Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 02/10/1999
CITY OF TIGARD 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. 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 a.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 - 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. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639.4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 1999 - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98.00091PDR 98.001ONAR 98-0010) The request Is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marlon Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district Is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development; PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land, and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. a. Public Hearing (Continued from January 26,1999) b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department; Engineering Department d. Public Testimony: 0 Applicant 0 Proponents*, Opponents*, Neutral* 0 Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions ' g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Deliberation i 2. ADJOURNMENT I: W D MCAT HY\C CA\990210. D 0C I COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 2 1 Agenda Item No. g I 3 • ~q TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of a3 - MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 > Special meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli Mayor Nicoli reviewed the testimony procedures for the evening. > Roll Call: Councilors Brian Moore, Mayor Jim Nicoli, Joyce Patton, Ken Scheckla and Paul Hunt > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Associate Planner Julia Hajduk; Development Review Engineer Brian Rager > MURDOCK STREET REPORT Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that the possible extension of Murdock Street from SW 106'h to SW 109`h was a feasible connection, providing a direct connection between SW 96"' Avenue to SW 109`''. He said that they only needed to acquire another five-foot section from the apartments to complete the 50-foot right-of-way typical of a local street. He mentioned the DKS engineer's emphasis last night that the more connections, the better. He indicated a cost estimate of $110,000 to $120,000 to do full improvements, including storm drainage. Mr. Duenas pointed out that as part of the improvement they also needed to put in water and sewer at an estimated cost of $250,000. He reviewed the funding options for the water and sewer, pointing out that the only part of the project for which they did not have funding was the street. He recommended setting aside a certain amount each year from the State gas tax revenues and by the third year they would have enough to do full improvements. He reiterated that the connection was very feasible, commenting that it should be done at the same time as the Erickson property developed in order to provide more alternatives for east-west connectivity. Mayor Nicoli asked if the City decided to develop the Water District property as a neighborhood park, could part of the cost for the street come from SDCs. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that he would review the SDC ordinance to find out and report back to the Council. Councilor Moore asked what the next step was. Mr. Duenas said that he would plug this project into the CIP program and go through that process to get public input. Councilor Scheckla asked if they used money that usually went to road maintenance for this project, were they robbing that pot ofmoney in order to do this project. Mr. Duenas said yes, they would be. He explained that typically the City has received $300,000 in State gas tax revenues for road maintenance projects. His strategy was to reserve some of that money for this project, thus reducing but not eliminating the amount available for road maintenance. Mr. Duenas mentioned that, according to the Finance Director, the City would be receiving possibly only $160,000 this year from State gas tax revenues. If they reserved $40,000 of that $160,000, that left them with $120,000 for road maintenance. He said that they hoped that there would be a State gas tax increase but conceded that the amount could fall even lower in the future. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 1 NEI > HOODVIEW DRIVE REPORT Mr. Duenas mentioned the concern raised about the icy conditions due to flooding on Hoodview Street during the winter. He said that staff has looked at the situation and determined that the water came from a certain house that drained to the street. He spoke to installing a catch basin or subdrainage system where Hoodview leveled off in order to catch the runoff before it made the turn to go down the hill. He noted that it could hook into the Kable storm drainage system. He estimated $40,000 to $50,000 for the project. He recommended handling it through the storm drainage projects in the CIP. Mayor Nicoli asked about the City's backlog was on storm drainage projects. Mr. Duenas said that. as a part of the development of a comprehensive Public Facilities Plan, they have identified two storm drainage projects so far as problem areas. He said that this could be a third one and included in next year's program, if the Council so desired. 1. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26,1999 - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98-0009/PRD 98-00101VAR 98-0010) The request is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41-acre site. This site also involves a request for a variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 1091', north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100,00200, and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 square feet); $-3.5. The purpose of the R- 3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development (PD). The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type of design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.32,18.48,18.80, 18.88, 18.92, CRITERIA: 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. a. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the public hearing b. Declarations or Challenges Councilor Scheckla declared a site visit. c. Staff Report Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner, said that staff has not received any additional information. Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer, summarized the memo staff prepared for the Council to address two issues raised at the previous meeting. He referenced the table he had prepared showing the Code requiremcnts for the right-of-way widths for Kable and Naeve and CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 2 the staff recommendations, the Code requirements for the pavement widths and the staff recommendations, and the Planning Commission findings (see attached). He noted the Planning Commission change to further reduce the right-of-way width for Kable Street to 43 feet. Mr. Rager stated that staff did make a mistake regarding the Hoodview storm drainage system: there wasn't one. He noted that the Summerfield Drive street classification was "minor collector" with a required right-of-way of 60 feet and pavement width of 40 feet . He said that this street was built to a 36-foot pavement width, possibly because of earlier Code requirements. d. Mayor Nicoli opened the hearing to public testimony APPLICANT e Bill McMonagle, Harris McMonagle Engineering, 12555 SW Hall, representing Renaissance Development, entered into the record a document relative to the street grades on Naeve Street and Forest Drive, in response to the Lady Marion neighborhood's attorney's letter. He stated that the actual street grade constructed on Naeve was 15.28%, although it was approved at 17%. He explained how a 12% grade made access and construction much more difficult, including requiring heavy cuts and fills that should not be occurring in hillside developments. Mr. McMonagle said that, based on the meetings he has held over the past week, he would say that most people agreed with Plan 113. He explained that Plan lE took a circuitous route to discourage through traffic but still allowed transportation across the hillside for the local residents. He mentioned the closure of Kable Street to all vehicular traffic, leaving only an emergency, bicycle and pedestrian aceessway. e Rick Carman, 220 NE Third, Hillsboro, attorney for Renaissance Development, asked for clarification on exactly what was in the record. Staff confirmed that the application, the textual materials, and everything from the Planning Commission, in addition to any testimony or exhibits submitted at the Council hearing, were in the record. Mr. Carman commented that if their street layout was to meet the Code requirements, then they had to have the two up and down streets. He held that they have met the variance requirements also. He pointed out that all alternative plans included those streets. He mentioned that the street layout promoted elements such as connectivity and flow pattern. Mr. Carman referenced the letter from the attorney that discussed Lady Marion Street. He agreed that Lady Marion was a local street but argued that the function of a local street was not limited to only carrying traffic locally within the subdivision. He cited the definition of "local street" in the Comprehensive Plan, contending that it also talked about the local street network being designed to provide for interconnectedness of neighborhoods. He pointed out that the streets were designed for 25-mph speeds, and questioned allowing potential law violators (speeders) to dictate street layouts. Mr. Carman mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan's definition of a local street included a wider variety of right-of-way widths (36 to 50 feet) than the Development Code did (24 to 32 feet). Mr. Carman spoke to the issue of sidewalks down Kable. He commented that it was only an issue if Kable was connected. He stated that if the City wanted to make offsite improvements CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 3 and require the developer to pay for it, then it was necessary for the City to show rough proportionality between the development and the need for the offiste improvements. He contended that the record did not contain any evidence of the impact of their development in terms of Erickson Heights residents driving down Kable. He conceded that some of the Kable traffic would come from their subdivision but he emphasized that not all of it would, citing the already existing footpath across the Erickson property to Kable Street. He stated that they were not responsible for all of the Kable traffic, and that the City has not shown that they should have to pay for all of it. Mr. Carman addressed the issue of TIF fees. He disagreed with the suggestion that TIF fees gave the developer some kind of break of unmitigated development costs. He explained that the TIF fees were for development of the arterial/collector road system in Washington County. This 32% of the development costs was collected at the building permit stage for all developments in Washington County. He argued that there was no authority anywhere for the City to justify offsite improvements based on TIF fees that have not yet been collected. Mr. Carman commented that he did not know why the attorney mentioned street trees in her letter. He said that there were no unusual difficulties with placing the required utilities in the development as proposed; the sewer and water hookups were all available and feasible. OPPONENTS Mark Lasswell stated that he was representing 144 property owners. He referenced a handout distributed earlier to the Council. He discussed a series of maps, the culmination of the concept plans developed in an attempt to reach consensus. He reported that unfortunately they did not reach 100% consensus. He reviewed the three basic positions that the Naeve, Kable, and Hoodview neighborhoods were united on: opposition to the existing subdivision as proposed, support for Alternative Plan IB, and support for all possible traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Lasswell reiterated that they opposed any plan that created a direct cut through traffic corridor connecting Hwy. 99W to Royalty Parkway into Sattler, as the proposed plan did, on the grounds that it would increase traffic volumes in an unsafe environment. Mr. Lasswell referenced a table showing the number of lots in the respective neighborhoods. He said that 144 out of 168 property owners or 86% supported Plan IB. He reviewed the street layout of Plan 1B, noting that it did not extend Kable through. He emphasized that Plan 1B did provide the street connection from SW 100`' to SW 109`h or Royalty Parkway required by the Comprehensive Plan. He held that this plan directed the traffic to the streets most capable of handling it but used a route that discouraged cut through traffic because it was not a straight through route. He stated that they thought it was the best plan to meet the Code intent. Mr. Lasswell reviewed the status of the various streets. He noted that the newest streets, Naeve and Lady Marion, had 32 foot wide and 34 foot wide pavements respectively, sidewalks and street lights whereas Kable and Hoodview, the 30 year old streets, had narrower pavements, no sidewalks and no street lights. He contended that the older streets would not promote a safe environment for a higher volume of cars and pedestrians. Mr. Lasswell stated that they wanted to be sensitive to the issues on Lady Marion but reiterated that Lady Marion was the street most capable of handing the traffic. He said that the original plan estimated traffic on Lady Marion of 900 vehicles per day while Plan 1B estimated 920 cars per day on Lady Marion. He argued that 20 cars was not a significant increase, and they intended to propose measures to mitigate it even further. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 4 Mr. Lasswell stated that the one issue staff raised about Kable Street was whether it could be a cul-de-sac or a deadend street. He argued that the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code required the Council to consider public health, safety, and welfare. He contended that under the proposed plan (no Lady Marion connection), the traffic on Kable would increase from the existing volume of 300 cars to 1,310 cars, a 440% increase in traffic. Mr. Lasswell held that Kable had the same problems as described for Hoodview, and therefore was an unsafe environment for high volume traffic. He cited no sidewalks, no streetlights, steep driveways, and no storm drainage for 1,300 feet of the street. He pointed out that Kable was a high traffic pedestrian and bicycle corridor. He mentioned the staff prop )sal to put a sidewalk on Kable Street, to restrict on street parking to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles and to mitigate safety, and to install speed humps. He questioned that even those measures would provide a safe environment for 1,300 cars. Mr. Lasswell noted that the cul-de-sac requirements in the Code said a cul-de-sac could not be in excess of 400 feet or serving more. than 20 lots. He stated that there were no more than 20 lots in this section, although it would be more than 400 feet from any real intersection. He argued that the actual numbers were not the issue but rather the intent of the requirement to address fire safety issues. He noted the emergency access proposed at the end of Kable under Plan, arguing that it was not a true cul-de-sac from a fire safety standpoint. Mr. Lasswell stated that the emergency access in Plan1B that would also provide through access for pedestrians and bicyclists. He argued that by closing Kable and promoting a pedestrian route from Kable down through streets better equipped for that traffic, they actually produced a safer corridor for pedestrians and bikes. Mr. Lasswell meationed several traffic mitigation measures which the neighborhoods felt could help the situation. These included accelerating the Murdock extension, installing speed humps on all the ends of the corridors to discourage traffic, installing signs directing traffic to minor collector streets (such as Summerfield Drive), limiting the Sattler connection by building it to local street standards instead of to minor collector standards, and leaving the intersection at Sattler and Lady Marion as it was because it discouraged through traffic. Mr. Lasswell asked the Council to deny the original plan. He held that if they had had more time, they could have gotten consensus on Plan 1B. Councilor Scheckla asked how much more time they would need to reach consensus. Mr. Lasswell said that he was not sure. He held that 86% consensus was not bad. He mentioned that they learned during the process that some of the plans offered by the developer, the developer was not prepared to build. He stated that they were reporting back at this time as requested by Council, with the best that they could do, which was 86% agreement. o Cherie Stanley, 10573 SW Murdock, asked to speak to the issue of Murdock Street. Mayor Nicoli said that Murdock Street was not related to this application, and comments would be more appropriate at another time. He directed Ms. Stanley to contact staff regarding when it would be discussed at the CITs. s Jeanne Nyquist, 10042 SW Lady Marion, stated that her family moved to Lady Marion from a busy street because they liked the quiet neighborhood. She expressed concerns with the way the process was handled. She said that she thought that initially plans were thrown out and individual neighborhoods began meeting with the developer which resulted in division amongst CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 5 the neighborhoods as each neighborhood took up sides. She agreed that with more time they might be able to reach consensus. Ms. Nyquist commented that the neighbors were all concerned about livability, safety, protecting property values, and impacts from cut through traffic and speeders. She stated that she did not support any particular plan but asked the Council to consider that the decision they made tonight would have a long-term impact. Ms. Nyquist mentioned that she worked in the transportation industry. She pointed out that, despite all their efforts to provide transit and to educate people to get out of their cars, vehicle miles traveled per person has increased significantly, as have accidents. She argued that viable neighborhoods were important to both the residents and the City. She held that cut through streets attracted cut through traffic. She asked the Council to consider other values besides transportation connectivity, mentioning neighborhood livability in particular. Nikki Malnati, 10529 SW Naeve Street, submitted a letter from the Naeve Street neighbors. She noted that the description in the staff report that the Erickson Heights subdivision was north of the Summerfield subdivision was correct but it left out that their subdivision, Renaissance Summit, was in between the two. She asked that the record be corrected to reflect that the Erickson Heights subdivision was north of the Renaissance Summit subdivision. She stated that the records provided to the neighbors by the City staff indicated that the grade of Naeve Street was 16.7%. Ms. Malnati agreed that the neighbors had been close to 100% consensus. She mentioned that they had had another plan (requiring only one concession from the City) that they thought they could have gotten 100% consensus on with another 48 hours. She said that the Naeve neighbors did support Plan 1B and denial of the Planning Commission's final order. i Terry Smith, 10470 SW Kable Street, resubmitted a letter he had sent to the Council on August 7, 1997. He mentioned that its discussion of many issues supported Mr. Lasswell's comments. He pointed out that, although Lady Marion's pavement width was reported today at 32 feet, in 1997 it was almost 34 feet wide, Kable was almost 32 feet wide and Hoodview was 36 feet wide. Randy Norgart, 10466 SW Lady Marion, and Pam Wyle,10341 SW Lady Marion, spoke on behalf of the Lady Marion neighborhood. Mr. Norgart pointed out that trying to find a plan that everyone could live with was like trying to find one shoe to fit everyone in the room. He said that an estimate of 86% consensus was very aggressive, and held that 70% or less was more accurate. He noted that all the plans with Lady Marion as the only open street funneled the cut through traffic down Lady Marion. a Mr. Norgart reiterated that the Code recognized Lady Marion as a local street, not a minor i collector. He noted that the letter from their attorney not only described a local versus a minor collector street but also listed LUBA case law on how that distinction has been interpreted in the past. He argued that the Sattler/Lady Marion connection variance created a substandard 3 intersection for a potential local or collector street, citing the code requirement of 125 feet between local streets and 300 feet between collectors. Mr. Norgart said that Plan 1 B, agreed upon by the other three neighborhoods, generated three times the traffic flow for Lady Marion while allowing the other streets to be free of the east-west cut through traffic coming through the neighborhood. He noted that Lady Marion was a subdivision similar to the other neighborhoods with children, steep driveways and steep grades. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 6 Ms. Wyle said that they have considered traffic calming devices. She cited Gus Duenas' comment in a conversation she had with him that speed humps reduced speeds from 4% to 6% but also reduced traffic volumes only temporarily. Mr. Norgart mentioned livability and property value concerns. He commented that, although the traffic estimates could be questioned in different ways, they could not question those given for next year. He asked the Council to consider in their decision that most of the neighbors intended to stay long term. Ms. Wyle commented that she was not certain that signage directing traffic elsewhere would work, stating that "slow children" signs did not work. Mr. Norgart presented the "concept plan," another plan developed by Mr. McGonagle which had the consensus of the Lady Marion neighbors. Ms. Wyle distributed copies. She pointed out that it did not provide a straight shot for any one street, and held that it would be better for all concerned than Plan 1B was. She said that with the connection to Lady Marion and the Murdock Street extension, the City would satisfy the note on the Transportation Plan. She agreed that the Naeve Street neighbors had justifiable concerns regarding the steep grade. She emphasized that no one wanted to see one neighborhood take the brunt of the traffic. She argued that doing so would cause that neighborhood to change, leaving the others untouched. Mr. Norgart reiterated that the traffic studies have shown that 70% of the east-west traffic would be cut through traffic, not local traffic. He said that even though Lady Marion remained the obvious choice for cut through traffic in the concept plan, it did present opportunity for the other streets to take some of the traffic, and therefore represented a compromise that he thought could be worked out. Mr. Norgart held that either all the streets had to be closed or they all had to be open. Closing only one street was not fair. He said that although traffic calming measures sounded great, there were more situations where they did not work than where they did work. He reiterated that the concept plan was not perfect but it was fair. Ms. Wyle reported that their neighborhood voted on four plans, the original plan, the Good Neighbor plan, Plan 1B, and the concept plan. She mentioned that Plan 1B was the last choice for their neighborhood while the concept plan was seen as more equitable in sharing the traffic among all the neighborhoods. She pointed out that in the original plan Kable Street traffic volumes were estimated at 850 cars; if Kable was closed, the volumes returned to the current 300 cars. She asked where the other 550 cars would go. Patrick Corrigan, 10365 SW Hioodview Drive, testified that he had to navigate his way through the ice field at the end of Hoodview every winter. He said that the water came from more places than just one house. He held that the ice created a situation where an accident was waiting to happen, if the traffic was not familiar with the street. He noted the blind driveway situation. Mr. Corrigan agreed that for this to be fair, all the neighborhoods should share equally in the traffic. He mentioned that he and his wife tried to participate in the process but were told by the neighborhood organizers that if their opinions were wanted, they would be asked for. He disagreed that 86% was an accurate figure. He said that he favored the concept plan over Plan 1B as a fairer plan. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 7 s 1 11 Own NEUTRAL Steve Davison, 15040 SW 100m Avenue, commented that SW 100`h Avenue was currently the east-west cut through for the Kable and Hoodview people, and would remain so until their streets punched through. He agreed that everyone in the area needed to share the traffic loads. He said that the City planners have presented the road plans as part of the development of the Hoodview, Kable, and Lady Marion area. He pointed out that the posted signs and the testimony from the NPO during the Lady Marion hearings clearly stated that those streets would be connected once the Erickson property developed. Therefore those who bought property in the neighborhood were fully aware of the future street connections. Mr. Davison contended that it was those same property owners were now selfishly pushing Plan 1B in order to get special treatment. He held that Plan 1B reneged on promises made to other neighborhoods. He asked if these neighbors have considered the impacts on the area beyond their own streets. He argued that they needed to provide an easy way for people to get to Hwy. 99W. He stated that the Kable and Hoodview neighbors who used SW 100'h as a cut through sped through his neighborhood and treated his neighborhood the same way they feared that other people would treat their neighborhood if the streets were extended. Mr. Davison commented that no one here tonight was impartial, including himself. He spoke to the Council upholding the binding promises made and approved in the past, looking at the good of all (not just Naeve or Kable), and not letting a selfish minority override those past promises. He argued that anything that would disperse the already existing cut through traffic on SW 100°i Avenue through the neighborhood would be fair to all. He reiterated that the Council needed to look at the good of the community and the future. Mr. Davison said that he thought the way Kable hooked up to Sattler was insane, and that the Kable people did not deserve to be the conduit for the whole thing. He pointed out that for Plan 1 B to work, they had to make the connection through the property that has not yet developed. He supported pushing Kable through so that everyone took their fair share of the traffic. e Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive, cited his experience with the situation at SW 130"' and Winterlake. He stated that he did not live anywhere near the Erickson property. He asked the Council to remember in their decision making that they did have a Comprehensive Plan that made its recommendations after much study and work. He asked them to remember that they had a professional staff who made a professional recommendation regarding development and connectivity consistent with the ordinances adopted by the Council. He asked them to remember that they did erect signs (with taxpayer dollars) at the end of the affected streets in order to inform everyone of the future street connections. Mr. McAdams contended that if the Council chose to violate their own and Metro's connectivity requirements, then they would be converting public streets to private use. He argued that the residents of the unconnected streets would not carry their share of the traffic but they would be able to cut through on their lower class neighbors. He reiterated his request that the Council listen to the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Plan and the professional staff. Paul Owen 10335 SW Highland Drive, representing Summerfield Association, said that this neighborhood was composed of 1,200 units with 1,800 people. He mentioned that with the connection of Royalty Parkway to SW 109`h and other happenings, there was a lot of traffic suddenly coming through Summerfield, and that he was talking to the City Engineer about speed humps. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mr. Owen reported that the Association Board at their last meeting took a position in support of Plan IA. He mentioned their suggestion to start thinking about a signal at SW 98 h and Durham. He commented that the Board might like the concept plan better than 1 A but they have not seen it. o Ron Pescorski, 10567 SW Murdock, pointed out that there has never been a sign on Murdock stating that there would be future development. He said that the master plan said that it was supposed to be a park. He asked where the neighbors could go to speak on this issue. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that Murdock was not really part of this development, as none of the streets connected to it. He explained the CIP process and suggested that the Murdock neighbors speak to their concerns during that process. Bill Monahan, City Manager, suggested that the neighbors attend the CIT meetings on the CIP project list as the first forum for public input. Andy Whitol, 10514 SW Naeve, commented that the Lady Marion neighbors have stated that they would bear the brunt of all the traffic. He mentioned that 26 out of 29 Renaissance Summit residents approved Plan 1 B (with three out of town). He said that the Naeve neighbors expected an increase in traffic under Plan 1B but they felt it was the best solution for safety reasons and urged its approval. REBUTTAL . Mr. McMonagle clarified that Plan 1B was an amalgamation of Plans IA, 2A, and 2B. He said that although they designed the Naeve Street grade at 16.7% (which was what was shown on the City plans), they actually built it out at 15.28%. He explained how the topography worked to shorten the distance that the steep grades on Naeve and Forest actually existed. He mentioned a condition to install sprinklers in the homes sited on the streets that were steeper than normal. Mr. McMonagle said that he told Pam Wyle that he supported Plan 1B because he saw reasons why Kable did not necessarily need to be connected, as it did not have sidewalks or street lights. He pointed out that the concept plan did connect the roads but it provided for an angle of turn from Naeve onto Kable that greatly slowed down traffic. He reiterated that he did not think that traffic crossing the neighborhoods, no matter which plan they went with, would be as great as the neighbors feared. He said that people driving in the area today did not go through that specific area, and he was not sure where all this traffic was supposed to come from. o Mark Butoric, Kittleson & Associates, 610 SW Oliver #700, Portland, referenced a memo comparing the traffic volumes for the original plan and several of the other concepts. He stated that under the concept plan, he estimated that Lady Marion would get 750 ADT, Hoodview would get 200 trips, Naeve would increase to 700 ADT and Kable would be roughly around 700 ADT. Councilor Scheckla asked the City Attorney to address the request to respond to the applicant's rebuttal. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, stated that the only things that came up during the rebuttal were the street grades and the concept plan traffic volumes, and therefore, any response would have to be limited to those issues. Mr. Lasswell referenced for the record the Kittleson memo they cited in reporting the 920 versus 900 cars. Mr. Coleman said that the letter was the January 21 letter to Mr. McMonagle from Mark Butoric that was already in the record. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 9 e. Staff recommendation Dick ]Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, said that staff has not heard any additional information to indicate anything other than their original recommendation. He said that Plan 1B had problems relative to Code provisions and cul-de-sac length. He stated that the concept plan came closer but there were issues relative to block lengths and Code requirements. E Council questions Mayor Nicoli asked what the Code issues were with Plan 113. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that the cul-de-sac provision required a cul-de-sac length to be no longer than 450 feet and a cul-de- sac bulb as the termination point. He said that Plan 1B did not show this nor have any findings been made to show that a variance would be applicable. He mentioned that the standards required a block length of no less than 1,800 feet. He stated that staff could not support findings allowing a variance. Mr. Monahan pointed out that a variance request regarding the cul-de-sac would require a new application. Mayor Nicoli noted that staff has not had the opportunity to review the concept plaid. He asked what their impressions were. Ms. Hajduk agreed that it did come closer but there were block length issues. Mayor Nicoli asked if the connection required by the Transportation Plan Map had to be a straight connection through to SW 109`n or SW Royalty Parkway. Mr. Rager said no, it did not. He stated that staff has always held the opinion that a connection was needed but it did not have to be a straight shot through. Ms. Hajduk commented that the extension of Lady Marion through Tax Lot 201 might be needed to allow development of those two tax lots. She confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that that what they did tonight could indirectly affect those two tax lots, thus creating a bigger situation later while trying to alleviate a situation now. Mr. McMonagle mentioned that he has measured the block and did not find any block length of over 1;800 feet. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing h. Council Deliberations Councilor Hunt stated that he remained supportive of the staff's plan. He agreed that everyone wanted to minimize traffic in the area but mentioned the need for connectivity. He stated that Plan 113 cut out part of the necessary connectivity, and that extending Murdock simply moved the traffic to Murdock, something that bothered him very much. He said that he has not seen any new evidence to change his position supporting the staff plan. i Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt. He expressed concern that blocking i connectivity would result in gridlock off the main highways. He spoke to everyone taking their fair share of the traffic. He cited his experience with the connection of SW 110d, to Gaarde. He said that everyone had been very concerned that cut through traffic would ruin the area but that has not happened. There was more traffic but there was more traffic everywhere. Councilor Scheckla commended the neighbors for their excellent presentations and their civil manners. He mentioned transit as an option to help alleviate traffic congestion. He stated that he would support the staff plan. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 10 Councilor Moore agreed with the earlier comment that "one shoe did not fit all." He said that this was a tough decision to make, and that he did not like these adversarial situations. He commented that he had hoped that the neighbors could have presented a plan with 100% agreement and the connectivity required by the City. He said that of the alternate plans, he could most support the concept plan. He stated that he could not support Plan 113 because he did not support deadending a street that was intended to go through. He said that if the neighbors could not support the concept plan, he would support the staff recommendation. Councilor Patton said that, out of all the alternatives, she also favored the concept plan, provided that the staff said it was feasible. She stated that while she did sympathize with the neighborhoods, they were all on notice (through posted signs) that the streets would be connected through. She said that she felt strongly that as traffic increased in the City, everyone needed to take their fair share and share the pain. She conceded that some streets were older but said that they had to start somewhere and the Transportation Plan could not be implemented all at once. Connectivity was the way to share the burden. She said that she supported the staff's recommendation. Mayor Nicoli said that he was comfortable with all three plans, noting that staff found technical problems with Plan 1B and the concept plan. He said that in order to move forward, he would support the original application but without the western extension of Lady Marion through Tax Lot 201. He said that the five connections in the original plan were sufficient to provide adequate connectivity to adjacent streets, and that it would benefit the City and the neighbors to eliminate that future connection. He said that although he was not happy with the original plan, technically and legally it was the only option before the Council. Councilor Scheckla said that he would not support a plan to eliminate the Lady Marion connection. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. for a break. o Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Mayor Nicoli noted that during the break it appeared that there was some misunderstanding on whether the Council was referring to the staff recommendation or to the Planning Commission recommendation. The Council indicated that they were speaking of the staff recommendation. Councilor Moore declared that he had had a short conversation with Mr. Lasswell during the break. He stated that he cut it off once he realized that Mr. Lasswell did not have a procedural question but rather a comment about one of the plans. Mr. Coleman suggested having staff recap exactly what the staff recommendation was and discussing the feasibility of meeting some technical standards raised in the objections. Ms. Hajduk stated that the staff recommendation was to add back in Condition 10, (sidewalk on Kable Street), delete Condition 30 (temporary closure of Kable Street), and add another condition requiring installation of speed humps on Kable Street within and east of the subject site. Mr. Rager said that their review of the applicant's materials regarding storm drainage and water quality facilities found that their proposal did appear feasible to meet the Code standards. He L,noted the condition to provide street trees, and said that the applicant could choose from a list of approved street trees to meet the standard. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 11 Mr. Coleman advised the Council that, if they approved the application, they needed to discuss with the applicant preparation of the final order and an extension of the 120-Day Rule past February 28 when it ran out. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the plan as recommended by staff. Motion passed by majority voice vote of the Council present (Councilors Moore, Patton, Scheckla and Hunt voted "yes;" Mayor Nicoli voted "no.") Mr. Sebastian said that he was agreeable to a three-week extension for the 120-Day Rule to March 21. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 9:36 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde or, City of Tigard Date: -j-e~ 3 Cl~ 1AADM\CATHY\CCM\990210. DOC F CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 - PAGE 12 1. NOTICE OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 10, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council will meet on February 10, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to continue the public hearing on the following item: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 1999 - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SUB 98.00091PDR 98.001ONAR 98.0010 The request Is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodvlew subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development, PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 639- 4171 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, egon. ity Recorder cc: Kari Hastin s uedas Ti and Times mily Tsao at the Oregonian - Fax No. 96 - Post: City HaiTZo y Date of Notice: February 9, 1999 (The City Council, at their meeting on 1/26/99, continued the hearing to a date and time certain.) i s \adm\cathy\cca\nodce.doc Ell 0./09/99 ,15:32 0503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 9001 fifisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffififisfiffiffiffififfiffiffififfiffiffifi firs ACTIVITY REPORT fiffifi ffififfiffiSffififfiffiffififfiffiffiffififfiffiffiffififfififfiffiffiffi TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 2381 CONNECTION TEL 9686061 CONNECTION ID START TIME 02/09 15:31 USAGE TIME 00'43 PAGES 1 RESULT OK NOTICE OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 10, 1999 - 7.30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council will meet on February 10, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to condnue the public hearing on the following item: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 28, 1999 - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDPASION (SUB 9 4009lPDR 98-001ONVAR 98-0010 The request Is to build a 584ot Planned Developrnmt Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. This she also Involves a request for a Varlaitse to the ma7®nunn street grade. LOCATION: The sub)ect parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the S[nnnrerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hooddview subdivision and Marion Estates su6div:sions. WGTM 2S 110DA, Tax Lou 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.3. The purpose of the R-3.S zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development; PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a paeans for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community developanent which will result In a superior riving arrangernnent; to facilitate the efficient use of land= and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and annuities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a deyeiopraent to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE it MEW CRItERUU Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.100. 18.134. 18.138. 18.160 and 18.164. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 DATE: February 10, 1999 PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS 1. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED IFROM JANUARY 26, 1999 - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98.00091PDR 98.0010/VAR 98.0010) The request Is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTf4 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district Is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development; PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. ti r N~ AGENDA ITEM NO. '10 C ; PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking. In Favor!ll f,~' • Opponent - (S kin Against) eutral Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1'•., ~ ~lC ~.v1/`'~a''~ .~2r~ L4 SS~~~/ ~ CJL a7 ~-'~1i g oN`~ k-, /5-0 Lt d Go t~rllSho,ro U 7 v3 Pie z 4- , 9 ? z- ame, Address and Phone o. Na e, Address and Phone N d. Name, Address and Phone No. 6- A t'5 s-73 wtdac!` 1342.a S. w. 13r-+ran!5 i7 4( 7;;t !.t/t //tee 6~/~ d`- µ T a r d 01~ d'✓e5S CX/~-'ir/ pTO~ 41,317- 52 4-v 1. 5 S !Xv Name, Address and Phone No. Name, -Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone o. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, ress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 7 ci-%M% 05-7 o S+. r St ` 1 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone N,o.~ Name, Address and Phone No. IVtk~ 1 W0J o. i!' 46 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address d Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. T~rt,2Y S.~TN i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ame, Address and Phone No. C o!'/`t 1%) [0365-~,~ 1e~~t . Name, Address and Phone N Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. N 12~N ~ No2~~.-~ n~ 0 Lf u (0 S -j (A,), y„v1,rt rW 00 Pro ponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (S eakin Against) 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. 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. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I:tadmyessicaUestify.doc MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: February 4, 1999 TO: City Council FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SUB 98-0009, Erickson Heights This memorandum was prepared to clarify a few issues that were raised at the January 26, 1999, hearing concerning this project. Width of SW Kable Street and SW Naeve Street In the Staff report for the November 2, 1998, Planning Commission hearing, Staff recommended the following right-of-way (ROW) and pavement widths for Kable Street and Naeve Street: Street Segment ROW ROW Pavement Pavement Per TDC Per Staff Per TDC Per Staff Recom. Recom. Kable Street 44 - 50' 46' 28 - 32' 32' Naeve Street* 44 - 50' 42' 28 - 32' 28' *Naeve segment from Kable to Lady Marion. The existing ROW and pavement widths of both Naeve Street and Kable Street adjacent to this site are 50 feet and 32 feet respectively. The basis for the recommendation for Kable Street was that there will likely be over 500 cars per day using this road, therefore requiring the 32-foot paved width. The applicant had proposed a 28-foot paved width and a 42-foot ROW width. The standard ROW width for a 32-foot paved street is 50 feet. This width allows the sidewalk and street trees to be located fully within the ROW. The City has allowed a narrower ROW width on other projects to allow the street trees, which are planted behind the sidewalk, to be located partially within the ROW area and partially within a wider public utility easement (PUE). Staff chose 46 feet as the recommended width as a compromise between the standard and the applicant's proposal. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant, who requested that the ROW width of Kable Street be reduced to 43 feet due to the difficulty in grading the site. The applicant argued that the reduction in ROW width would not affect the width of the pavement or the appearance of the street. The street trees in PAGE 1 m this case would be placed completely within a wider (PUE). The Planning Commission approved SW Kable Street with a reduced ROW width of 43 feet. The ROW and paved widths of SW Naeve Street were not changed by the Planning Commission. SW Roodview Drive Storm Drainage Staff mistakenly stated in the Planning Commission staff report that there was an existing storm drainage line in SW Hoodview Drive. There is no such public storm line. Classification ofSWSummerfield Drive There was discussion during the January 26, 1999 hearing concerning SW Summerfield Drive. This roadway is classified as a minor collector street, which currently requires a ROW width of 60 feet and a paved width of 40 feet. It should be noted that SW Summerfield Drive was constructed inside a 60-foot ROW, but with only a 36-foot pavement width. Staff is not sure why the pavement width was set at 36 feet, but estimates that the minor collector standard may have been different at that time. \\b8333\u--Mepts\eng\brianrVeports\erlckson2.coundi-02101999.doc J { 1 { { I PAGE 2 RECEIVE!) FEB 0 o 1999 Feb. 7,1999 CO"?!7I!""TY UEtfELOPAIENT Dear Mayor Nicoli, City Council and City Attorney, RE: Erickson Heights Subdivision I have attended all of the city meetings on this issue and after listening to presentations etc. by all parties involved, this breaks down to the following issues: 1. Kable St., Hoodview Dr. and Lady Marion have had for some time, (at least since 1993) signs posted that as part of Tigard master plan, these street were to be extended in the future. My argument with this issue is that all of above streets have to be treated the same. If Kable and Hoodview are to be closed, then Lady Marion also must be closed. If Kable and Hoodview are kept open, then Lady Marion has to be open also. 3. Lady Marion presently is the recipient of excessive traf3fic that is fed in by 103rd. Street. Kable and Hoodview have no external streets feeding into them. 4. A letter sent to City Council on January 21,1999, by attorney Dorothy Caufield, raises serious legal questions on this matter and case law handed by LUBA. 5. I urge all persons who have a responsibility in this decision, to carefully consider the facts stated above. I would think after the A-Boy, Dorland situation, that the city would be more aware of the legal ramifications of the decisions they handed down. Respectfully submitted: James R. Kunst 10250 SW Lady Marion Drive Tigard, or 97224 low ~ _ a ro/9Q HT OWN t1h *.A 1 0% IN 15 U Rim 11 V PRESENTATION Bye. tio0djew street Naeve Street and (Cable Street NeighborhoOd Groups To: Tigard City Council 2610699 1 Our Neighborhoods Are dully United • • Athe. original Erickson Heights sub-division plan • For Alternative subdivision plan I B •Sup rt all appropriate through traffic mitigation measures red to ~ Oln Plan Are Ise OPPO vqhv ub6lvisi --.Mom 0 115 r g q►' create a tions W Corroder eet cOn~°eC 97 tra~ic . 'the 61rect str "cut thro°~g" street desIgns ~~~Ume and c~om~~da$e . ei,stin9 Will no$ Safe1~ conditioe tra~ic apoe of this wigh ~ ollectors are ~~p the Other eXaster►g the ic w1thout odating acc~~~ no$ clearly ConnecteonS ~~~ions are bode $Con~► ~p Cety 3 61rec on~p plan Thee C requered bV t . ' ' ~r1c►oods and 0 $6% seep Ou.~ velOP. De for EST L8 ~ S ST 40 Naeve 40 18 I~ab~e 20 58 HoOdvieW 58 Eric ksoe~ Hts 22 ~44 lady Marion 1ro$ Otal t APprO~ ao .860/0 percen ~ hOO n Ull ei bo r 0 4~r tlgh lternatty Serat've o hest result Of, a COorhood rocess ~illliiiiiiii 11 elo er'vie° ~ Comp • Phan steet connection owomm- d-ev provides r _ S through„ traffic Discourage ,cut ble streets _ pirects traffic to most ion ~ connectivity - provides street e tchange to original _ Represents minor subdiVision plan to meet coe intent and Best plan hborhood concerns overall neig ~ now NEW- eets Alternafive V3 Full y M V Comp, or Plan me~° ction Local Street Conn now COMP plan Map, Note 9 O A local street connection between 100th Ave. and 109th Ave. f6 Ify parkway).. how to make • Plan doesn't spec connection aired Alt. 1 a provides the rya connection . Murdock St. extension will 6 supplement connection Iwo more CIrcuitous onnectior► Route Reduces "Cut T' hrough Traffic ht connections of original plan • Straig promote: h traffic more cut"throug _ higher speeds - increased safety hazards Alto IB provides mire turps that: • -discourage traffic -reduce speeds -create safer conditions 7 Alt. 1 B Will Direct T raf f iCm TUAft Newer, More C apable, Safer Si treets PAVMT, STREET WIDTH SIDEWALKS LIGHTS LADY MARION YES YES NAEVE* 32' YES YES KABLE ST. 32' NO NO HOOOVIEW ST. 32' NO NO 8 Updated Tzihow Minimal Change • Lady Marion Street :Estimated Year 2000 Traffic -Original Plan: 900 ADT -Alternative Plan 1B: 920 ADT 9 milli Epp W an gatosfy Code eeflon nTI Alt. Aments lot ku;° rtequire . ~ 030(G) C ode Sectlo e nded streets s~iall b~ ~x~ local ovide hpough cl by site toPr re cai v~ithin the when nit p wl ,~op~grap t circulation Or environrnentai, developme" existir►9 er~n~e tO otter 1 c°nStr~s or9s~ric$ pa ~e rds of the c°destanza 10 city IVluniceaCode Specifically Lim1MV%acts to Exisfinpa evlow%men t That Mist Be Considered Section 18=164=030as Improvements to streets shall be made according to adopted City standards, unless the approval authority determines that the standards adverse result in an unacceptable " impact on existing d 11 her Code Stand the Closure of Kable Sti,tMitigate Safety Hazards Tigard Code Section 18.164.030: ,the arrangement of streets in a development shelf either: or (1) provide for the or appropriate projection 12 Aow other Code Standards ll the Closure 0f Viable t. t Mitigate Safety tiazards Now Ian adopted by the " (ii) COnjor no if it is impractical to conform comm,ss,oj a tterns because. of xisting street p topo9r aphical or other exi ss to e hall 9articuiar Such a plan conditions of the ianland use to be be based on t ~ served the volume of traffic the forac,t of ad'oinin streets and tS~feee, and ublic convenience 13 AM& ~`3! t Kak bi. m nigh VoluEftme Trw&ffio% n •wy ..rte r,:G Me_. Will ureate Safetsm Rar rr.? y IT. Traffic icycles , Pedestrians a tj ~`~i. i` QrJ.~; ~,'k-•1~., ._~r_•; :~,o ~rx~.^v~,"-- t-r ~ ~c• ,~~t.~~.. ~;>sw;a~uf:~r-5sw~r-st~.~;:r~ .=~cx~xrsnx,#-' ~a'w~; Yr. 2000° 440% traffic increase F' Vii' •.fi:;:;~ls- ~ 1310 ADT) 300 3 "vT s No Sidewalks sk1;:Yt•n~ ? r No street lights -Ej iM^y. Steer% driveways rte No storm drainage High Pedestrian { and bicycle use 14 City Acknowledged Kash i al ~ Issues By Proposing pece ottmslte Requirements • city requirements for existing Kable street',', - Sidewalk on south side -Restrict on-street parking _ speed humps • These requirements will not create a safe collector from an old local access street 15 NOW- WIN low m rgenc d E w1h Closing e St. timghborhoo ma%%►r1Z~s Cle Safety A e- SS and Pedest~°anIBlCY 1.imlts Culvade sac Current V.0 -des ,V and 1ots length tO eprimarily for fire safety requlrem ~~osure . Proposed i0ble - 30-year old street bui11 bet°re code emerge°0y a6cess addresses fire safety concern sale pedestrian closed street proVides ~e and bicycle corridor Alto 1 B Plan Is Only A Minor Change to The Original Plan MEN= • Street layout very similar • Lot layout almost identical • Approved code conditions and variances equally apply 17 Orhoods is out ,afive, PIV support e t1 esut °f od r°cess iiiii:iiiill!llgollllililli~~ Ortlo kst e~tion d eVelo Oxon Plan strCOfic _ provides tr outages «CU~ through af ~b1e streets prsc os"~a~' activity Directs traffic ~o 'm pion I corn Street ~~~en e to original PTOVIdes or c~'a~1g Represents man and subdav~6w" P intent 1a eat code tom concerns Best plan hborhood overall net, Our Neighborhoods Fuh T rafficAll ApPropreate ThrOug Mitigation Measures . Accelerate Murdock extension • Install speed humps at corridor entrances • Install signa9e to direct traffic to collectors ►,imi4 Settler 98thmiooth) tO local street standards • Leave Sattlerm00th intersect ion "a 9 is" on 1 ot thift ode ror AF% ~ct►o U ires onsiderall~F(ecjU hTraffic contrO15 Throug 1 x.164, Access to Code section ai~aDor Collectors ArterialS a develop►~Q°~t abuts ~osed Where an existeng or pro aversed bY collector tr . ate arterial or r~►alor ,the shall Pr ovide adeciu developrnent properties for residen ia2ccess protection crate rest and shall separate ra~iC..:' 20 and throng e u estedUVG i sion DMIF C it y Ado& o s Deny original subdivision plan 9 Approve Alternative. Klan 1 B • Approve all appropriate through traffic mitigation measures 21 t° KE - PSI i t/eAe- P AT' TWE FfPp 10 ) '44.Ej!!~rI11S& -~IA4 ca To: City of Tigard (and to whom it may concern) - Date: 8-6-1997 (Hand delivered at the meeting below) Subject: The Proposed Hams-McMonagle subdivision (near the new Royalty Parkway road, primarily above Summerfield) review meeting of 8-7-97. Tigard City should be commended for unbottling traffic between Naeve/109th and the (parallel) roads to the east. There is already very good east-west access from Naeve to the Grade, Jr. High, and High Schools due to recent developments. Naeve of course connects to Royalty Parkway up and over the hill to Canterbury, then thru connecting roads to the Jr High and Grade Schools. Similarly, Naeve to 109th to Highland drive to Summed Jeld Drive tol00th to Durham Road, then to the High School, is simply a major asset. Either route connects well to 100th, 99th, Sattler, Durham etc. However, the weakest of these two routes is the one over the hill causing additional traffic on Canterbury. Naeve (intersecting with Royalty Parkway) proceeds straight to 109th, thence to Highland Drive/Greenway, and to Summediield Drive. This is the most desirable route for heavy east/west traffic because of existing Summerfield conditions. These roads have low internal (retirement base) traffic, which is particularly low at school and work commuting times in the mornings). Swnmerfield Drive is an especially good route for handling the bulk of this east-west traffic because of the absolute safety this well planned road affords. It is 36 feet wide, with green belts between sidewalks on each side of the road. It has nice open, wide and clear vision because of the level terrain and very adequate set-back of houses, all augmented by the low density population. However, the most important traffic flow safety factor (by far) comes from the "no parking"signs posted every few yards over the entire length of Summerfield Drive. Tigard City should try to cause 50% or more of the area's east-west traffic to use this safe Summerfreld corridor, by not opening significantly more dangerous and un-necessary east-west corridors. The excellent planned route (involving Naeve to Royaltly Parkway (40 ft wide with outstanding open visibility across sidewalks on each side), would add a new road through the proposed sub- division connecting with Lady Marion. This is a reasonably high priority safety need, to take pressure off Canterbury and provide east-west traffic convenience. This route would open onto 100th street, yielding a nice decision at 100th to either go up the hill to Murdock or McDonald and the grade/jr. high schools, or down to Sattler or lower Kable (lower Kable is wide and has sidewalks on both sides), then to Durham Road and the high school. Lady Marion is a nice, (34 ft. wide) road with sidewalks on both sides, high driver safety visibility , and a nice curve to control speed. The new (Royalty Parkway) apartment traffic would likely choose this route to go to the grade/jr. high schools, (but again would probably choose the Summed ield corridor to the high school). Tigard City should make every effort to join Royalty Parkway to 14dy Marion now, by utilizing the proposed new subdivision land to accomplish this feat. Page 1/2 Options involving the new (proposed) through-roads of Kable and Hoodview to jp9th/ Royal Parkway: Both Hoodview and upper Kable have narrow roads at present, while all previously mentioned corridor roads are at least 34 ft.). Kable/Hoodview have no sidewalks, very poor visibility, and inadequate set-backs of houses with respect to the road, while all previously mentioned corridor roads have sidewalks and excellent side-road vision area and set-backs for safety. Kable and Hoodview roads were planned using county criteria in the mid 1960's. The criteria used then was nowhere near the excellent land-use criteria now required by the city of Tigard, which again has been met or exceeded on all previously mentioned corridors. Both Kable/Hoodview roads have extremely blind and dangerous driveways with very steep up-hill side slopes that empty right onto the two roads. A short drive on these two roads readily convinces one of this fact. The dirt cuts alone hide pedestrians from approaching traffic (particularly children living in the area, or worse still, visiting children). Shrubs and other plants obscure driver/pedestrian vision even more. Widening these two roads or adding sidewalks on the Kable/Hoodview uphill bank side would be very costly, and would in essence prove impossible since cars entering their driveways at present scrape their bumpers on the road because of the abrupt driveway slopes. Restricting parking on these two streets would not sufficiently offset the danger of the high-bank drivewaycuts, would impose parking unfairness on the residents, and lower property values significantly. Tigard City should not endanger Kable and Hoodview residents by adding east-west, high use, thru- traffic onto these two roads. Furthermore: Lady Marion empties onto 100th less than 100 yards from Kable Street. Lady Marion, Hoodview, and Kable are very close together. It is too costly for the city, too dangerous to the residents, unfair to tax payers, and simply unnecessary to build the two additional Kable/Hoodview corridors Finally, in addition: I believe adding the Kable and Hoodview extension roads through this sub-division would cause difficulty in effective sub-division planning, because the three roads would be so close to one another, and would be unfair to the developer of the proposed sub-division. Having worked in a surveying/city engineering capacity for a number of years, and having lived in my current home for 28 years convinces me that the analysis above regarding this neighborhood development is sound. Sincerely, 1/1 R. Terry ith 10470 SW Kable St. Tigard 97224 Page 2/2 ' KITTELSON & ASSOCIATF.', rax:5032738169 Jan 21 199 14:07 P.02 6tL&rl-l,I K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. -2l1u/47-f TRAMISPORTATION PLANNINOfTRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SAN ^ LDER, SURE 700 PORTLAN",, OR 97205 (503) 228.5230 FAX(503)273-6169 January 21,1999 Project : 3000.00 Bill McMonagle Harris-McMonagle Associater.. Inc. 12555 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6287 RE: Erickson Heights Cirr►nlatfon/Dernand Analysis Dear Bill: Pursuant to your request, v,e linve conducted a eirculation/demand analysis for the four alternative circulation plans developed by the local neighborhood for the proposed Erickson Heights subdivision. The purpose fit this analysis is to estimate the daily traffic volumes on SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Hoodvip- Drive. and SW Kable Street under the four alternative circulation plans and compare these volmnes to the circulation plan currently approved by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. This work is based on the assumptions and analysis results reported in the January 1998 transportation impact analysis entitled, "Erickson Heights Subdivision" and the supplemental transportation analysis prepared on October 21, 1998. Using the previously condwit-d circulation work, we have estimated the daily traffic on SW Lady Marion Drive, SW HoodviF%;- Drive, and SW Kable Street under the four alternative concept circulation plans: 1-A, 1-B. 2-,4, and 2-B (see attached circulation plans). Table 1 shows the estimated average daily traffic volumes under each alternative circulation plan for 1999 total traffic conditions. In addition, v- have included the average daily traffic volumes for the proposed circulation plan with and wit i-iii the connection of SW Lady Marion Drive to SW Royalty Parkway. These plans are titled Plan ".4 - and Plan "B respectively (see attached circulation plans). Tat9Le 1 - Circulation/Demand Analysis !tl Plan Concept Concept Concept Concept Existing ''B" t-A 1-B 2-A 2-B SW Lady 380 900 440 920 920 490 570 Marion Drive (1340) SW Hoodview 190 200 200 430 430 225 360 Drive (310) SW Kable Street 300 850 1,310 300 300 945 470 y y~ V (300) 1 (xxx) - denotes estimated averauP Nily traffic with the extension of SW Lady Marion Drive to SW Royalty Parkway. uOriiiI16►~p 6 ~(Q 7 FILENAME: M:1HOM£1M9UTORAr-'t~nnnctJP2.WPD 0 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATE Fax:5032738169 Jan 21 '99 14:08 P.03 ©m McMona& Project 3000.00 January 2t, Ing pye.2 As shown in Table 1, Concepts .1-A and 1-B create the largest change in traffic on SW Lady Marion Drive (380 existing daily tripe to 920 trips following buildout); however, it should be noted that the traffic on SW Lady Marion Drive would increase to 1,340 daily trips with the connection to SW Loyalty Parkway under Comp ,j>t 1-A. Concepts 2-A and 2-B create moderate changes in traffic on both SW Lad), Marion Dri-,-rTnd SW Kable Street; however, it should be noted that both these concept plans force out-of-direction travel and create additional traffic on the srsrounding local street system. The estimate daily ti affic volumes shown in Table 1 are based on hand-assignments using existing traffic volume data. travel time runs; estimated trip generation, and forecasted intersection delays. I trust this circulation/dema,td analysis of the four proposed concept plans provides you with sufficient information regarding the estimated average daily traffic volumes on the local street system under 1999 total traftie conditions. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIA Tr-A. INC. Marc A. Butorac, P.E. Senior Engineer Attachments: Concept Plan 1-A Concept Plan 1-13 Concept Plan "-A Concept Plan B Plan A (wit}, ::W Lady Marion Drive Connection) Plan A (with<„it SW Lady Marion Drive Connection) Kittelson d Associafas, Inc. - Portland O/epAn INS Su om;tad & `rte/waa LADY MARION PROPOSAL ERICKSON HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT "THE EQUITABLE PLAN" Rpm- 000pom" mwwml- I~S~.es C~n~ensus nOt re1 agendas. COA.1 ds dividua orh0o ilv ly the on plan• T man Flow throus • Fa~ess of Traffic ~elopment• burden " iYi ;fie trafficCl~ staff rppoSed ae P,ll streets houla44'MaTepToposal by p jola as the onT all oth p open street• OOOOW ~ssu~s and staff fanning Ci°m~issi a~~L0 1 sheet . Tigaxd P anion as reco,Lady arianCe SOT a ~'n°~ collectoT connection M IL aM~ion ) dy d~xd i~~ersectionC IS.16400ANT bsta n cre al local ates u or collector pot~Y~ti Issues Safety Concerns Plan 1 B generates 3 X traffi n c #Io~, for .Lady ` High density of children driveways Livability and Property value Concerns VTOPOsal voted to suPp°rt anion residents by e1gineer °n d o Lady N~ „designe 66ConcePt Flan 219199 meat oal~ de~elo eats are open x ist in Meets Cl all tl~xee str • activity -dock to ass • Sheet conxi development of NI for connectivity' Tequlrernents . potentT j nsivePlan corap between 100th ~d 109th Proposal • Fair Plan • Minimizes impact of traffic flow to every neighborhood Limits the safety and individual concerns • Traffic is not a "straight shot" for any one street 4 P-roposal ded our attorney reco a owanCes Legal Issues 0~ a plan that has butes that we supP ity~ minlmizeS aid distri C~ cone ttff ough the f evenly tie potel,tial the traffic ROW Therefore, in de velopme Street codes refere-aced violations of city' can be .der on file dated 1121199, Ile r le avoided- of I~Iey lements"-speed, type9,volume e traffic February 10, 1999 Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Tigard City Council and Mayor Nicoli, Thank you for your attention as we voice our neighborhood concerns regarding the traffic and connectivity issues surrounding the Erickson Heights development. As the spokesperson for the Renaissance Summit Neighborhood, I respectfully ask for the City Council to revoke the Final Order No. 98-06 PC decided by the Tigard Planning Commission. As stated previously, there are too many City development standards and codes being violated in this proposal. We support the acceptance of Plan 1B along with the developer and a majority of surrounding neighbors. There are other plans that have been discussed and would be acceptable to us, however, they do not enjoy a majority of support by the neighbors and or the developer. It was our greatest desire and intention to find a plan that was agreeable to 100% of the parties involved. Plan 1B alleviates our neighborhood's concern regarding the continuance of an already unsafe street with a grade above acceptable standards. Plan 1B allows for connectivity of Naeve Street through the new development as desired by City Development Code and Staff recommendations. It is our belief that any plan submitted that shows direct connectivity of Naeve Street to Kable Street or Lady Marion Drive, will create a street of Minor Collector status in a few short years. Plan 1B has addressed this issue, as well. Attached are signatures of the Renaissance Summit neighbors supporting Plan 1B. There are 29 homes comprising our subdivision. We have unanimous support for plan 1B and are have obtained Wsignatures to date. Thank you, again, for your time and consideration. We know that with all the information presented to you, the right decision for the City Council is to revoke Final Order No. 98- 06 PC. Respectfully, VAIL~ Nikki J. Malna Renaissance Summit Neighborhood attached We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Signature Date Printed Name 10512 St'j 'W a-zo-e- -Q4. Address T% and , OE_ c) '7 2Zy We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Signature U ate ~ w rI ^ Printed Name Address i i i i We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. ;2-H-got Signature Date - co ~ \ 0'./1d Printed Name 107S',o St-> /Va-e v-e -51 0 Address .141 We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Signature Date Printed Name Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Z, Signature Date 5C. Printed Dame Address {i C72- '17 a M We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. c Signs re Date ~ Printed Name 0 S~ LV 0 1 Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. .~A A(', I4l:~n Signature Date W d ~ L 1~ Printed Name 113 Address ~7 We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. /O"Vk&l -y ~F / Sir-,q a Date SDI/.-e.- Printed Name ~U ~PSoZ -SZA 1/ 11--e V -e- St Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Signature Date Printe Name Address 1 We, the undersigned, support Plan 113 for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. B.eb to Mcm Signature Date ~aber~ ~ 'dos Printed Name Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for tie Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Signa a Date / 5 - b-5 Printed Name Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. 67? 21 ,bj Ctf Ll Signature Date s~ fyty'ri Printed Name 105-LI & I'?.? Y Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. ature Date st. Wes-, No// Printed Name 5360 S~ M.< Q Address a We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Z4~~~ T Signature Date Printed Name 10'5-& d Address We, the undersigned, support Plan lE for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. M Al Signatu a Date Printed Name Address :-4 We, the undersigned, support Plan 113 for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. <:::,:g&.3 , - . c? Signature Date el e-S4 -F4 cz)6 /5 • Printed Name /D 75.S j A)a ci e Address Mai We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Signature Date C. rO' I GfiYL )Ct J/ Printed Name IS 43 z SW l~a~aw~cr Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. S' ature Date .C~r/ O C~G o~ Printed Name Addres, Oe- We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. nature Date J71e- i~ 4/v Aj / A yLO~ Printed Name /5- V'~- / -~F'. W . /rt A z A rrL A Address We, the undersigned, support Flan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Signature D to r~ Printed Name A,2676& Id 4 )2w e Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. " Si re Date Printed Name Address We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. 9P Signature Date / a',912 Printed Name 1,5-g -i( Address ~-7 We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. /7- S~atfture Date K-e s, si e Pr~'~ e Printed Name 106 srl- Sw VAeve Sf • '1 ;a Address n We, the undersigned, support Plan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. Z"~~fmmfl,) b Signature ate AcktV Printed Name 74~a S-'4- Address We, the undersigned, support flan 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. a. c " / 7~- Signature Date Printed Name ~~~~5/ nk . Address 1 i We, the undersigned, support Puri 1B for the Erickson Heights Subdivision. Upon approval by The Tigard City Council, we agree not to appeal said approval. z5z'~ -J4-10~'a Signature Date GeRN-p 0-j'oI)-rU50)V Printed Name StA) Address n.-Sri... i.~ .4...~,<w..r,..~.~~~.,._.,~.~._..,...,._..~...~,.. ~_y. _ _..lr~..~..--.,.. _,..,,W..,_,,.~. _ P CANTERBURY WOODS APARTMENT 8 1 T E 1/4 CM 5~b►~ 961.9r s 6953'03' W p"~ ' i q r si ei' 6 I / R. sr e9' 9.D { I E•9 ~ { 1 1 TRACT "C" L 222 ~ h V. 45 / 3 I ( 201 f 9.e s y w ea 44 43 1 42 : 41 40 39 38 i i I - l' 7.3157 M4 9 &574 SF a.= 9 &on SF SF ` i /o lw C 4 t I I 7 { { { co { I I &154 SF I I 1 - _ j, S.W. LADY 1A ION DR. I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48 35 48 7.761 5 7,495 SF { I { { 20 4 99 I { 4 7.1t! 3 I' 1917 SF I ® I ~ { i I----------------------------------------- 36 { It 1 1 m 0=4 9 I I { 37 ' 7J~ 9' N 4 ? 49818' 2 i It j < a { { f - I / . 202r--ti {ICI S S , 21 18 I j -I. 7.0475E 1". 7,= SF f,^ T/41390 50 33 { 1 -~--r---_ 1 ISJ' 1 { a 77i . I{ N I L - 7.194 SF 10.719 9 :l f 1 19.69SF •:7!7, SF 1 = MAP 2S-1-40 DA { N I E { I I 51 32 1 e t I ~ - 'h' ~ • I p' i SOO SF IWID SF • I 1 i ,r 23 4 18 350.16' S 6933'03' W e fonts 52 31 So 1 1 ! ? 14,784 5 1P 2P M124 9 _ _ I L - S.W. MOODN I I r _ ..•~.¢.,__='''_n.__ 24 3 10.0.9 9 ! 1 1------ f -t - tzm2 s s 59 53 30 ~ j { { p j ' i ' j = n•8a7 s 58 10.150 5 0 - 1=4 5 F I 15 1% Jl 1 1 yJ f 1 ' 13,M SF -t- 'A1' 25 'NI()! 9.= SF { ® 14!' .0 W 109819 lv< { I I ® It 57 54 c 29 I< f. :J 1 1 ; _ tz63e 9- % 55 1&10. 9 '4 &751 9 Z; ,.I 14,4195 14 -,1 13 1 I 'i.q,p •t!• IIAI-: 405 1= - I 4 \y i \ 27. c 26 3• .i At• i - 55 28 9.5665 &9us >Y MAP. 5-1-11, CB yy.11 i e 11,143 5 I --•.r°- ; , - - 9.723 9 19 3' 1 I ~ I ~ 1 •3 13 1 1 `w.~•', 11.4&4 SF • `f .4 9,762 s 12 1- , • 3 - p { t ; 9A41 9 a~ S. W. KABLE ST..- 1 TRACT 'F- I y { Z i1969s 5 6 _ 7 - 9 10 L347 SF S.W. KASLE-ST. .gyp 1 F^ y { M TRACT " 1a96r SF s 8 8076 - - - 9 + &1550 SF &1509r i 0 - WATER " 9.t» • 99.50 s auo s &173 SF • a • _ 1 a I m"*ty { - QUALITY : z7 1 I - I 4auAUn I~ - - W I esm 5 { ® { 4 j 171 Z { , 976.62' . N 69'52'07' E - R6'VMNCE INFORGAICN AND NOTES HEIGHTS CC" ERICKSON I BSJ• I M`LL PRELIMINARY T 19A= 14 PLmilm DEYELDP s9lcg6c aMts~e4:~ox®ta assoc7aass> txc. CONCEPT L - 4 . j( - 4w - 1tf4a x8 9 i4 T1A 0 FOR . • .1_a.a..- : ~ _.._..._~_--._.~-._.._~_...-_,_._...ui_~_. u... _.~l-...-...-r-~_._11~.... _~_....-.1.~-w~=:._...~.w...._~:1.~__.-].•LL-=1G.,s._. ~.~.1_-u._.4.~ir. W.L...~.. ale`. I:~r [31 1 1 a k ° MAI" ?r DB 'ARBOR HE10HT'S APAR'TMENT' SITE n r~ S. S.W. ROYALTY PARKWAY d . tM.4 tU{ lI hAKUruI-•- _ _ 04 1. )q y I ~ D s w N 1 I _ o i ?J I- I u L J . f q v ;tf? O i = Vol i ryh C7 t z _1 D , f r'~3 i m LLIL dit i, al n[ A[ N 409.46' S 98'07° E 14 1 3 q " 9 -t 14 41 0 ED ge r, 14 (A ki lol - All - - I w r 1 9 0 E 4 J0,3 ' ~a a cm 0 Ok, 59 F4RREST OR. .,a.- • " ~ COD m Ail -1-._.~~._..._..-_.._.-.~.•-.__~~~1._-- ~ d~ ~ - - ° - ' im 1 _ v V liar p n 1R! 1 0 U N (A P U •t> f CD u P ~ l 9t1 to 14 X9 14 r er ro' i i ro' ? q I lq C t[- _AI - W.:-- ~ . We Iwo io. % Sol 14 N ! 1D ! l4`! C ! ! W a ! •lrl _ i i kl N it ® 5 i Jr OOI 14 73, r ! I v ? Ell P 14 - 0) 0 r!° 14 ttl• T9 ~ .JY.L~rLOI.'+w.v_r~swraa. ¢orA ~ _ _ _ l S W. tiAEVE ST.MVAUDw.a r•..~.._ r B 0 40 uxy[irr i;E st'--~•FdACT k •`i-'~.. o fQ y J 9Y I y i O ~ w np 'i = 1: •yv~ p 135• I C~)))[[-~~!r\d ~ry9~ - rl 0 1 OD g .U tp~ I j • • 1k; A, 4 D I v K•. 'g e, W I t- u► I i I 676.26 H 00'02'54' E 1 1 ' Ii xi( I !i A'I r I 4A'' !i iI jy r ' l i _ i l dot I t 0 (i 1 •»i zor 0 I, , I z0". Y . ~ m,. ~ ~°J~) I I ?s ~ I •iy ICI I ! ' i I ~ !g I ~ ; I 's I i ' i I W 4 rrrr ~e® 0 eye i 3 ~ -21 J 17 ( ! CANTERBURY W00IDS APARTMENT SITE 4114 2 750 TRQACC T"C" r s0 u' Ts rn / /L 144 _ 350,18 N 89.53'03' E 49 4$ L 0 24 7,440 SF. a 8473 SF. c 47 36 35 34 33 149M S.F. 92,933 SF, 11.301 SF. 10.078 9F. 10,107 SF, ' - It Co 37 46 480 SF. 7,941 SF. SW. LADY MARSCN CR. IH W 8.v SF. •l j i F i 1< t 1 I 45 38 ~ 1 5 r { I S Y nM i 0.000 SF. 8,012 S.F. 30 _ 1 ® 1 ` j (n I I.~------------.----~~~------- I I I t. C14 d < 8.598. s7 31 32 i : ♦ ` i ( , 9,718 SF. S . r. I w ~0C• low i 9,342 SF.: 51 r I = I /L 242 I o 1 i j 1 IJ s I 7.700 SF. I ,ar 1- ` v 1 i 1} ! I y I I 44 39 i r 's a.0W S.F. ! `t/ ' 1391} I 77 9~ i i I ! ! 7.7500 4F i ! ca y i 9,000 S.F. 29 sw ti* 11 W 11 F" _ 1 I MAP 2S-1-14 DA 43 40 1 i I 8.000 S.F. 0.ooo SF. 53 I 27 26 9.430 SF. 9,502 SF O It n„ I 7.700 S.F. I i _ M I , 28 • '3_ S I 9.932 S.F. I S 350.18' S 89.53'03' W It m i o f :I S 1 I I I lo 1 t,ti /E. t3 Q I i 42 41 I I ~ ______1 ! 1 I j , 4145 S.F. 8.000 S.F. I ' e- L - - t' I i C _ 54 I _ SW. HODDVIEW DR1N 1 t i ( 58 ° 57 ' 5 . a 9,959 sF- 1" 9,n0 IF. - ; I - - r - •v'- [ Co U 1 4 6 9,277 IF. 9•.50 SF. 4. 0 S0. I F a 15 j~ 1 14 1 14 9.2422 S.F. 9,8 S.F. ( I i V i V I r ` ! 23 24 25 i I1 co f f 1 1 ---------•2 Tau I I ! I ~ ' ~ ,y,• 0.787 S.F. ~ 9,240 S.F. R 10.010 SF. 1 r ( `i t fd/i , ¢ >.~~f 1 i ! 6 N 7, Sf i 11,273 S.F. 9,800 S.F. - i E 8.922 S.F. I 9.253 S.F. 0.489 -SF. 9,2+2 i MAP IS-1-11 CB Sy. u I 21. 8 1 \ / ! It 17 ` 9,843 Ss 20 9 11.502 SF. I'A 6 I P -..,•i .i ' 2 ! ylsY ,823 SF. ` 9;059 S.F. 11,040 S.F. I, I 4100 S.F. 9.908 $ S.F. 12 E ...7-.. =C l td \ 1 1 r I :J ~ ` i SJ~ 1 1 t-i ~ ~ tar py \ I I - 4 I i 1 Qj TRACT "A" 4 ' { - - Co ® , WATER 51.412 Sr. .s ny,W. KAESLE ST. 1 F! QUALITY 9 11 1$ c . 0! - 11.033 S.F. z 3 17.471 Sr. 1 O' G 13.318 Sr. 13.870 SF. y 19 1 Oj 10.882 Si. - 3 10.713 SF. § 8617 SF. .ACT "S' 1 . 1 I I ` WATER 1"-°° - i° 1 ! Sail QOAUTY I$ , 5,814 IF. t V!j , e4' rr , , 25' 25 ❑r 1 c~tr h I . I 976.8x'4 N 89'52'01 E i ! , "vn I""! 1'.kYFAENCE IWOMM710N AND N07M DEN= _ - fe4,t '-'Sw . Tun A P . DFPELffiPIi PRiLP I`t L udauo bRLM MOMS. WC. CONCEPT PLAN 2-A 11aN~l RUM TO TRACIMO FM tAii:3T oal - - - - low. L1. ON 7 7 7- 17 r-M-. 1 t 7 ~ , Sri y rl,- ; a ~ 1 a ~k 'E 1 G N T 8 % N T S I T E MAP 2S-1-10 DD ARR®R H E 1 0 N T S APARTMENT SETS fie``°`°\ • ems'+„1 _ _ - sn-82 -w--°`- M r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S. W_ 1 a97 0 ` \ - f ° -~--°~c; 3 - H AVE. j._. c S.W. ROYALTY PARKWAY ~C a f L Cm> r;u -1 F. rm C U ` _kl N U LI.L pa q A l JJ _ e e I 1 fi•, iil t ~ I -1 k' N A j A F - (I 2(n v 4 1 fy n ,la tF 1_ it N .all •sa 509.46' S 98'07' E 1 •N 78 .S9 .Se .69 .t 1 .f>S R N I^ •p N 14 w N sll 1 UI' 4(0 CD q n vo zit i ~/NT ~ u I.. J 19 lw 1 SV °d0 1 r 0 - 5 W. FORRE5T 6R_ cj; All e+f - -11'-- ~ ~ t S 03 S~ 4 E N rR f 14 14 f4 0 )RD' if zzl sll i W W 41 L [ (A L 14 a i ` E ,_i 0.a N fs' 116' I I 1 ls. 6s' sr v I.UY 14 t i 1 i1A a - A INAl15Y] NYIUlSk13d-fBl+, tt1Y31 1W197f; '3ahIM1MO lYtlU1S SI f [J' _ _ r . i0 p --rec------ i ffi N p lur s as a-' Cam"' lit Y JII - .fAl - f 1 W Ila' "°'1 2 i 1 W ~I i q o a ~ ~ ~ (JI W ~ , N F_` I I .W. ~NAEVF T. / all •NII 1 1]0' ~ ~ ~ ff i, IN I~ fpw 9(4 0 w (D _ i 'j 7 J 1 Ct W ? ; tsr ,i } y - 5W 1 ~A `Y- Ig(A IINY 1 § $ 1 14' U ~I $ 14 _ 14 10 :0 1 j i 1 876.26' N 00.02'54' E I 1 Iss _ li ail I ® li ,I / 1 1 I { t I i a i I ar ?s I 10r Q® I; ; I 1 I ~flr 11 I I for ! too :71 MIA (A > I I I I I~ L------------ ___U T----------------- I ! I I •-d i ! i w A , 3'- 40 fx _ 4 ~ ® I~ 77 7 .e CANTER BURY ®ODS APARTMENT SITE t/acoR. I 481.97 S 895503' W i 11 - - ° ? I ` 1r as u as 1 / 100 as ac as ; Mj TRACT "C" T/ 1 20 ' 1t9 I r t$ I 1 i k. 13 T / 201 46 45 b 44 43 ' 42 41 40 39 38 { • ~ h 1 1 I i 19 1 , 9,511 S 7.10 S- X K i I r ; ! I 1,718 S 7454 S ! 0.58 SF - LM S - 4492 S ' &M S - apa7 SF I - I E 1! _ v, ,I ~I' - I I a 47 4174 S J V4 f S.W. LADY MARION DR. I 1 I W i _ 11 I 48 35 -----1-- j} I c 7,TOI S 7.495 S I I r 1 20 19 It ~2 7 f9 SF I- n na m 36 ,51 aptr r• i I I I( I 84 S 1 , i - c IL a 202r---L, 37 r02, tar I 1 -10 Q 1 t 7,I T/L 49 34 . I G i t} v 7155 S i 4987 S = , 1 g' I j J I l 0 7.150 S I I J7 18 I y I S Q I> I 1 itp _ 11C h 7,547 SF j I. I; g I r _-i T/L, 1390 - I f r- so 33 12' 07 ' ----J--~----- VI J 7M4 SF 14029 SF ! t00' I 1 E' i t I 22 17 1 W ! ' { I , itr - IST Ib 7,770 5 r _ ; f I MAP 2S-1-10 DA 96l95F j C7 { I 51 32 u 119' p I I I 810 S topic S I G - I E i I 1 2 14r 23 E 16 - 7,927 Sr Ip h ' ~ 1 I 350.18' S 8953'03' W b -_-_1403 S - I - ~ 52 31 I ® I i N 8 14.794 SF I1• 14124 S - 1 _ L_ / ~1 DR. 242' 14Y 24 ' "i 11 59 -4;- 51' 145' - ILJ u 01 c 53 asvsF- ! I £ 13.607 S y 5E S: -30 C., 21 i a ? Lj 14150 S 10 4 58 I ! 1 7 " 14,979 S 14T I- ; 14S 25 . N C)' 9.932 S k X77 f ^q W: B 10.1015 57 29 R L { i ~~i f i 1aa72 s 56 54 .o'. 9,151 SF t59 Iil~; t~ I t 4, Z ' 1 I ! h / / Mod - 14150 S7• 74 94 7°tt !7 % 14.419 Sr y A , I 1 tar ~ .144' 127• - (,a44995 rrrrr f i f I 27 - 26 7• 176. I S i > { 55 28 9,904 s a 498 rr MAP ' ~S-1-11 C8 i r--- ri ~r~ 1 ~y y 11.147 S i 4723 SF Z; i r IIII 12631 S\ ff I 12- 2 9 A I'm S I - y I t . i 9,37ZSF -S.W. KABLE ST. TRACT 'r r La CT I=," w I 60• ! i 3 to I Dow= ' ♦ f 11,5195 , Fi 11TH ------------1--- - i' S. W. KABLE T. 4' I 7 4 5 - 6 - - 9 - 10 11 nr 2347 SF I, , W:, TRACT "A" 10.997 S 7 8 I- co ! 0! WATER 9AM S 1.163 S - 9,150 SF %150 SF 9.150 S 9,170 S 9,123 S- W $ 1 QUALITY al I Z{ WA41 1 QL 1 auAUTr 9899 ~ ;t/ I ~ < ® 1 UI! ST 109 N' 7T 5 '75' - - 7S 75 77 1tT r i 976.52". N-89'52 - E 1 I i w 163 REFERENCE INFORMATION AND NO7£C ppp1 0 P LI ,7d "1.4 T MA= A PLANNED DEVELOP i CNM:m HAMM-MCUONAGLZ 9S.SOMTESr INC. 2 RIX vla"cals-21"tym THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PLAN 12M M H" i.. l REFER TO 4RIYNC FR U BENSON - mw.. 54 1999 - P1~L Imm 936-741c . . CANTERBURY WOODS APARTMENT SITE rccoa. Syr 981.97' S 8933'DY W 10 11 ^ + _ _ - TRACT - 1os57 sF. 1 Lu 44 42 1 $5 ' 43 c 54 41 40 . 39 38 371 ^y I f I 201 7 8,612 IF. ,169 9 7,318 IF. • 1 i 1 1 7,454 IF. i as74 S.F. 1 • ~ - 0.039 sF „ : $052 SF^ - . AO6tl S.F. ^ - 4068 S.F. { 46 • ~ ~ I co 6.554 IF. 1 I j [ i{ h y,, 1 ~•,1~`_ S.W. tAOY MARION DR. 1 r 47 0 1 < 1 7,161 SF, 7,495 S.F. ' 4 i • a i 1- i g I 21 12. 38 19 20 7,324 S.F. s.F. I r< n , 6,917 , r 9.987 S.F I - 1 I$ I p! V 0 48 17 6,12e sr.r :m' 1 i I' h 7 7,S:A Sf. 7175 SF. j I I i1 1 4 i i> 22 ! 35 1~ I i 7,058 S.F. 7,647 S.F. ;/Rt 139LI , - - gggp f 13 j I C-1 7.Z9~ 16 1 eE' --7.--r_--.. i 1 1 I I 6 A a 1 IN - I S.F. 10.026 5:. ~ 1 f 1111 I I I MAP 25-1-10 DA 23 34 1 ^ 10.689 S.F. 1,730 S.F. i 0 I 1 1 J I N I ,:r fa i 50 15 I a I A 1 I 6.107 S.F. 10.0I0 S.F. { I II O 1 161 I I I 24 33 1 1 IS I a I I 350.18' S 8933'03- W 10,041 IF. Q e Ca. SF. C10 I I ` ! I I I I / 51 14 t co 1 I pFp'•. 16,7845.x. 10.124 IF. _ i -.--._--...L-.-~ vJc"-- S S.W. MOOOVIEW DR - l[' - 1 I 6L _ .3, ;,w _---="r - t I fry to,omsF. F. 3 S.F. i i 12822 S.F. 58 e 4 52 13 a I i , E 1 1 10.150 S.F. 0i; f 11.647 S.F. 10.054 S.F. - W I f8 1 1 i i I I i J I 57 D w. 32 I 1 rr 13.s80 S.F. _ 0 _ 26 Z : 10,976 S.F. j- ® 1 t j r Jr _ 1010-16 S.F. r r 56 f' 53 1`' 12 r % r \ \ 12838 S.F. - ' 10.150 IF. h0. el 1 55 14.419 19 S.F. •j°97 31 _.-.e-,..:•-~-.-_ F: ' 7 J 10 0 27 i I 10.999 S.F. 54 - . 11 x 0767 S.F. _ 9793 S.F. i I MAP 4S-1-11 CB 1 - - I : 1 - 70.074 SF. 9.042 SF 11.485 sr. _ •O1' t i - (J ~ ! ' i i 1 1, - _1 9.94,21 S.F. S.W. KABLE ST. 2$ I ~ 30 1 ' I t r' 1 1 10,437 S.F. I pi I 4441 S.F. - t UJI ' I Q EO' 50• ~ 11,80'9 SF - i -_~_-._J--_ ~ - 5 .6 7 8 - I - 10.987 S.F. 'a - 10,370 S.F. - -tO,BESSF. - 10,880 S.F. S.W. KABLE ST. _ : TRACT I 1" 'Q 101 WATER "A" 10,473 S.F. Z 72253 S.F . 9.3829 QUALITY a ACT '8' d - T WATER ~TV 70.279 S.F. QUAA 6TH - - 0 976.62' N 8952'07- E ca R INF0RWA710N Am N07F3 0°~ Imo' S0' HTS E- i~ LIMINARY _ T E~RIC~%59 A PLANNED DEVELOPMEN Cmm= ..:u HASiRIS-BicMONiGIS ®950CIelTB3, INC. an 191414yd LA) trees. a BttG.47l7 0..7$// /a4u~! `i Y - "a'. (7.:959 PIS 671-y8,t REFfR TO TPACVG F-- LA3U RV-SION ` - r r" __..W -...mot'' ~:~,....~..:~=~..__~~___:~__.._~,_.W._= I w+•...,..,-..,.x-..., CANTERBURY WOODS APARTMENT SITE racer ' 9a1.9r S 89,5xor w t 1.1 _ F c, TRACT "C" 14447 S.F. ti T/L 0 1 /L 100 1 I I 1 1 I / 0 4 812 5 44 ? 43 a 42 1 41 40 39 38 37 ' i .4% 7169 &F.- 7,310 SF.- ~ IF. 7,451 iF. F x574, S.F. = 8,039 SF.= 4052 SF.h - 4065 SF. - 4C8a ik T I I i I 1 1 I It It I 46 1 I 1g~ I i 4151 IF, S.:V. LADY MARICN DR. , - I - - 541 I I I w I I I ~ 47 , 8 I 1 1 ; 0 7.781 SR 7,493 S.F. - 21 M a2' ; 36 I IY 19 i 20 7329 S.F. Q { 6.917S.5. { • ' I i< I 4525 IF.'I &987 SF.. 7CC' 1 ` 1 02. 17 k °IT/L 0 48 _ I 7175 S.F. 'a i I Ip 4 I . 7J50 S.F. _j 22 1 35 1 I} I I ^ 7055 S.F. 7047 SF. I a l T/4 1390 E IZ 4p 1 I I 16 lyj Q I 7,294 S.F. 10.029 S.F. 1 J F 1 I ( 23 34 I w 1 MAP 2S-1-10 DA y ^ to,sa9 S.F. 7,730 S.F. j i I I - N I n•• I 50 15 I 8 a: 1 e; OT 4F. ?0,010 iF. I Z i ; ► 24 a33 ; t LLI 11 Q 479 SF.--_ I N I 350.16' S 89'53,03' W 1.0a1 S.F. 1 n m L 7 1 - --y E 7/ 0 51 j4 -vvr • 1 I F 10.124 S.F. rg'n'r' ta,7545F. - ,NL..[1° - S.W. MOOD VIEW QR7 I I X 04 .c 'IC•,E_ •4. - _ 25 I j 6 9 i J•.r~~ - 10,007 SF. F - 1- - Q-' F". 10,007 50 S.F. 52 1 1 r . 1ze®F 58 10.1 10.0534 S.F. 11.547 S.F. 57 - D 32 I 1 j F I 10,976 S.F. 1 ® 1 : - l r i 7 13.560 S.F. J ! _ W. ID,0366iF. 56 _f Z t I 1 i l Jr 53 z 12 RI 12,836 S.F. - ° - 10.150 S.F. 4 9,532 iF J x 55 F '11.' •.3 1 t 1 14.419 S.F. y 47 I - i M 10 a 10.999 S.F. - 27 747 iF. 1 _ CB '939 S.F. AP IS-1-11 11 ~ i - / - / ~ 4 - b - -f-°~ / 5 9,042 IF. 10.81 Ss 1 jf '\.`+._.,-n.-_.~•!. : - 11.465 S.F. - •.C1• i j I. I - 2 S.W. KALE SL i.. 2$- ! f0,430SF, j qtr I 9.941 S.F. III I q 1 4451 SF. WW z 7 g a,• p9 0 1.t 1 4 g 6 7 - 8 9 TRACT "A" - 29 I'\. t VS.W. KABLE SL E 10,987 S.F. 10,473 S.F. 14370 S.F. - 10.58aiF. z 10.880 S.F. Z 12,253 S.F. 4355 S.F. ¢ i f- IDs: t OI $ j QWATE UALITY i WATER ' - - -.i -p~ ® - 3 10179 S.F. o~3.610 SF. ♦ 1, L tSl - i 976.62' . N 693207_ £ : a~E 1 4a Ira REFEW= INFOAYAnON AND NOTES - N' ERICKSON HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY ~s KN59 A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HAMM-31cUaruc ocs M, Ixc. -CONCEPT PLAN m poet u z~J CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-684.7297 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: February 4, 1999 SUBJECT: Murdock Street Extension Murdock Street from 103`d Avenue to just west of 104th Avenue is currently unimproved. However, there is an existing 45-foot wide right-of-way in the unimproved section, and the expectation is that the connection will be made sometime in the future. Improvement of that section of street would enhance connectivity in that area by providing a direct connection between 109`h Avenue and 96`h Avenue. The improvements would construct the street to local street standards with a 32-foot wide paved area, sidewalks on both sides, installation of storm drainage, new water line and sanitary sewer. We do need to acquire a 5-foot strip of land from the Water Department to provide the full 50-foot right-of-way required for local residential streets. Attached is a drawing that shows the location of the proposed improvements. The rough estimates for design and construction of the desired improvements are as follows: Street Improvements $ 70,000 Storm Drainage $ 20,000 Land Acquisition $ 10,000 Water Line & Appurtenances $ 30,000 Sanitary Sewer $ 85,000 Contingencies and Administration $ 35,000 Grand Total: $250,000 • The project could be added to the Capital Improvement Program for implementation. However, our projections are that the amount typically available each year through the State Gas Tax ($300,000) would be cut in half for FY 1999-2000. The amount available is primarily used for preventative and corrective maintenance on our existing streets. The outlook for use of these funds to construct the Murdock Street improvements is bleak unless a significant gas tax increase is passed this calendar year. The amount that we aztually need from the gas tax funding for the street improvements (including storm drainage) is in the $110,0004120,000 range. The water line improvements can be funded through the Water Fund, and the Sanitary Sewer can be funded through the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. The sanitary sewer estimate above is for installation of a dry line along Murdock Street and 104`h Avenue to serve the residents in that area. Extension of the sewer line to connect to the nearest public sewer is much too far, unless we can establish a large sanitary sewer reimbursement district that covers the entire length of the sewer line extension. Budgeting for the project in any one fiscal year would greatly reduce the amount available for pavement overlays, slurry seals, and speed humps. If the Murdock Street extension does become a high priority, I recommend that we reserve $40,000 each year from the State Gas Tax funds with the intention of constructing the extension during the third year. A significant gas tax increase would allow us to initiate the project sooner than that. On a matter related to the development of the Erickson property, we have been informed that there is a drainage problem on Hoodview Street in the vicinity of its intersection with Kable Street. There is a high incidence of subsurface water seeping out of the hillside at various locations throughout that entire area. We will be examining the drainage problem on Hoodview to determine if there is anything we can do to solve the problem. I will report our findings after we have had a chance to review the problem and potential remedies, if any. Attachment c: Vannie Nguyen Brian R,ager Mike Mills Murdock Street Extension Page 2 of 2 Murdock Street Extension Y J i~ L . dr (R ,r r•'Y w R. Proposed Murdock Street Extension CITY ®F TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503.639-4171 Fax: 503.684-7297 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: February 5, 1999 SUBJECT: Letter from Todd R. Sheaffer Regarding 69th Avenue LID I am submitting this memorandum to refute a statement that Todd R. Sheaffer made in his attached letter to Vannie T. Nguyen. He stated that I had told him the City Council made the decision to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69`h Avenue to 68th Avenue during the Executive Session on December 15, 1998. I did not tell Mr. Sheaffer any such thing. He had called me and left a message asking how the Beveland extension happened to be included in the Preliminary Engineering Report. I did contact Jim Coleman of the City Attorney's Office for advice before I returned Mr. Sheaffer's call to verify just what I could discuss about Executive Session proceedings. What I did say to Mr. Sheaffer was that the extension of the LID boundary to Hampton Street was approved during the open meeting on December 8, 1998. In addition, I told him that the Council guidance during that meeting was that we should seriously pursue the extension of Beveland Street from 69th to 68th as part of the preparation of the Preliminary Engineering Report and include it in the LID if at all possible. Attached is Page 2 of the minutes reflecting that guidance. During the meeting on December 15, 1998 under the Consent Agenda, Councilor Moore asked if we had included the possible extension of Beveland Street in the scope of work under the Consultant Contract with De Haas and Associates. I stated that the engineering study for possibly including that segment in the LID was included in the contract. Council approved the Contract with De Haas in the consent agenda during that meeting. Attached is Page 5 of the Council minutes for the Meeting of December 15, 1998 (see Item 3.2b). I told Mr. Sheaffer that I could not discuss anything that occurred during Executive Sessions without full Council approval, and that Council does not make decisions during Executive Sessions. My responsibility in the preparation of the Preliminary Engineering Report is to ensure that all relevant elements are explored and that the Report recommends an LID boundary and project that reflects the City's needs and requirements, and not just what is beneficial to any one property owner. The engineering analysis did show that the Beveland extension could be included without adversely impacting construction of 69`h Avenue and is therefore included in the Preliminary Engineering Report recommendations. The points that Mr. Sheaffer make in his letter can best be addressed during the future LID proceedings beginning with the presentation of the Preliminary Engineering Report on February Oh and continuing with the Public Hearing currently scheduled for the Council meeting on February 23, 1999. The Preliminary Engineering Report that we submitted reflects a boundary that meets the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan, provides connectivity and better circulation in that area of the Triangle, and is in the best interest of the City. Please note that Council can make modifications to the Scope of Improvement or the LID boundary after the public hearing is conducted and prior to adoption of an ordinance forming the district. A new Resolution of Intent is necessary only if the changes increase the assessments. A new Resolution is not required when the changes reduce the assessments, as would be the case if the Beveland Extension were deleted from the LID. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at Ext. 378. Attachments c: Vannie Nguyen Memorandum Regarding Letter from Todd Sheaffer Page 2 of 2 M • rmb-b5-1999 07:43 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.01/03 SPECHT SPECHT PROPER1 ES SPECHT DF.VLLOPMENT 15100 S.W. Milliken Way • Uuveaun, OR 97006 503/646-2702 rax 50.3/626.8903 February 5, 1999 Ms. Vannie T. Nguyen, P.E. Via: Facsimile 684-7297 Engineering Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 69th Avenue LED Dear Ms. Nguyen: I am writing to you in response to our phone conversation on Wednesday. January 27th regarding the 69th Avenue LID (the "LID"). As we discussed, Specht Development, Inc. ("Specht") strongly disagrees with the City's decision to include the extension of Beveland from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue (the "Extension'. We expressed our position on this matter to City Council on October 13, 1998 at the City Council's Business Meeting, and again to taus Duenas, City Engineer, and Marlin De Haas, De Haas and Associates (the engineer hired by the City to prepare the Preliminary Enginecring Report), at the LID Neighborhood Meeting on January 14, 1999. It is important that you be aware that we thought the Extension issue had been resolved at the October 13th City Council Business Meeting. At that meeting, the Extension was .two to be included in the scope of the Preliminary Engineering Report ("Report''). According to Mr. Duenas, the City Council made the decision to include the Extension within the LID during Executive Session, which was not open to the public, on December 15, 1998. Specht was not made aware of the City's consideration of this matter nor their intention to include the Extension in the Report until informed by Mr. Dumas at the Neighborhood Meeting on January 14th, and it is very disappointing to us that this substantial change was not conveyed to our firm earlier. We continue to strongly believe that the Extension should not be included within this LID. The following is a summary of the reasons for our position which 1 have already discussed with you, Mr Duenas, and Mr De Haas: 1. The Extension was not part of the LID improvements proposed in the Petition to create the CID ~H LID that was submitted to the City. a 2. We do not believe that the Extension benefits any of the potential LID participants, except for those whose land must be acquired (at a substantial cost) in order to construct the W~ Extension. a C.%Todd prnj@m%%IrH rtpjleb - ToddlTiprd rimlteif 0 ru.doe ~ 2 v • rtti-b5-1 J UY:4.S 5F't:.(;HI PKU---K I1F-5 ~~a b[G ki~bs H. 02/03 Ms. Nguyen, City of Tigard RE: 69th /Avenue LID Date: February 3, 1999 Page 2 3. According to the Report prepared by Mr. De Hass, the estimated cost for acquiring the Extension ROW is $330,000. Furthermore, if one assumes that the improvements to the 220 foot Extension cost $350 per linear foot, the total Extension cost would be $407,000, or 51,850 per linear foot. The Report estimates the total cost for the LLD to be $1,225,005. The -Intimated total cost for the LID, prior to the addition of the estimated Extension cost, is $821,005. Therefore, acquiring and improving the Extension ROW accounts for an increase in the estimated total LID costs of more than An. This increase is obscene. 4. At the City Council Business Meeting on October 13th, Greg Specht, Specht Development, Inc., stated that he was willing to refund the City the cost for preparation of the Report in the event that the City Council chose to commission the Report as contemplated, and the LID was not thereafter supported by Specht's properties. At that time, Mr. Specht was acting in good faith, believing that the scope of the LdD had been agreed upon. Given this financial commitment, the City had an obli ag tion to notify and discuss with Specht that it was considering modifying the scope of the Report. No such notification was given to Specht until the Neighborhood Meeting on January 14th. 5. An argument can be made that Specht's Conditions of Approval (SDR 98-12 PC) do not include any requirement for Specht to improve this section of Beveland Street (68th to 69th Avenue). It seems inappropriate for the City to now include such extremely costly Extension costs within the LID that was proposed for the mutual benefit of the City and the LID property owners. 6. In the event that the City believes that the Extension benefits the City, the City or the immediately affected property owners, excluding Specht, should pay the cost of the Extension. Hypothetically speaking, if Bevoland Street was planned to extend several additional blocks, and such ROW would need to be acquired for a fee, we believe that it would be quite clear to all parties that it was unfair to burden the LTD participants with the cost of acquiring the ROW necessary for extending a road for the benefit of the City as a whole. Therefore, we maintain that it is unfair to require the potential participants of this LID to pay for the Extension acquisition and construction costs, and that the City should bear such costs, not the LTD participants. Given the above, we strongly urge the City to remove the addition of the Beveland Street Extension from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue from the LH) scope. The LID participants should not shoulder the exorbitant costs of such improvements in order to benefit the City as a whole and, more singularly, those j property owners who would benefit by payments for the acquisition of their ROW, funded by other LID i participants. This is especially true when such property owners would otherwise be required to dedicate i to the City, without monetary compensation, the Beveland Street ROW in the future (just as Specht was conditioned in its SDR approval) as part of the City-mandated conditions of approval for any future development. 7 Specht has acted in good faith. We have agreed in principal to the other improvements and the methods of cost allocation proposed by Mr. De Haas. We voluntarily committed to refund the City for the cost of the Preliminary Engineering Report under "normal" circumstances. This proposed Extension is far from .%T.M Pmje =%I 9r ryoiau • Todd~T~ud ai~n{Id CO Rn.duc ttti-YJJ-i 777 U 44 Jrr-k- 1 I r murr-m 1 1 CJ JYJJ Ot0 07YJJ r'. MD/ YJ.*4 • Ms. Nguycn, City of Tigard RE: 69th Avenue LID Bate: Febmaq 5, 1999 Page 3 normal. Specht stated its clear objections regarding the Extension to the City Council at the Business Meeting on October 13th. This is too valuable of a project for the City to risk over the relatively insignificant, yet excessively costly extension of Reveland Street. Ms. Nguyen. we would be pleased to meet with you to resolve these matters. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. i~ ve. A ~ Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President c: Mayor Jim Nicoli, City of Tigard (fax: 684-3636) Councilor Paul Hunt, City of Tigard (fax: 620-8759) Councilor Brian Moore, City of Tigard, (fax: 603-0461) CouncilorJoyce Patton, City of Tigard, (fax: 590-0371) Councilor Tien Scheckla, City of Tigard, (fax 639-5697) Bill Monahan, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Tim Hendryx, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) C3us Duelnas, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Marlin De Haas, De Haas & Assoc., inc. (fax: 6824018) Jim Corliss, Landmark Ford (fax: 598-8368) Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy & Associates (fax: 968-1674) Steve Pfeiffer, Stoel hives (fax, 220-2480) Greg Specht %T*dd hWscM199Y Projeeu. TuidlTi~wd triw~{.1CCrtRS k. __01 milli Councilor Rohlf asked if they had not already determined that a vote of the people would be only an advisory vote. Mayor Nicoli said that it was different for a charter amendment. Councilor Rohlf asked what would happen if this measure passed and was in conflict with other provisions in the Charter. Mr. Coleman said that he was not prepared at this time to address that question but he would respond later to the Councilor. > Update on the SW 69`h Avenue LID Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reviewed why he had originally not recommended extending the boundaries of this LID beyond those suggested by Specht Development. He explained that he changed his mind based upon the arguments in Tim Roth's letter and the fact that Mr. Roth, a major property owner in the section down to Hampton, has indicated his support of the extension and his interest in developing his properties soon. He reported that he expanded the scope of work to include design of these improvements down to Hampton, mentioning that they were in the selection process now for the consultant. Councilor Hunt asked what Specht's position was. Mr. Duenas stated that he has not checked with Specht. He commented that Specht might not want the extension because the original proposal was favorable to them or they may want it because it included more people and spread the cost more. He mentioned the Council direction not to include the Beveland extension to SW 68". Councilor Scheckla noted the concern in Mr. Roth's letter that part of that area might not develop for 10 to 20 years. Mr. Duenas agreed that that was possible, as Mr. Morton did not appear interested in doing anything. He commented that he did not want to extend the boundary down Beveland to SW 72"d because that was getting out of the area but going down to Hampton did make sense. He said that the other option was to stay with the original boundaries, let Roth do his half-street improvements for his development, and leave Morton's section until he developed it - an unknown length of time. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at changing the boundaries without talking to Specht when the Council essentially approved those boundaries at the meeting. Mr. Duenas explained that the Council direction had been to examine what the logical boundaries would be for the LID and to return with a recommendation. Councilor Moore mentioned the issue of the house on Beveland between SW 68`h and 69 h that set in the right-of-way. He suggested asking the owner about selling the property. Mr. Duenas pointed out that including that house would lengthen the process and add $200,000 to the project. He said that staff could explore the property owner's intentions. The Council agreed by consensus that the boundary should be extended to Hampton Street. > Council Calendar Mr. Monahan noted that the December 15 meeting was a combination workshop/business meeting, leaving no items for the December 22 meeting. The Council agreed to cancel the ` December 22 meeting. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the January 12 meeting was the ceremonial meeting to swear in the elected officials and to present the State of the City report. Ms. Wheatley suggested asking Judge O'Brien to swear in the officials. Mr. Monahan reminded the Council of the goal-setting session on Monday, December 14. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 - PAGE 2 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Councilors Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Rohlf, Scheckla and Rohlf were present. 1.4 Council Communications Councilor Scheckla announced a Housing Committee meeting on December 22 at I 1 a.m. at City Hall. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council decided to re-appoint two of the Planning Commissioners currently serving and to appoint two new members to fill the four vacancies Councilor Scheckla commented that all the people he and the Mayor interviewed had excellent qualifications, which made their decision a difficult one. Councilor Moore asked if Item 3.2.b included looking at the possibilities for including the portion ofBeveland between SW 680i and SW 690' in the LID. Gus Duenas, City Engineer, said that staff included that in the scope of work. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Rohlf, Scheckla and Rohlf voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of: October 27,1998 3.2 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Contract for Repair/Maintenance of Police Department Roof Project b. Award Contract for the 69 b Avenue Local Improvement District 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 7; Resolution No. 98-69 3.4 Approve Appointments to the Planning Commission; Resolution No. 98-70 Mr. Monahan mentioned that at the Council goal setting session, the Council discussed not acting on Item 7 tonight. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 5