standards as a package. Tim Roth, 13779 SW Charleston, Tigard, OR 97224, stated that he also was on I the task force. He said the 660/330 design option from the Metro Function Plan is intended for residential and mixed use. He said the task force was guided into - accepting the language from the Metro Functional Plan because they were led to believe it was a requirement that the City adopt the Metro plan. He said the adopted language was applied across the whole plat, the CG zone as well as the mixed use zoning. Roth said the original Transportation Plan was discussed and the consensus from task force members was that they did not want to see a grid system. He said they felt there was enough existing dedicated right-of-ways to service internal transportation - it was not necessary for the City to require more right-of-ways. He is in opposition to the addition of this dedication language. He believes a study ~ i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 4 f l d__ should be taken of the existing dedicated right-of-ways to determine if they are needed to complete the transportation plan of the Triangle. Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, agreed with Mr. Roth. He said it is necessary to interpret the tern "local origin". He said Metro gives a recommended definition to the term as being at the street for vehicles and at the front door for pedestrians. He said he supports Metro's definition. Martin said he is only concerned about main portals to get in and out of the Triangle, not the interior circulation. He believes that existing dedicated right-of- ? ways will take care of themselves. i - Martin pointed out that the City would take jurisdiction of the private streets for circulation purposes, not to meet maintenance needs. He said he would not oppose having maintenance agreements. He noted that retailers need control over their parking lots. They want the lots for their customers, not used as a park and ride for people to park and take the bus. j In closing, Martin reiterated the need to address the terminology for local origin. He said the performance option is relevant to the design standards. He noted that the Metro plan is designed to limit vehicle miles traveled and having dedicated j streets inside of a development is not going to limit miles traveled. I j PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 1 Commissioner Padgett advised that he had been on the task force. He said that originally the task force had looked at the entire Triangle as being the MUE zoning. i Then late in the process, it was split so that part of it was CG and part was MUE, i < with 72nd Ave. being the dividing line. He did not believe it was the intent of the task force to apply the strict Metro grid standards to the CG parcels. He said it doesn't necessarily improve connectivity because they don't connect to anything ! within the parcel. i Padgett said he thinks City Council might be adding this option to the design standards to placate people who object to a grid system inside the CG zone. He j . thinks the City should address the need for streets, both public and private, inside CG parcels. Padgett said he can't agree with the language in #3c or #3d. He thinks better language can be adopted, specifically looking at the maintenance issue of a private street as opposed to the circulation issues. He suggested looking at maintenance agreements, i Padgett said he did not believe the majority of the task force meant for the connectivity language to apply to the large CG parcels. He believes the language i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 5 i f i f I ~ l~ i should be even more relaxed for large CG parcels - it needs more flexibility. He said a CG parcel is different from MUE, both in size and intent. He noted that most of the CG zone backs up to the freeway and has nowhere to go. There is a need for connectivity from arterials to their development, but not within the parcels themselves. He stated a need for a third option, one that is site specific - looking at what makes sense for a particular site. Padgett did support the language for freeway signs. Commissioner Anderson said she did not like the language in #3d. She noted a lack of criteria for enforcement and the statement was too general. She thought it might cause a lot of problems trying to enforce. ( Commissioner Holland said he saw this as being a special adjustment for the CG i zone, but in practicality, developers would provide for the connectivity they need anyway. He said he also was bothered by the language in #3c and #3d. I Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend denial of ZOA 97-0003 to City Council, based on testimony heard. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Padgett moved to recommend approval of the part of ZOA 97-0003 that addressed freeway signing. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. I 5. OTHER BUSINESS None . 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary i ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 6 j i - oo 1. 7- STOEL RIVES LLir ~9~ r~~Ct ~"~~~r-,•r A t 10 R N 1? T 5 - I!-~ r' I X12 y 1 T"Q'=>1'i (t.~ j f~ t~ ~ SIA\DARD I.N-URANCI C1 NKR ' 'xNl S{Y III rII \\I. UE 'WTI tp0 . - - roI<rL,\`D.uRreu~l,_oi.rew _ 1'l1,03)?24-33SR 1.,x1>113122024S11 ` August 25, 1997 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson©stoel.com \ VIA MESSENGER Ms. Cathy Wheatley City Recorder City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard File No. ZOA 97-0003 (Street Standards Adjustment in the CG Zone of the Tigard Triangle) Dear Ms. Wheatley: Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Staff Report to the City Council concerning this matter. I am writing for two reasons. First, the letter that I submitted to the Planning Commission at the August 4, 1997 hearing is not included in the City Council packet received by the City Council. I have attached the letter and ask that you provide this information to the City Council prior to the beginning of Tuesday night's formal meeting. The second matter concerns the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Page 4 of the Meeting Minutes state: "Robinson questioned whether there is a need for connectivity standards in the Triangle. t. In fact, I said that my clients support connectivity when there is something to connect to. Moreover, I noted that the Metro Functional Plan does not require that connectivity j standards be adopted for Tigard's General Commercial zoning district. At no time did I state that my clients do not support connectivity standards when the connectivity standards make sense. I AUG2G101 1 PDXIA-90975.1 26.109-0001 u. i r Ynifll I'.Nfl \\Ir 13l.iti". \.\Il 1". C- l\', \t:it.\. 1) C, STOEL RIVES LLP f Ms. Catherine Wheatley f August 25, 1997 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson V MCR:mlb Enclosure cc(w/encl.): Mr. Tim Reed (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Pete Gallina (via facsimile) ti r O~ G r. - PDXIA-90976.1 26409-0001 } ' STOEL RIVES CLP A T 1' O R S 1. 1' .S P t STANDARD INSCRASCI CC\71'.R 1 41k1 S1\' Fl ff l I AVE N U I-till fl: YO I'0R f1 A\fl ORI CON1)7204 1_nN PIerrrr l.5lUl_'_243310 !,-_,0b22024SI1 - TDD(503) L'1.1Wi August 4, 1997 f 181 MICHAEL C. RoBINSON 4 VYf7 i' Direct Dinl - (503) 294-9194 4 email merobinson®stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Nadine Smith Planning Supervisor City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: ZOA 97-0003 Dear Ms. Smith: This law firm represents Eagle Hardware and Garden, Inc. My client and I have had an opportunity to review the staff report on this proposed amendment. As you know, Eagle is working with the City and its consultant to review possible changes to the Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines ("Guidelines") that will allow it to develop an attractive store in the most efficient way possible on the Phil Lewis Elementary School site. This letter contains Eagle's comments about the proposed amendment. This proposed amendment is intended to establish an adjustment process whereby private streets can be substituted for public streets in the General Commercial ("GC") zoning district in the Tigard j , Triangle. In summary, Eagle believes that the amendment should not be adopted at this time for the following reasons: { { • While the proposed amendment reduces the right-of-way width for a private street, the private street must still be constructed to public street i. standards and the City Engineer can require dedication of the right-of- way to the public at any time. • Despite the fact that the street will not be initially dedicated to the J public, it will function as a public street which will cause more traffic ~ I PDXIA-88388.1 210974006 j., _ ' , - SI'nl t'Ir I'\rhll.:\..\Ir %FR. WA 11"",' ti.\tT 1-10.1 4\'.......t:t(r,\', d STOEL RIVES LLP Ms. Nadine Smith August 4, 1997 Page 2 1 to pass through parking lots at higher speeds and will cause interference with pedestrians moving parking spaces and buildings. r _ • Criterion 3(b) will be difficult to meet in the future since the Metro Functional Plan will require the City to place a cap on the amount of off-street parking. i • Criterion 3(d) allows the City to take private property without meeting the requirement of Dolan v. City of Tigard to show that there is rough proportionality between the impact of land development and a condition necessary to mitigate that impact. • The requirement that the City be allowed to take the right-of-way is not necessary to ensure adequate maintenance of a private street (the City can enforce a requirement that the private street be maintained) and, should the City take the private street right-of-way, the use may become a nonconforming use because of a reduction in lot area or - landscaping and building setbacks. The comments in this letter are limited because of the City Council's direction to staff to consider only the two issues involved in the proposed amendment. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission can easily recognize that this amendment does not solve the problems that developing property zoned General Commercial in the Tigard Triangle while this requirement, even if amended, remains in place. Eagle requests that the Planning Commission defer action on this amendment until the City Council decides whether to issue a more comprehensive review of the Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines. Le Very truly yours, ' n. jl r,•: h.. II ~~DUG~4aj j. Michael . Robinson MCR:Ixh cc: Mr. Pete Gallina (via facsimile) Mr. Tom Sconzo (via facsimile) Mr. John Hallstrom (via facsimile) Mr. Mark Weisman (via facsimile) i PDX I A-SN3 NR.1 21(97107(6 M I LL~La u~a 1 `m 11 ~L Its ITAS ~1-~i Miller, Nash, Wiener, ILYY Hager&Carlsen LLa - uuFa wsN. vrervra, w.craa rinrsn~ua •Trosaers AT Lew 3500 U.S. Bancorp Tower i ^ V-~& 111 S.W. Fifin R Avenue 11q7 Patlantl. OR 91204-3699 Steven F. Hill (503) 224-5858 ' Admitted in Oregon and Washington (503) 224-01 55 i- - hills@millnash.com , ~ (503) 205-2456 direct line August 26, 1997 a ' PJ '31 la, . The Honorable James Nicoli HAND DELIVERED Mayor, City of Tigard 9025 S.W. Center [ n Tigard, Oregon 97223 Members of the City Council City of Tigard i; 9025 S.W. Center Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Tigard Triangle Design Standards Dear Mayor Nicoli and Council Members: I We represent Waremart, Inc., which owns and operates all Waremart and CUB Foods Stores, including the CUB Foods store located on Dartmouth Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. On behalf of Waremart, we would like to express our concerns regarding the existing design standards for commercial development in the Tigard Triangle and the proposed options for modifying the existing standards to respond to concerns regarding large- scale retail development. On behalf of Waremart, I attended the Tigard Triangle Development workshop held on July 22, 1997. While the owners and operators of the existing retail developments in f S' the Triangle were no invited to participate in the workshop, Waremart believed that it was important enough to authorize me to attend to get a sense of the issues and problems that the newly adopted design standards create for large-scale retail development in the Triangle. Waremart, however, is most concerned that the new design and street standards make the CUB Foods building a nonconforming structure under Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.132. This is a major concern for Waremart and the other retailers in the Triangle, who have made significant investments in your community and who now face an uncertain future because of the fundamental change in the development standards that apply in the Triangle. While Waremart and the other retailers understand your interest in upgrading the Triangle by combining mixed-use employment areas with general commercial areas, - f . MILLEn R•sRwiERCn . ~II ~ , M GCR 6 CI.RLSEn LLD ..I P A I The Honorable James Nicoli Members of the City Council -2- August 26, 1997 I • I Waremart does not believe that the existing or potential future development of large-scale retail centers is incompatible with the City's plans for the Triangle. In fact, having designated retail centers in the Triangle will enhance the development of the mixed-use areas. It is important to note, however, that these retail centers serve the entire region, and therefore, efficient transportation links (roadways and bus lines) and the ability to effectively i accommodate all customers are essential. - Waremart has the following comments regarding the July 22nd workshop and 4 the necessity of having strict design and street spacing standards for the commercially zoned areas of the Triangle: 1 1. During the workshop, it was clear that a great majority of the participants believed that Tigard's current design and street spacing standards were too strict and rigid for the commercially zoned areas of the Triangle west of 72nd Avenue. The majority of participants felt that many of the design standards were unworkable given the constraints inherent in the Triangle (such as topography, site dimensions, and current street spacing). 2. There was general agreement that the street and sidewalk spacing standards (660 feet and 330 feet, respectively), were not appropriate for the general commercial areas within the Triangle. This is consistent with our understanding that these standards had been borrowed from the portion of i Metro's functional plan, which applies only to residential and mixed-use development. Imposing such standards in the portion of the Triangle specifically planned for large-scale commercial development does not make sense. It is inconsistent to reserve an area for a future large-scale retail development and then establish street and design standards that discourage such development. 3. There was also general recognition that the building orientation and parking lot locational standards adopted by the City were impossible to meet where the sloping topography of the Triangle (generally from 72nd to the west) precluded moving the buildings to the street front without requiring an unreasonable and uneconomic amount of grading and filling to occur. It is apparent that these f standards are intended to create a better pedestrian environment in the Triangle. Unfortunately, current market realities do not justify making such a drastic change in large-scale retail development plans. As an alternative, however, Waremart believes that retail developers are capable of creating quality pedestrian environments which attract pedestrian customers without 1 ; i , 't. F 3 MILLER. R>SR. WIENER. RRGER 6 CARLSER LLP 1•~ I ..r. - t F The Honorable James Nicoli i 1 Members of the City Council -3- requiring August 26, 1997 all buildings to be located on the street frontage. The City's current design standards, however, do not allow retail developers to propose other options (g g,_ pedestrian plazas) to meet the City's goals without driving business away. ! 4. Waremart believes that the options proposed in the August 19, 1997, report do I not accurately reflect the predominant theme of the July 22nd workshop. a. The report inexplicably limits many of these options to developments of 110,000 square feet or larger. Large-scale retail development does not necessarily require buildings in excess of 110,000 square feet. For example, the CUB Foods store in the Triangle is approximately 80,000 square feet yet still qualifies as large-scale retail development. b. Option 3 includes seven standards that are not necessarily independent of each other. Therefore, if the City adopts this option, developers would be, in fact, limited in how they might comply with the four- out-of-seven approach. For example, standards 4, 5, and 6 under Option 3 are not mutually exclusive standards and therefore would necessarily have to be grouped in any proposal. C. The seven standards identified under Option 3 are vague and undefined. For example, does the building entrance standard apply on all II sides of the building? Do the setback standards apply to all property lines or only those facing the major thoroughfares like 72nd Avenue? f 5. Given the inflexibility of the current standards, Waremart believes that the only option that avoids significant problems for retail development is Option 2. Waremart, however, could support Option 4 if the square footage limitation were reduced from 110,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. There is I precedent for reducing the square footage limitation to 60,000 feet in that the City exempted the west side of 72nd from mixed-use employment zoning partially based on the decision that buildings of 60,000 square feet or greater must be located in the area zoned general commercial to the west of 72nd avenue. Buildings of this size do constitute large-scale retail development and should not be subjected to the very strict standards adopted by the City. If the City chooses to either retain the existing standards or limit the modifications to structures of greater than 110,000 square feet, Waremart requests that the 1,: 'U "~f7 MILLER, "ASH, WiEREfl. NAGCR 6 CARLSE" LLP { IN I I. The Honorable James Nicoli Members of the City Council -4- August 26, 1997 City consider adopting special rules for nonconforming structures, which are substantially ! destroyed by casualty. Developments in the Triangle, such as CUB Foods, should be d allowed to redevelop, utilizing the same site plan (regarding building footprint and profile) . that was used at the time of the initial development. Subjecting existing development in the Triangle to radically new standards without the protection of such special rules would be j unfair. There is precedent in the metro area for this proposal. The city of Portland in its nonconforming situations section of its Code (Chapter 33.285) adopted the following 1 r language: E. Loss of Nonconforming Development Status. "2. Destruction. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is removed or intentionally destroyed, replacement structures and other nonconforming development must comply with the development ° standards of the base zone. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is partially or totally damaged by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner the structure may be rebuilt using the same ! stricture footprint. An adjustment is required to allowed the replacement structure to be more out of compliance with the development standards than the previous structure." t Adoption of a similar standard in Tigard's municipal code is justified. Waremart participated in the original task force to consider development standards for the Tigard Triangle. The standards as adopted by the City Council, however, did not accurately reflect some of the concerns the development community raised regarding specific design standards for the Triangle. It was Waremart's understanding that the design standards proposed for the east side of the Triangle (mixed-used employment area) were intended to be different than those applied west of 72nd Avenue in the area zoned general i V l .u ' • ~ I ~ MILLER, HASN, WIENER. A.E. NE CARLSEN LLP •I1 .',rr'. ..i L.~ - The Honorable James Nicoli Members of the City Council - 5 - August 26, 1997 commercial. Waremart continues to oppose applying residential and mixed-use standards in ` the area of the Triangle where large-scale retail development is encouraged and expected. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these matters. Very truly yours, Steven F. Hill cc: Mr. Paul Simmons Mr. Jim Hendricks r a' 11 r,