The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/12/2000 Dr~iii o-1- CITY TIGARD) OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1 SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 COUNCIL MEETING WILL TELEVISED i.XadmNokccpkt1.doc 13125 SAN Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 6:30 PM CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - 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 - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation Issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Preview Update on the Long-term Water Supply (See Agenda Item No. 10) 7:00. 7:30 PM > RECEPTION - Mayor James ()im) E. Griffith 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE: MAYOR JAMES E. "JIM" GRIFFITH a. Staff Introduction: City Manager Monahan b. Council Remarks C. Administer Oath of Office: City Attorney Ramis d. Mayor Griffith Comments 7:50 PM 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:55 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 11, 18, 25 and August 8, 2000 COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 2 WW= 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve a Training Request for Detective Gary Wayt to Attend the Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association Training Conference 4.4 Adopt a New Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and the Tigard Police Officers Association (TPOA) - Resolution No. 00 - 'a~:/ 4.5 Approve a Budget Amendment #2 to the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Adopted Budget to Allow Payment of the Negotiated Salary Settlement with Tigard Police Officers Association - Resolution No. 00 - 5__ 4.6 Denying a Requested Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2000-00001) to Allow Outdoor Weddings and Bed and Breakfast Uses in Historic Overlay Zones - Resolution No. 00 - 5(,o 4.7 Local Contract Review Board a. Reject All Bid Proposals for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 8:00 PM 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, DEACTIVATING THE TASK FORCE, AND COMMENDING THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS FOR A JOB WELL DONE a. Staff Report: Engineering Department b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - 8:05 PM 6. BRIEFING ON STAFF PLANS FOR FOLLOW-UP TO THE OPINION POLL RESULTS a. Staff Report: All Departments i 8:20 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-) UDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. { 2000-02PC - TRI-COUNTY CENTER ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for a two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned # Development. COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 • PAGE 3 OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant flied an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major 11-IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"d; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. G ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning a district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000. PAGE 4 REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.77S, 18.810, 18.810.030. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - 9:20 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING FOR RENAMING OF SW 129TH AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW-WEST SUBDIVISION a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Engineering Department C. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Reson No. 00 - 9:30 PM 9. UPDATE: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion C. Direction to Staff: Advise whether staff should continue to work on the three water options, until such time as sufficient data is available to make a decision by Tigard and its integrated Water Board partners. 9:40 PM 10. SURVEY AND DISCUSSION OF HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments C. Council Consideration: Direct on whether the notification and public hearing process should be started to consider whether the Development Code should be amended to consider an "educational exemption" or no limit to clients for a piano instruction. a i COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 • PAGE 5 ~4' 10:10 PM 1 1. CONSIDER CITY-COUNTY GOAL 5 P1 A.NNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT a. Staff Report: Community Deve _)pment Department b. Council Discussion, Questions, -omments c. Council Consideration: Motlo stating whether the City should enter into an agreement with Washington Colanty to partner, along with the other County jurisdictions, on the developmt of a Goal 5 stream protection program. 10:20 PM 12. CONSIDER CITY-METRO FANNO '"REEK PROPERTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR C11'Y MANAGEMENT OF A METRO-PURCHASED GREENSPACE PROPERTY (ELEV N ACRES - ALONG FANNO CREEK BETWEEN HALL BOULEVARD Air) BONITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS THE BROWN PROPERTY) a. Staff Report: Comr.,,unity Development Department b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments C. Council Consideration: Motion stating whether Council wishes to enter into the agreement, and if so, authorizing the Council-_r ide den` to sign the agreement. "Y1f1 10:30 PM 13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10:40 PM 14. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10:50 PM 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, rYempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. { { + 11:00 PM i 16. ADJOURNMENT { { 1:1ADM\CATHY\CCA\000912.DOC { 1 f COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 200 , PAGE 6 Agenda Item No Meeting of Q • Z6 DO TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 a STUDY SESSION Council President Moore called the Study Session to order at 6:35 p.m. Mayor-select Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla were present. > EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. > Preview Update on the Long-term Water Supply (See Agenda Item No. 9) Public Works Director Wegner gave a brief overview on current status on securing a long-term water supply for the Tigard Water Service area. (Staff report on file with the Council meeting packet, Agenda Item No. 9.) Staff is continuing to work on three alternatives: I. The Portland wholesale contract. 2. The Clackamas (South Fork) River Water Supply 3. The Joint Water Commission (Trask River/Hagg Lake Water Supply) Mr. Wegner advised another Council update on long-term water supply is scheduled for the workshop meeting of October 17, 2000. With regard to the Willamette River option, the City of Tigard has not been involved with any negotiations or work planned for using the Willamette River. The City of Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water District are conducting this work. The City of Tigard does not have a contract to buy Willamette River Water. In response to a Council request for clarification, Mr. Wegner advisf;d that the City of Tigard does blend water; that is, water from the various purchased sources (Portland, Lake Oswego, Joint Water Commission, and Tualatin Valley Water District) are blended by depositing into the reservoirs. Mr. Wegner explained this is a common practice for those cities that do not have a single-source water supply. In addition, he noted that the Citv of Portland also blends water during the summer months with 80% of the water from Bull Run and 20% from its well fields. Administrative Items and Agenda Review Tri-County Appeal Hearing City Manager Monahan noted that staff received a request from the legal counsel of the Tri-County project for a set over of the appeal public hearing to September 26, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 1 2000. With the continuance of the hearing to September 26, 2000, it is likely that the final order would be scheduled for Council action on October 10, 2000. Councilor Scheckla advised that he had made a site visit to the Tri-County. In addition he requested advice on whether or not he would be able to vote on this matter on October 10, 2000, since he was going to be absent from the September 26, meeting. City Attorney Ramis advised Councilor Scheckla that it would be appropriate for him to vote on the final order on October 10 provided he reviewed the record from the September 26 meeting. TPOA Contract City Manager Monahan referred to the Tigard Police Officers Association contract that is on the Consent Agenda (Item No. 4.4). Both parties have agreed to delete "Addendum I"; therefore, if the City Council approves the contract, "Addendum I" will be removed. Proclamations Mayor-select Griffith advised that he has received requests to declare proclamations. After brief discussion, Council consensus was for Mr. Griffith to use his own judgment as to which proclamations he would proclaim for the City of Tigard. However, should Mr. Griffith want advice of the Council in a particular instance, the Council would be glad to assist. Conflict of Interest Waiver Reguest City Manager Monahan reported on a request received from Mamie Allen of the Preston Gates & Ellis Law firm. After discussion, the Council directed the City Manager to advise Ms. Allen that the City is willing to waive the conflict for representation in matters in any proceedings at the City level. The waiver does not extend to representation by this firm in any action at the Circuit Court level or with any other appellate proceedings. The Council also noted it would consider requests from the firm to represent VoiceStream with the City, however, such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. At 6:55 P.M. Council recessed and attended a reception to Welcome Mayor-select Jim Griffith. > RECEPTION - Mayor James (Jim) E. Griffith The business meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 2 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor-select Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla were present. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications: Councilor Scheckla reported that the Community Development Block Grant Board would be meeting on September 13, 7 p.m., at King City. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for No; Benda Items: None. 2. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE: MAYOR JAMES E. "JIM" GRIFFITH a. Staff Introduction: City Manager Monahan introduced this item. He gave a brief summary of the appointment process for the interim Mayor position and the Council's selection of Jim Griffith to fill the Mayor's position until an election can be held in March 2001. b. Administer Oath of Office: City Attorney Tim Ramis administered the Oath of Office. C. Mayor Griffith Comments: Mayor Griffith commended the City Council noting that they had worked through difficult times during the illness and passing of Mayor Nicoli. The Mayor also spoke highly of the professionalism of the City Manager. and City staff. Mayor Griffith reflected that Mayor Jim Nicoli had "set the bar high" with his high energy and the programs he initiated for the City of Tigard. The Mayor said that he wants to "keep things moving." Tigard, advised Mayor Griffith, is now a destination community where people want to live. Along with the good, there are problems, including traffic and maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods. Mayor Griffith noted there are a number of positive activities that are being done by the City of Tigard. He said he would like an aggressive public relations effort where the City takes the time to let people know the good things that are happening. He concluded by saying that he recognized the value of volunteers and urged people to come forward and volunteer their services. d. Councilor Hunt noted that the community and the City Council should extend to Council President Moore their thanks for a good job during his time as acting Mayor. Councilor Hunt noted that the Council was divided in their viewpoints and opinions on several issues over the last few months and complimented Council President Moore for the manner in which he responded. In addition, Councilor Hunt noted that Council President Moore took time away from vacation, driving back and forth from the beach, in order to be available for Council meetings during the selection process for the Interim Mayor. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 3 Council President Moore thanked Councilor Hunt for his comments, saying that it meant a lot to him. The Council recessed for a break at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) Two visitors, Nancy Malik and Jeanne Holt advised they were present to comment on Agenda Item No. 10, in support of Sherrene Walker. Mayor Griffith requested that they speak during that agenda item. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Monahan noted the change to Item No. 4.4, the TPOA agreement, whereby "Addendum I" shall be deleted. In addition, City Manager Monahan referred to a letter from Cary Holzworth in reference to Item No. 4.5; this letter adds further detail and clarifies an issue raised by Mr. Dan Quello. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 11, 18, 25 and August 8, 2000 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve a Training Request for Detective Gary Wayt to Attend the Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association Training Conference 4.4 Adopt a New Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and Tigard Police Officers Association (TPOA) - Resolution No. 00 -54 4.5 Approve Budget Amendment #2 to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Adopted Budget to Allow Payment of the Negotiated Salary Settlement with Tigard Police Officers Association - Resolution No. 00 -55 4.6 Denying a Requested Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2000-00001) to Allow Outdoor Weddings and Bed and Breakfast Uses in Historic Overlay Zones - Resolution No. 00 - 56 4.7 Local Contract Review Board a. Reject All Bid Proposals for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, DEACTIVATING THE TASK FORCE, AND COMMENDING THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS FOR A JOB WELL DONE a. Staff Report: Council President Brian Moore reviewed this agenda item and thanked the members of the Task Force for their hard work. Task Force members Mark CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 4 Padgett and Beverly Froude were present and the meeting. Ms. Froude thanked the City for allowing her to be involved. Mr. Padgett thanked the staff for their work and noted that the chairman of the Committee, Mr. Steve Clark, did an outstanding job. b. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore to adopt Resolution No. 00-57. The City Recorder read the following: RESOLUTION NO. 00-57. A RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, TO DEACTIVATE THE TASK FORCE, AND TO COMMEND THE TASK FORCE FOR A JOB WELL DONE. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 6. BRIEFING ON STAFF PLANS FOR FOLLOW-UP TO THE OPINION POLL RESULTS a. Staff Report: Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton introduced this agenda item. In August, Council received the results of the latest opinion polls. These polls were conducted to assist with the update effort of the City's vision, Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Several staff members highlighted areas of the opinion poll results: ■ Library Director Margaret Barnes noted the poll results clearly reflected the popularity of the Library as a department of the City. As a result of the poll, expanding hours and electronic services are under consideration. Police Chief Ron Goodpaster noted issues of speeding, especially near the high school and on Bull Mountain. Increased traffic enforcement efforts were implemented as a result. Chief Goodpaster noted that some surveys were received that advised of problems; however, no location was given. ■ Public Works Director Ed Wegner noted that the surveys supported more trail systems; 8 more miles of pedestrian trails were developed in recent months. He also noted problems with illegal camping in parks were identified; his staff has been working with the Police Department to address this problem. Community Development Director Hendryx advised that transit services were of concern. Of those who responded to the opinion poll, 71% said they do not use the bus system because it is not conveniently located to their place of residence or because the scheduling is not flexible enough. In addition, a need for internal CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 5 bus routes was identified especially to Washington Square, the Library and City Hall. Most of those who responded supported commuter rail. Mr. Hendryx advised that he would be meeting with Tri-Met officials in October to discuss a potential funding source for a "Welfare to Work" program. ■ Development Review Engineer Brian Rager noted the Engineering Department also received comments about concerns with speeding traffic. He referred to traffic calming measures, including speed humps and other alternatives to encourage traffic to slow down. He noted that speed humps are not always appropriate and reviewed criteria that must be considered. Mr. Rager noted the opinion poll results indicated that there is a need for more sidewalks and street lights; however, he advised that funding for these projects is not available for more than a few projects. ■ Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton advised that there will be additional follow-up reporting the results of the Opinion Poll through an article in the October Cityscape.. In October, the citizen-based Vision Task Force will use the opinion poll results to guide their update to the vision goals and directions. By January 2001, the City Council will receive an updated vision document that will outline the action plan for the next few years. ■ In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Community Development Director noted anonymous complaints can be received and acted upon by the City with regard to Code Enforcement issues; however, it is preferred to obtain the identity of the complainant. City Attorney Tim Ramis advised that the City can attempt to honor a request for confidentiality, but due to laws that require disclosure in many circumstances, this information cannot always be protected. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC - TRI-COUNTY CENTER Attorney Mark Whitlow asked that this agenda item be continued to September 26, 2000, to allow the applicant to replace the lead consultant and tow continue to work with staff to resolve issues. i i a In response to an inquiry from Council Scheckla, who will not be present at the September 26, 2000, City Council meeting, Mr. Whitlow advised that he had no objection to Councilor Scheckla's participation in a decision on this matter at a later date. Mr. Whitlow noted that the applicant would toll the 120-day period until October 10, 2000. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to continue the Tri-County appeal hearing to September 26, 2000. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 6 ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72"' Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hennoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"d; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S 101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 7 8. PUBLIC HEARING FOR RENAMING OF SW 129TH AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW "TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW-WEST SUBDIVISION Mayor Griffith advised of a conflict of interest on this agenda item, noting that he was seated on the Planning Commission when the matter was before that body. He left the meeting. a. Open Public Hearing: Council President Moore opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report: Development Review Engineer Brian Rager gave the Staff Report. The recent upgrading of a minor collector roadway has necessitated the renaming of two existing roadway segments. C. Public Testimony: No one signed up to testify. d. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Rager noted that staff recommended that the Council approve the proposed ordinance, which would rename the street segments in question to "SW Greenfield Drive." e. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments: None. f. Close Public Hearing: Council President Moore closed the public hearing. g. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton to adopt Ordinance No. 00-27. The City Recorder read the following: ORDINANCE NO. 00-27. AN ORDINANCE RENAMING SW 129TH AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW - WEST SUBDIVISION The ordinance was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present; Councilors j Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." (Mayor Griffith was not present having declared a conflict of interest.) ' 9. UPDATE: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY i Public Works Director Wegner reviewed the alternatives under consideration for a long- terns water supply (see notes from the Study Session portion of these minutes). In addition to the general information also presented during the Study Session, Mr. Wegner responded to a question from Councilor Patton that water rates had increased by CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 8 NXEM 3 percent this summer. The consultant had recommended a 10 percent increase, but due to potential voter approval of an initiated ballot measure to be considered November 7, 2000, advice from legal counsel was followed and the increase was limited to 3 percent. Regardless of which option is selected, rates will need to be increased. In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, Mr. Wegner advised that a "long-term" contract meant at least 25 years with the City of Portland. With the Clackamas River or the Joint Water Commission option, the City of Tigard would be looking to obtain a partnership (ownership) in either of these two systems. Mr. Wegner said that the City is looking for both a primary and backup water supply sources. For each of the three options, there will be a withdrawal clause. Mr. Wegner reiterated (see Study Session notes) that the City of Tigard, since the voters approved the Charter amendment saying that the City of Tigard cannot use Willamette River water unless the voters approve, has not participated in developing that source nor have there been any contracts or plans to buy water from the Willamette River. In response to a question from Councilor Scheekla, Mr. Wegner and Mr. Ramis explained the City of Wilsonville's situation. The City of Wilsonville has practiced a couple of methods of water conservation for the last two years. In addition, because rapid growth would jeopardize water supply a "queuing" program, was devised whereby new developments would wait their turn before approvals were granted to assure a water supply would be available. 10. SURVEY AND DISCUSSION OF HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS a. Staff Report: Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff gave the staff report. The issue before Council was "Should the Community Development Code be changed to allow an "educational exemption" or no limit to clients for piano instruction? Mr. Bewersdorff referred to a request brought forward by Ms. Sherrene Walker concerning restrictions on home occupations that would affect her piano instruction business. It was clarified that Ms. Walker lives outside the Tigard City limits in the Urban Services Area. The City of Tigard provides planning and development services to that area and Washington County has adopted Tigard Community Development Code (Title) for application to this area. However, any changes to the Tigard Code would also have to be approved by Washington County. The County Board of Commissioners must initiate changes to the Washington County Code. Washington County staff advised that they believed the Commissioners would be disinclined to assign this to the staff work program for consideration at this time. There was discussion noting that if property within the Urban Services were annexed, then the City of Tigard ordinance would apply. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 9 Mai Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the timeline for consideration of an amendment to the Community Development Code. A 45-day notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is required. Two hearings are required, one by the Planning Commission and one by the City Council. Senior Current Planner Dick Bewersdorff reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the regulations and the fees. The City of Tigard fees were established to cover the cost of reviewing an application after study in 1996. Staff suggested that if the Council decides to make changes that they are limited because of traffic concerns and equity with other types of instruction. Mr. Bewersdorff indicated that City staff receives complaints from neighbors concerning home occupation activity. He noted the need to protect single-family residents. City Attorney Ramis advised that the Council has wide discretion in determining whether it would like to amend the Code to allow this type of activity within the City of Tigard. He advised there are a lot of issues, including traffic impacts, that need to be evaluated. Councilor Patton advised that she would like to see the Council review the home occupation regulations contained in the Community Development Code. She noted the need to retain neighborhood livability; however she noted the community value of providing instruction such as musical lessons to children. She would like to have this matter be reviewed noting that, perhaps, approvals could be granted on a case- by-case basis. In addition, she noted later in the meeting, that the "bed and breakfast" use as recently reviewed during a Council public hearing could also be incorporated in this review of home occupation regulations. Sherrene Walker, Nancy Malik, and Jeannie Holt presented arguments to allow educational instruction, such as piano instruction. Ms. Walker and Ms. Holt provided a written copy of their comments, which have been entered into the Council record. Several other written documents supporting Ms. Walker are on file with the Council record. Ms. Walker added that, while she did not write this in her letter, she would like to see the City of Tigard proceed with a review and amendment to the Development Code to allow educational instruction even if she, as a resident of the Urban Services Area, would not benefit. Councilor Patton urged people, as they worked through this issue, not to assume the City or the City Council has ulterior motives with regard to the regulations or fees charged. She advised that fees were assigned after a study of what it would take to recover costs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 10 Councilor Moore advised that a more appropriate time to give public testimony would be elsewhere in the process. There will be opportunities for public testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Council and staff agreed that the Code Enforcement activity with regard to Ms. Walker's situation would not proceed until after the review and consideration of a potential code amendment was completed. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to direct staff to go forward with an analysis of what is necessary to review the Home Occupation section of the Code, including the establishment of a Committee to assist with this review. In addition, the City will stay the proceedings with regard to the Code Enforcement measures for Ms. Walker's piano instruction business. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. The meeting recessed at 10:02 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. 11. CONSIDER CITY-COUNTY GOAL 5 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave the staff report. The issue before the Council was "Should the City Enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. Councilor Scheckla registered concerns about developing regulations that could be applied to all communities. b. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt to authorize the City to enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with the other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 12. CONSIDER CITY-METRO FANNO CREEK PROPERTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CITY MANAGEMENT OF A METRO-PURCHASED GREENSPACE PROPERTY (ELEVEN ACRES - ALONG FANNO CREEK BETWEEN HALL BOULEVARD AND BONITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS THE BROWN PROPERTY) a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave the staff report. The issue before the Council was should the Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for City management of Metro-purchased greenspace property? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 11 b. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt authorizing the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for City management of Metro-purchased greenspace property. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Community Development Director Hendryx advised that no active park improvements could be sited on this property. Greenspace property can have a pathway (passive recreation). The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Griffith reported on a recent meeting with State Legislative representatives Eileen Qutub and Gene Derkler. The purpose of their visit was to determine what issues were of importance to the City of Tigard. Traffic issues and potential solutions were discussed. If the City of Tigard would like to forward a legislative agenda, they would be happy to review. Councilor Scheckla advised that both he and Mayor Griffith attended a recent Washington County Coordinating Committee meeting where transportation issues (light rail, MSTIP) were discussed. Councilor Scheckla noted that the Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) would be holding a meeting on September 13, 2000, at the Cyber Caf6 for a social hour. Merchants and property owners were invited to discuss issues. TCBDA is planning several upcoming events including a sidewalk sale, a Halloween event, and Holiday Season event. Mayor Griffith advised he has been invited to attend a Chamber of Commerce Development Committee meeting on September 26, 2000. 14. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None. 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 16. ADJOURNMENT: 10:27 p.m. oaw~.~ Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder a a yor, City te: : !o I:\ADM\CATHY\CC M\000912. DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 12 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice TT 9727 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising °City of Tigard ® 13 Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. °Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® O Duplicate Affidavit °Accounts Payable ° AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. 1, 1CathV Snyc9Pr being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theiiqa rd-Dia lat i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigarri in the aforesaid county and state; that the fleeting Highlights Tigard City Cniinri 1 F, T.oc-al Contra RP View a printed co Board py of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ON successive and consecutive in the following issues: _S~ r~mhr_r 7 , 2000 Subscribed and sworn to b re me this7th day of S ptember, 2000 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS Nota ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. Commission Expires: . 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT _ The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 2000 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON *]?ublic Hearings '"A{i}3@a1"oP Fltfal'Uid~'r Nd: 2000-02 PC-- Tri-Coutlty-'Cetlt&.`'At the May 15, 2000, Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. - Renaming of SW 129th Avenue, north of SW Bull Mountain Road, within the Woodford Estates Subdivision, and renaming a portion of SW 132nd Avenue from SW Benchview Terrace to a new street intersection adjacent to the Quail Hollow-West Subdivision. *Update on long-term water supply. *Acknowledge completion of the mission of the Transportation Bond Task Force, deactivate the Task Force, and commend the Task Force members for a job well done. *Discuss home occupation regulations with regard to an "educational exemption." *Discuss affordable housing strategies. *Consider whether the City should enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with other County jurisdictions, do the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. *Consider entering into an agreement with Metro to manage Metr;o- purchased property of 11-acres of natural area located along Fanilo Creek, between Hall Boulevard and Bonita Road. 4 TT9727 - Publish September 7, 2000. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 713 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ° City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 S4; Ball Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 0Accounts Payable o AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. 1, Kath3y Gnydt-r being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigre rr1--TL1;;1 at i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti CIA rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the Public Hearing ir,Aig Rt-rPet- Name a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for nT•7E successive and consecutive in the following issues: OFFICE IAL SEAL August 24 , 7_000 SUZETT I. CURRAN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 329400 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28.2003 K.! Subscribed and sworn to Lre-me this st, 2 0 0 0 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT The Tigard City Conncl wr'ill consider the following on September 12, 2000, at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public, oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with rules of ORS 227.120 and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person, or by letter, at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request, accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from Brian Rager in the Engineering Department at the same location, or by calling (503) 639-4171, extension 318. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review a recommendation from the Planning Commission to rename SW 129th Avenue, north of SW Bull Mountain Road, within the Woodford Estates Subdivision, and a portion of SW 132nd Avenue from SW Benchview Terrace to a new street intersection adjacent to the Quail Hollow - West Subdivision. TT9713 - Publish August 24, 2000. ~~7 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9783 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising eC:ity of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Ha].]. Blvd. •Tigard, Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable • e AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, I:athy Snyder _ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising. Director, or his principal clerk, of the''igard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti cayn-r in the aforesaid county and state; that the 'uhf c Hear; na/__an1 i d waste ordinance a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: pecemher 7,200Q Subscribed and sworn to be Tt3 me this7th day of December, 2000 Nota bl c for Oregon ,``??;dOT:P'' ORLON ~`h4 - CC;' S iuiG NO A'162071 My Commission Expires: MY C0t.j,,,,;;zi0N EXPIRES M;;:.Y 16, ?.001 AFFIDAVIT CffY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Tigard City Council will consider the following on Tuesday, Decem- ber 12, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both oral and writ- ten testimony is invited. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from Loreen Mills or the City Recorder at the same loca- tion, or by calling 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: TIGARD RESIDUAL SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE The City of Tigard staff is recommending City Council adopt a residual solid waste ordinance which would impose interim registration require- ments and fees for the collection and transportation of mixed loads of material that contain both non-recyclable solid waste and recyclable materials with no more than a trivial amount of putrescible waste. This re- quest is in response to recent case law, which suggests the City's authority to provide exclusive franchises for transportation of mixed loads and recyclables may be limited by federal law. TT9783 - Publish December 7, 2000. i CrrY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) - a which were adopted at the Council Meeting date "0 o? 0 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ day of bn , 200b 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this ohc day of 2J 20 (50 a OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public for Oregon D i WISE I NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON MYCOMMC X10 EXPIRE SFEB. 11, My Commission Expires: Jai CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.o?y AN ORDINANCE RENAMING SW 129TH AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW - WEST SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, the City's addressing and street naming policy suggests that a continuous street be given one name; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the street names be changed as recommended by the City; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 227.120, the City Council held a hearing on the proposed name changes at the regular meeting of September 12, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that renaming of the street segments as recommended by the Planning Commission is in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The name of the street shown as SW 129th Avenue on the plat of Woodford Estates, recorded at pages 16, 17 and 18 in Plat Book 80 of the plat records of Washington County, Oregon, is hereby changed to SW Greenfield Drive. SECTION 2: The name of the street shown as SW 132d Avenue on the plat of Benchview Estates, recorded at pages 38, 39, 40 and 41 in Plat Book 66 of the plat records of Washington County, Oregon, is hereby changed to SW Greenfield Drive. SECTION 3: The remaining portion of the street known as SW 132nd Avenue, lying between SW Benchview Terrace and a new street intersection adjacent to the Quail Hollow - West Subdivision, is hereby changed to SW Greenfield Drive. SECTION 4: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of this ordinance with the County Clerk, the County Assessor, and the County Surveyor of Washington County. SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 2Q1- Page 1 PASSED: By UnaMMOkIS vote of all Co i1 members present after being read by number and title only, this la - day of , 2000. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of -0'M '2000. Mayor, City of Al and Approved as to form: Y Attorney '*hm. &t. 1 a y 00 Date iAcirywide\ordinanc.dot ORDINANCE No. ~f1 Page 2 11 In MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: July 17, 2000 TO: Tigard Planning Commission FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: RENAMING OF SW 129TH AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW - WEST SUBDIVISION BACKGROUND This proposed street name change is necessary to provide a consistent street name for a minor collector street segment within the City. At present, there is a segment of street known as SW 129th Avenue (see Exhibit A for vicinity map), that was platted with the Woodford Estates subdivision (see Exhibit B, plat of Woodford Estates). At that time, "SW 129th Avenue" was appropriate because that street fell in line with the 129th addressing grid line. Likewise, there is a segment of street known as "SW 132nd Avenue" from SW Walnut Street south to SW Benchview Terrace (see Exhibit C for vicinity map). When certain subdivisions were developed in the mid-1990's, a portion of a future minor collector street was constructed. Those improvements were essentially a southerly extension of the roadway known as "SW 132"d Avenue". The segment that was constructed was platted as "SW Greenfield Drive" in all of the newer subdivisions. The end result is that all portions of the roadway south of SW Benchview Terrace are platted and signed as SW Greenfield Drive; the segment between SW Benchview Terrace and SW Walnut Street is platted and signed as SW 132nd Avenue. Staff surmises that the name, "Greenfield Drive", was approved by the former City Engineer for one basic reason: the alignment of the street is curvilinear, not north/south. Street naming and address assignment rules state that streets aligned in a north/south configuration are designated with a number. If they are through streets, they are also shown as "Avenues". If, however, a street is curvilinear and meanders outside of a particular addressing grid, the street is not given a number assignment and is also labeled as a "Drive". Because the segment of the street within the subdivisions south of SW Benchview Terrace is curvilinear, the name SW Greenfield Drive is appropriate. NUNN The City's Transportation Plan Map shows a minor collector street connecting between SW Bull Mountain Road and a future extension of SW Gaarde Street (See Exhibit D). As land has developed, it became apparent that the southerly portion of this minor collector street would most practically intersect SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 129th Avenue. The Elkhorn Ridge Estates development constructed more of the southerly portion of the minor collector and platted the name, "SW Greenfield Drive" within its boundaries. It is appropriate at this time to rename SW 129th Avenue, within the Woodford Estates plat boundary, to SW Greenfield Drive., To the north, the Quail Hollow - West Subdivision project was required to construct a significant portion of an extension of SW Gaarde Street. In addition, that development was required to make half-street improvements to portions of SW 132"d Avenue, north of SW Benchview Terrace, which results in the completion of the minor collector connection, shown on the Transportation Plan Map, to SW Gaarde Street. This now necessitates a consistent street name of "SW Greenfield Drive", from SW Gaarde Street to SW Bull Mountain Road (see Exhibit E). The older portion of SW 132nd Avenue, north of the new intersection at Quail Hollow - West, will remain classified as a local residential street, and will remain labeled "SW 132"d Avenue". The older segment will simply tee into the newly constructed portion of SW Greenfield Drive at the Quail Hollow - West project. It should be noted that there are no properties addressed from SW 129th Avenue. Therefore, no address changes will be needed in that area. However, there are two parcels on the west side of SW 132nd Avenue that would be affected by the street name change there. They are: 2S1 04DB, Tax Lot 5100 13255 SW 132nd Avenue Owner: Paul Etchemendy 2S1 041313, Tax Lot 5200 13275 SW 132"d Avenue Owners: Timothy and Susan Lebrun. Each parcel contains one, single-family residential home, and each owner was contacted via letter, dated July 3, 2000, to alert them of the pending change. PROCESS ORS 227.120 provides the procedure for renaming streets. The Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council the renaming of any existing street, if in the judgement of the Commission the renaming is in the best interest of the City. Upon receiving such recommendation, the Council may rename the street(s) in accordance with the recommendation or may reject the recommendation. The Council must hold a hearing before making its decision. r STAFF REPORT: Renaming of SW 129'h and SW 132"d Avenues PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the following street names be changed: SW 129th Avenue, within the Woodford Estates plat boundary, to SW Greenfield Drive, and SW 132nd Avenue, from SW Benchview Terrace to the new entrance intersection at the Quail Hollow - West subdivision, to SW Greenfield Drive. Changing the street names will ensure a consistent street name for the entire minor collector street segment, which will also eliminate any confusion for postal service and emergency responders. Submitted July 17, 2000 Brian D. Rager, E Development Review Engineer Exhibits: A. SW 129th Avenue Vicinity Map B. Plat of Woodford Estates C. SW 132"d Avenue Vicinity Map D. Transportation Plan Map E. Map of Quail Hollow - West and New Street Alignment twV%WarvVopods%sw,29MI32nd -ren=kV.doc.doo STAFF REPORT: Renaming of SW 129' and SW 132nd Avenues PAGE 3 SW C7ilWDLER DRI 7sp INFORMATION SYSTEM F°I 29th Ave ,OR(~ aming k 111~ c CT ALP VIM D - U ILLY rT (V ON STARVIEW DR W Z 4W 'W D ~ C NT ~ • W BI IE WJ Q w 2 0 VI MrcDO C:4 'W o W N 0 D 0 200 400 600 Feet J 1'= 400 feet S~ q~~Vt S7 SW AU7tJMNVIEW S City of Tigard i Infaml On hs l is for ger-111ocN0i 0-I a r I shoWd bevensedvnd+ the D0e1OMler4 Services WIN DR 13125 SW H00 BNd N tig.rd. OR 97223 (503) 6394171 nnoJM W.c.bl;wd.wms Plot date: JUI 3, 2000; C:\magicVNAGIC03.AF Community Development rr~ r r n T T TFTT(TT YN ITIT • Lx~P = 61 .95' z Qi< EE PAGE 2 Of , 559.99• z p SEE Gf J 1102,15' o $ 510• M10H R00 PER PAGE q0 1, 27. E Y. l z ~ W1y ~YDE"EOUpYOH ENC+HEEauw'. ~ » p .9 Q v wRVEV N0.23.02! 562.16' Y ~ ° ~ _ .oS a st y n eZ H ~ r HUE 1501n ASE 9 AIR Cx 1 1E ~g 2 1 nq+R00 ~c+w o y24.59' fW-,1( GPWVER 9sg . `L $t1 ER910 u«Qv ~.OtTMjRtON~fN623.021 1027.x2' E+1R J _ ~R AYEHtlE S X73 xY w r xL o g.W. 129 553.51 vR. m n N Z~~O 20.04 A~D~ OW OPN ~~Epy1G'. PER f/1 D ~ Q y~,R1cED'~x5.023. o2O< + n>; •-t X .~RYEY NO. ~ S lien Nc~j^`~ ~sc'z$',~vg~gY.Q'aZ~~~9$ l~ Z o ual ~m ul 'fns rno nP• ~~Q~ R4 $'~°a F 7d N n g am~Xi g a fn ~rj 9 > o r 3y,~+ <~'^a ,R Ti+0.}.+'•'3i r°R°~ m O tC~~• r9y~~$~>s D or$-+'°i'°g ~.,Q 3 `~l$$c» m O 1 +iO.°°' zgw3 > ~L t p~°~tt~`~.~~..c'y$~ D a., '8~~°ob~ctn•V'~~ ~>o g~$~~~~6"g C', ~ U1 ~K$N o Y gog3b~gR , a °a ~ M 'E 51*~o%,£j .-S -:3O y ~+J oa 4.L z~y $ O7a> '/wf t!*..ar~o°S G t o Q j `aE°F 1^ Z dO~g ^ ggaj% ~n .eh C) '3 a~ g $ o $b"' > m 2n° !3 Rai 8^n$ ^°$gw P • z« < z~~q 9y"~, o-~,Rn~.G~n3 C~.q~$~~a°~ti~~^u1 Z-+2 :maa ti^ ~r-lt2z~5 RF:ro .G•.~ ~~".~a° 6~ ~..'jd --1A 90 ~+4~ ~~i •~1 F Q A N r ~ 1 s,•.- ~ ~'~~~o q •44" K~ ~y~ °~~~QS~~{~ZGGaQ~~ g~rFLi> Z r ~ Y~ i•} t~Q '~yg$ `rp14 °t«$aa~nL"~ ~Pid^~ ~s~ Q"~zc>;o9=s~~@"~4+~q,s>4•£ib= ~~G ]z`~r~Sr~~ q <'a oo~zcbLE go ~~..sl ~r o~nC ~,'$$~n sy>`r1 ~'~i E.P{ vz~fy'^ g~ uq ~ p~i `..Sa RPnR sta4,- ~riT'~S c z~,+ F Rt En lT.'~J ~ tm F, °ayXtN ~ g ~y o$i~t•~'8 AA-A- ^~i 3e .r`z O1~~1 Vj Ijt rG ~wp Y «O ji ~SZB•° zs i~•u'•z Qi 4.ia'b Vi a fG1" t Z 1 -n ~cod.£p$ m iy m 4 R.o d 'n a ~p°°~~~{{ q V1 yqt Q p V $.•°°T° 21Z l ..1 m Q°-~n0 Y 11' ~J$'+ Z~ N i1.5 ' R)y~j a ^ s o X >ry 4~ ~ n$$go. o = 4 4,og'QL~-n St~ ~ ~ a} $ Sd a ° ~'C° O S$ ~abg ~ $ R'lF ~ ~ ~i m~f t2 ~ u$,E~b Oils 5v, 1 4 1 o n w W O O D F O RD ESTATES PLAT BOOK. R6 PAGE 17 LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN _ CITY OF TIGARD. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ` 3 SURVEYED BY. N 6950.17' w 1318.35• 9 t0 BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEYING D (/16TH CORNER. FOUND , sEcT10N_c N rouNO THE BOUNDARY OF THIS TRACT 11945 S.W PACIFIC HIGHWAY #302 3/4' IRON PIPE PER 3/4' ALU MA DISKYONUYENT AND THE BASIS OF BEARING TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Z " SURVEY Na 3971 PER WASHINGTON COUNTY _ d SURVEY, U58T SK3. PG415 FROM SURVEY NO. 23,823 (503) 639-6116 8 e 'S 15' PRIVATE STORY DITA NAIE g1• _ 9871Y1, CASEMENT - SEENOTE 3 w ~o ,e POINT S 89'41'46' E 360.00' 8 61 65.00' ° 75.65' m- g <o ° ° s.o' Hz1i9 S oo' a PROFSURVEYOR ~ yWy'',{ '.50' I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS TRACING IS A SCALE 1 w ° 1 - 2 w 3 W 6,510 SO. FT. ' E33N ~""r~ TRUE AND EXACT %ACT COPY Of Or THE TIE PLAT u I • DECEMBER 2, 1991 7.131 50. fT. "7.749 S0. R. 86.506 S0. Fr W oz OREGON OF 'wOpDfORO ESTATES'. S 1p ` I °jWg JOB NO. 89-314 .,M... 10. 1w g'W.. - $ ? ~ti z °qvg> THOMAS N. BURTON 7 pyZ $ : S j 8=g~ ..4 THOMAS N. BURTON. PLS 1846 88ois IaO• 8 9.5(T 16.59• 3JJ . 5.709 S0. FT.I a 3P.3 65.04• z 65.00' 11 O` 3 l 1 .IY 1 s 6041.46' E Q = 17~T1d E LEGEND NOTES f 63.08• ; 4~ IdJ O , 6 1 N 1. A 5.00 r00T PUBLI C UTILITY EASEMENT a 170.14' 4. 4• 7.771 Sa FT. 1 Q SET 5/6' X 30' IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP 3CWBEO SHALL EMST ALONG ALL LOT LINES g •p ? I BURTON CNGNECRING' IN MONUMENT BOX, TO BE N 20.0' W JJ 13 6 Z Kwtw tAm10Hi r i ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHT Or WAY. POST MONWtENTEO• SETAN vav n ss Ins f b • 'v I O 4r t THERE SHALL BE NO DIRECT ACCESS 33 32 1 TO SW t29TH AVENUE FROM LOTS 81, 8 7.799 So. R. SET 3/8' X 30' WON ROO WTH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP SFURBED 3 THRU I6. 000 SO. rT g - Oj b 18 BURTON ENGINEERING' OOZ 7 I ° Y . I ZLOTS I TMRU 13 SHALL HAVE EOV~L o 7.859 s0. FT. RIGHT TO USE AND AN OBLGTON TO iE O W , o N E MONUMENT rWND AS SHOWN OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE PRIVATE J 60.5.• 90.16' ° e1 6' DRAINAGE FACIITIES MTIN THE Z , S B01t'tY E 1 n PRIVATE OR PUBLIC DRAINAGE S 69'41'x6' E 160.02' W 11 p.98' , 8 EASEMENTS AS SHOWN. A > <n 4 INITIAL POINT - 2' X 36' GALVANIZED IRON PIPE SET WITH TOP 8A 31 a I• 0 6- BELOW GROUND AND A 5/5' X 30' IRON ROD WITH A YELLOW 4. THERE IS NO GEODET$C CONTROL MONUMENT 8 I g 8 18 PLASTIC CAP SCRIBED 'BURTON ENGINEERING' SET INSIDE. WITHIN ONE HALF MO.C Or THE BOUNDARY 1 o~ 11,101 SO. FT, d 8 Vi 7,799 S0. FT. j N OF THIS PLAT, i5M H ° 7! W ^ s 89'x'48' E , s e95a•t1 ' # CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION 160.01' G 119.90' H 'A' THE CENTERL9E MONUMCNTS o` I j N OF THIS SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN " j iO $A 30 $ to i, 8 9 i $ & T CURVE DATA MOON MENT`S, AN IOAVIT o O/ 11,100 S0, R. 7,e0p $a FL , 6 g N LOT DELTA RADIUS AR CHORD THAS HE S~ET~TOiO PREPARED SAO YGOMJ~61ENT5 c; i UL 5 O 15 200.00' 9516 50.09 .15 N 1x19 7 AND IS RECORDED M es sn z z S 119'3'•11' E i 26 593 46 1 1 t p9.9x 141.35 N uv2 wX•LEM NO. s 59'41'46' E 1 W ON C Y RECORDS m 1 00 1 .55 5.0. 1 N 778 57- k m % 160.00' $ ^ 120.00' I 3e•. 9 4.00 559 14.9 26..0. S 73 T1 t. w _ > m A Be Hy 10 I 4 4 1 53-07- a .00 5. 1 18.4 34.60' N 6 e W A OH Y vESMN YOR * ? 8; 29 N 7,823 SO. FT. i 4 i - W- COUNT 51 0 45.00 40.46 21.1 9.11 N 1 •3436 w 11,092 50. FT. n 1!' 1'tAUC LNTMr 1 010w 45.00 29.99 1 29.4 N 27161 f1r 2 •4i 5[rQ G96HDHT I 6 62'M'58' 25.00 27.1 15.0 25.96 1 T S w qO 4{ 12 _ . 7 7 16 24 85.00 .01 16.85 5.6E N 07391 w ~m ••D-•H`$ 5 1 093538 225.00 7.67 15.56 .83 N OsD 49 O 11 17'29'21" 22 61.68 3-4.51 69.41 N 183616 -0-9-T4 07 2 S.OD ee 19.ap B. S Z 2615 IN C 9 11 ~F 6 11 $ 11 121)500 175.w 37:06, 1 .60 36.99 H 21915 28 9 y0. 0.381 SO. FT. I 1 1 591 17 .oO F7513- 74.95 24.55 .e.6 N Del537 E 9,720 SO, FT. A 0' ZOO' i ° 1 9 0.b 5.00 111 .0. N a4•a w S 691x•1/' E q•7 10 '41 ' 46' 144,68' t 124.04 SHEET 2 OF 3 WOODFORD ESTATES PLAT. BOOK ~PAGE ~ I HEREBY CERTIFY 7195 TRACING THE IS A TRUE AND EXACT EIUCT COPY OF Of THE PLAT Of ~000fORD MAWS. ~~Jw LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, THOMAS N BURTON, PLS ,640 TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON SURVEYED BY: BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEYING Q s 697411 E 11945 S.W PACIFIC HIGHWAY #302 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 S 09141146* E 144.69 0 (503) 639-6116 h 124.04• 8 'n ° 12 $30.0 h/.~ u 10.247 SO. R. I THE BOUNDARY OF THIS TRACT 27 n ~'.'J~N© 15' PRIVATE STORY DRAINAGE AND THE BASIS OF BEARING 47304 SO. R. 5 8D'3s'tt' E EASEMENT - SEE NOTE 3 FROM SURVEY NO. 23,823 ,¢cmto® 6 +65.9Y . PROFESSIONAL .a. $ O h A 3La0rVkWW CONICIT ArrOAVIT FAOM SURVEYOR Ar»,PTON rCMIU& U-I 6AML A TAI tT 1117 s 13 o®a rsla Air w m uCPADE9 w W n 10.410 SO. R. ooaaolT Nn . rALNGT9R coINTY O ; OREGON 26 Ip Z N Y ry 17 A AADNO+ON PLAT COWOff AADAVR I119Y a,,,Nr/ N IOU 7.960 SO. R. > I^ S 8974.51• E 164.23' 1 n o wT.LA,G C9MTr cav ATAUST ¢wnpANlr, THOMAS H. BURTON 1w eecN AecoAO®w obtuulr~ag ••O Q ^ 76.31' 07.92• 4 WA TON 9000 ACCOAOi _ n * r 3 7 ~ s e9z9•41• E 1e LEGEND S „z7r Iw o 15 a 14 ~ 25 _ 1 ^ 7.097 SO. FT.'- $6.945 SQ FT 9 $ 7,327 SO. R. g O $ $ ° n SET 5/0' X 30' IRON ROD W1 YELLOW PLASTIC CAP SCRIBED IV WL*jc I-IT- 'BURTON ENCINEERING" IN MONUMENT 80X_ TO BE POST © ~euar «e SCY01 FATA0IT ilk. MONAENTED. SET ON A - It 30.99' 4+.2Y Y'~ 8© n • SR S/e' X 30' NON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC GAP SCIRBEO g S.W._ BIRDSVIEW OL ToN ENGNMING' J 7 24 g s e9z4'n [ b ,9ua' 2 a.461 S0. R. A 03 7 ` s n x c s oAN 3 z© SCALE 1'.50' py, 3 EASMNf rn $ )i 67.29' Jy1 O MONUMENT FOUND As SHOWN I DPAWAIIE U DECEMBER 2, 1991 16 m I JOB NO. 89-314 m~ i „ 25.0• I x5.0• ' 9.126 $Q R. Z I INITIAL POINT - 2' X 36' GALVAN12ED IRON PIPE SET WITH TOP W 0 G' BELOW GROUND AND A 5/8' X 3D' IRON ROD WITH A YELLOW W S m in $ 23 - 3 v Q I 3 PLASTIC CAP SCRIBCD 'BURTON ENGINCERING' SET INSIDE. i $ r oA 7.717 S0. R. $ 5 997Cit• E • (R) DENOTES RAOUL SEARING ~p§ $ o V+4® to b 137.30' HH r z = -4 5 8949.41• E N g© f h f *314.2 4 96.ox ® 17 g CURVE DATA C\J N. 8.103 sa R. - 1 N NO, LOT DELTA RADIUS ARC AN CHORD NOTES CL 1 14 121 50.00 164.75' $2.52 +54, 1 s 65190 Cl ^•p" ! 22 M ~0 S 4741'15' n 30.0' 30.0' C2 C 221954 200.00 .95 9.48 77.46 N 1"25'2C -0 CL p 6,8)9 S0. R, 2G I` 113.32' C R I 12219'54'1 200.00 9.48 .46 N 11"524 1. A 6.00 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ~a v 4 CL 128'07'1,1"1 200.00' .16 .+8 S 1419 W SHALL EXIST ALONG ALL LOT LINES ~4 C P ® ry~ I„ 14 121 17)21 223.00 4.08 2.Oa 4.06 5 27'5207 w - Aeurnwc PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. p y 12 1 2110'39'1 175.00- 64.68 32.71 54.31 1 •4 56 w +L G10 J/,® 4170 50. R. >r I (0 IS 13 'M 175.00 21.21 10.62 1.20 S J'a418 W 2. THERE SHALL BE NO DIRECT ACCESS 3 I$ O 1~ 14 170. Do32.1 16.1 2.12 N OS'a04 TO S.W. R9TK AVENUE FROM LOTS A W J $ N = « 170.00 app 1 10 .0 N 1630040 5 THRU is. WAN s z l,~a• ig- 14 00 4a.n .a.os s 17105 ao w 3 Lon 1 THRU a SHALL HAVE EWAL 20 St'o 21 •'f Qy 19 'On,J'f GT .00 4.40 Ti. S 1. N Stgp34 RIGHT TO USE AND AN OBLIGATION TO $ > .D 5. 0 14'390 OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE PRIVATE RI~ 49GO SO. Fr 0.536 S0. R. 59.,D 74.92 35,30 N 44.3922 w ouFO = 20 : $ I p 5.00 9. 4 .41S 45-20`55"W DRAINAGE flU0UTIE5 WITHIN THE ,•X +1,18 .4+ N 23*4V41; o~> t C3 z 7.372 50. R. ' 50.00' r 9 4. THERE PRIVATE OR SHALL BE PUBLIC DRAINAGE 2 = .00 4 .6 5.79 45.5V N 207819 W EASEMENTS AS SHOWN. iOyp snxr 4 z4 .6 ts, 4 28.28 N 73'Q4'31' NO DIRECT ACCESS TO qfx 10434' 91.75 Ag1 130.OY IDS 50.00' 2490 14.6 20.50 N 16'46304 S.W. BULL MOUNTMN ROAD FROM LOTS 5 n o 3 3t " 6 e6"513' `w 10 50.00 46.29 24.96 44.66 N 59334 E 19. 20 AND 21, 50.00 J6.95 19.36 .+2 N 601403 SSUSXCT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIDNS aO 360.81 29 111 3T 6 30' IN 27.84 50,00 ,.4 1 .28 .98 5809 _ _ S 86'2513 _ _ AND RESTRICTIONS AS RECORDED _ 61 .o0 104. s 2. +01.22 1140 N 6 C+ K1,73• - - _ N 66"513• E 160 ' OOCUSNT H0. 41072156 17. ' 552 12916 5. 5 111 05 WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. 0. S. W. BULL 1,10UNTAIN ROAD o0 0. e + .62 52957 SO W CJL N0. M7 112 FOUND 3/4' IRON PIPE 0. 9.56 50.589 9 0 0 1 722 M NOTE. END OF q~pVE IN TERSECTS WITH YELLOW CAP 0.00 1 6.4 12.5 411)7 4! W FOUND 3/4• WON DIPC WEST PROPERTY LINE Q77' IuRKED'WASK CS. 7 .00 21.03 t+.te 20.41 N 24-21 4, E WTH \~T,LOW NORTH Of PROPERTY CORNER N MONUMENT BOX 2 5.00 1, .06 1 09-237 W MARXED "1YASFI('PCS: SHEET 3 OF 3 TT1T T r T T TrTTrTTY%r.TTT coo $k ""I, '32nd Ave Renaming a 3 co N ~ ooeu+ Q yAi1T r a ES W P1 bop Feel 400 i) 3 N ~ wot.et :N co cr MJIEW~' City otTi&ud O ~ pan aiY ~ eaa<' cr °yt rtuD ~s tit ~;aT R~1fi Y~t~ red vd n~~~ ~ itp>IdOe vented 5J125 OR 9~01~3 \`C~ ~ N N 6~4157t m ftWj a9G P, Ir, 3•PJ and aA, G m plot date'. Jut 3, 5~ w m ~ 7T~aS~~R 77T~TO -1 CITY OF TIGARD ~,~5~~{gpN.MA~' { r FIGURE 3 T - _ % • ARTERIALS PRA l ` MAJOR COLLECTORS MINOR COLLECTORS . 1V / i:.Ja ARTERIALS 3 r UNBUp•T MAJOR COLLECTORS •I t ` `,,tit s r t - I 1~ UNBWLT WNOR CpLLEC70R5 H • t lVOT• r.•4, .TIN STUDY AREA typ r4'}TY ~l T^Y .AVEr I 3+G fiT'' _k~. t~ •<?t. ._ii~r: y i + pt I t _ tt RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY AREA t LIGHT U.~ \ J EPEE •D:-:t-4 t,~, „~t•z :4' rR£EWAY INTERCHANGE Yp tM - tl:~s•:'. ® TR'-ip TAT10M MN arpi a .1t! Da . ~ r YE 0.AN .-t T er +~'•{x°r T O~Rete ID Da f•tlpAa6 to to. sI gc~ata FUrY ~t to : "`~.y L Raa~ natA t.o ••l e a p 9 wi 2. Eaiondea•rTdn`,r~.'p$,,~1st§6ijr~Jt•~•Svie~]~Y,{o"lccs{=a.• \ SEE < r. a ap%f~~o1; A'~~: idblioiaoWy"' txE+"°wrt ca~.erl~or baM Ot A U` • t• aie eta a d NOT • iuiits vr~i.r. tu'r'n a Ea V?t% rd 3. "•~.nt a •~•arla w~^9'~aaoursc i i ~ ~I ~.:.,,:5;\ ~~t ~~,a:dlotr;6o o t Wlfbn f4a'a SVi+~aOan t 1 SEE aT t• + •t to e•ur :"z t~gF:4Y ' W NOT ~`:i.•.n .o . a{I{l(d~'M lA0 iE ni+[I M1 Ni.O a1j l~~d`IY Study N•. l 41 N ypiA Pir !M }}tr.al a •N.M1on.5NNt . U { vv~rIt t0 •algM D•h.{A ud e, IM pt~0•r~{n T onn onp 1 DWr + • _ 6'pRYiiY 217. Kruii WtY~S iirtd ,~aM aO Je+d a ! /~N t yn Vu iona ba~+anC HoNU Rloa'id~t•N NW ' ;Pib« EYN 8 I 7.jii1'10•Mr.W ! Ao:e F170 J.rro $ y 2p a~~..r .fates a ii i, }t~EGM.aI t~RMapOIOM{ y~ QjdlalMn of rR.1fMMM1CU4t •Oe•a~n4'00t~ Arinv}itiiL9a ilranw l►IR r: 9• „pp'j`i sf~w~ii~d 'oaal r'on,A i"W4 ~aHNr ,r•at Y1t.rl.tiren. Av Mla Ov1A at ~r•+ wool. 'c" E ~7va `a,Mi p r N.rJj o~F n • •u.~liY+~•r.! 00 w:tc. it 01'pI,. j, Hgb+SY. TRANPORTATION MAP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN z c t g p REVISION SCHEOUL£OATE PNE• V N ORDINAN Aupuat 13• T992 9t•22 A/iratt 2•• y 3 gv0007 Atarcn 23. 993 _ *tid 93.50 FEE? I ! pe0 io0a ODO ORDINANCE NO. ORD 9993 1 Map adopted JUNE 11, 1 •no«o oa/o/n •C•OI W A W /G1rw~aE/TA•, l tY / ~ Ilr fit, / 1 q a B~ ! s +t s Mlow Oro V s 1 p If Sol aim / `ter 8 B { 8 t N Qt1 t Q I~ i 3 MIR ~i r ,h MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON aim TO: Cathy Wheatley FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: September 6, 2000 SUBJECT: Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest Attached is a waiver request filed by the Preston Gates & Ellis firm for representation of VoiceStream. I have sent a letter to Attorney Marnie Allen advising that we will discuss this at the Council meeting of September 12. Please note this discussion on the pink sheet for the Council study session. I need to advise Attorney Allen of the Council's decision on Wednesday, September 13. By the way, we need to make sure that in any responses to requests for waiver that we follow the format of the June 29, 2000, letter to Ed Sullivan where we advise that the waiver does not extend to representation should an appeal be filed with LUBA or with other appellate procedure. I noticed in other faxes that we have sent acknowledging that waivers had been granted no limitations were noted. We need to make sure that we consistently limit the waiver. ,A MIBILUMEMOSMAIVER REOUEST LIMITATIONS.DOC I September 6, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Marnie Allen Preston Gates & Ellis LLP 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97201-6632 RE: Waiver of-Potential Conflict of Interest - VoiceStream Dear Marnie: I am in receipt of the your letter of August 25, 2000, sent to our City Attorney, Gary Firestone. I will present your request for waiver to our City Council on Tuesday, September 12, 2000, our next scheduled meeting. In the past, we have received requests from Edward J. Sullivan of your firm pertaining to land use applications within the City. At the request of our City Attorney, waivers have been granted for representation through the land use development process at the local level. Waivers have not extended to representation should an appeal be filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals or any other appellate procedure. I would expect that when the Council considers your waiver request for this matter, the Council will take into account your statement in paragraph two of your letter that there may be disputes, including litigation. I expect that I will be able to inform you of the Council's decision on September 13. Sincerely, !3:d - William A. Monahan City Manager c: Gary Firestone Craig Prosser BILLAWAIVER REQUEST-VOICESTREAM.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 11111111 11,11 INN 111111111011111 RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW August 30, 2000 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Fax: (S03) 243-2944 JEFF H. BACHRACH William A. Monahan JOHN C. CALDWELL AMY A. CHESNUT and Craig Prosser CHARLES E. CORFMAN* City ofTIgard STEPHEN F. CREW 13125 SW )-fall Blvd. HEIDI T. DECKER*** Tigard, OR. 97223 MARTIN C. DOLAN GARY FIRESTONE* WILLIAM E. GAAR* Re: Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest DANA L. KRAWCZUK SUE-DEL McCULLOCH Dear Bill and Crai T. CHAD PLASTER* Craig: TIMOTHY V. RAMIS PAUL D. SCHULTZ Enclosed please find a request for waiver of potential conflict of interest WILLIAM J. STALNAKER from the law firm of Preston Gates and Ellis. I am providing this to Craig NANCY S. TAUMAN NELSON L. WALKER as well as Bill because the work Preston Gates proposes to do for VoiceStream and the work they do for the City both relate to financial DOMINIC 0. COLLETTA** issues. JOHN R. McCULLOCH, JR. OF COUNSEL Please review the request and let us know if you have any questions. SALEM OFFICE 21 Oaks Office Building SinC y, 525 Glen Creek Rd., NW Suite 300 Salem, Oregon 97304 (503) 363-9604 Fax: (503) 363.9626 Gary Firestone Enclosure OREGON CITY OFFICE cc: Tim Ramis Practicing as gli7acTr900'.4!coriflietwaiver.ItI HIBBARD CALDWELL SCHULTZ RAMIS & CREW 1001 Molalla Ave., Suite 20 P.O. Box 1960 Oregon City, Oregon 97045 (503) 656-5200 Fax: (503) 656-0125 'Also Admitted To Practice In Washington "Also Admitted To Practice In California """Also Admitted to Practice in Utah Preston I Gates I Ell is Marnie Allen mallen@prestongates.com (503) 228-3200 RED F=IVER August 25, 2000 AUG 3 1) 2000 Gary Firestone Esq. EACH, LLP Tigard City Attorney i :!..._......1 LAW Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland OR 97209 Re: Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest Dear Gary: As I explained in my message, Preston Gates & Ellis LLP has been asked to represent VoiceStream Wireless in matters involving the City of Tigard. More specifically, VoiceStream would like us to represent them in potential disputes regarding ordinances that regulate the use of cell phones, franchises, right-of-way permits and land use permits. We are finance counsel for the City of Tigard. Consequently, I am writing to inform the City of Tigard of potential conflicts and to request a waiver of those conflicts. VoiceStream is, like the City, a long-standing client of Preston Gates. VoiceStream has asked Preston Gates to represent it in matters involving franchises, right-of-way permits, land use permits, and ordinances that regulate the use of cell phones. There may be disputes. including litigation, about the scope of the City's authority under local, state and federal law to regulate the use of cell phones and to require franchises and/or permits for wireless facilities. Because of Preston Gates' on-going, but unrelated, work for the City we are asking the City to consent to the above representation of VoiceStream. I understand from your message that decisions to waive potential conflicts are made by the City. To that end, we appreciate you sharing this letter with the appropriate City representative and having it signed and returned, if the City is willing to consent to our representation and waive any potential conflict of interest j Preston Gates & Ellis LLP may have in its representation of VoiceStream. A LAW FIRM I A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES 222 SW COLUMBIA STREET, SUITE 1400 PORTLAND, OR 97201-6632 TEL: 1503! 228.3200 FAX: 15031 248-9085 www,prestongates.com Anchorage Coeur d'Alene Hong Kong Los Angeles Orange County Palo Alto Portland San Francisco Seattle Spokane Washington, DC , Page 2 If you or the City representative with the authority to waive potential conflicts of interest have any questions or want to discuss this further, please call me. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP E~. 9, , Mamie Allen CONSENT AND WAIVER On behalf of the City of Tigard, I consent to the representation of VoiceStream Wireless by Preston Gates & Ellis LLP in connection with ordinances that regulate the use of cell phones, franchises and permits that are necessary to locate wireless facilities in the City, and the City hereby waives any conflict of interest that may exist as a result of that representation. Name: Title: MA:ma cc: Harvey Rogers Bill Chapman i i RVAAWHOME\CONFLICT LTR TIGARD.DOC i 3 a pip MEMNON 1 211 111 111, i~ii, !I AGENDA ITEM # Z FOR AGENDA OF Septemer 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Oath of Office - Mayor James E. Griffith ,~pn PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL City Attorney Tim Ramis to administer the Oath of Office to Interim Mayor James E. Griffith. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Administer oath of office to James E. Griffith to serve as Interim Mayor. INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 22, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution No. 00-53 appointing James E. "Jim" Griffith Mayor of Tigard from September 12,2000, until election results of the March 2001 Election are certified to elect a mayor to complete the unexpired term of Jim Nicoli. A reception will be held immediately preceding the September 12, 2000, meeting so community members and friends and family of Mr. Griffith can wish him well. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a FISCAL NOTES n/a I:WDM\CITY COUNCIL%COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARIES%AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SHEET.DOC *tnte of Oregon ) City of U7, igarb J, J~rxaff ZF 6riffth, ba oolemnlu swear t4at J will u0n1b anb support toe Tonotitution anb laws of toe Mniteb Mateo of America null toe 5tnte of Oregon and Or (94arter anb nrbinanceB of t11e (fitU of 0ignrb. J will fnit4fullij perform mg butieo to the crest of mg abrilitU, in t11e office of , agor to w4ir4 J 4nue been appointeb. J meo 1E. k-if Atf attest: Cnifg ±~ecorder Bate P t i AGENDA ITEM # 9. Z a. FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 MEMORANDUM CITE' OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Bill Monahan .DATE: September 5, 2000 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, September 2000 - November 2000 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. September 4 Mon I,abor Day - City Offices Closed *12 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting * 19 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. * 26 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting October *10 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting *17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. * 24 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting November *14 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting * 21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 23 Thurs Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed 24 Fri Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed * 28 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting is\ad meat hy\cou nci l\cccal.doc city council Q N Tigard enda Tentative Ag 10110100 -Business N p Greeter Noon Jim H " Due; 9127100 @ Craig ° m p Business Quarterly Mt9 - Study $ession ittee 9126100 - Noon Tigard Budget C°mm 10 C: I Due; 9113100 @ 1 hour Workshop 9119100 - Study Session Due; 916100 @ NpOn Worl<shoPTOPIcs + VJAM will NGT behere Consent Agenda . iscussion in CIT p Briefing -Liz -15 m ointment enda OVements ative - & Committee APP Consent Ag Sewer impc In Boatd nitarY Review min public Bonita Rd Sa gi11- 20 plan fs Vannte N process - IementaCron Vannie - A Square Imp 20 rain d .M'.Vtlon W W t Nadine S - 1:iz1EdlJohn R etlan " tnvolvemen - leash Area" pog qtf- Up ate °n 30 in Housing Policy Discussion - s on ll ess A({ordable in Business Meetm9te Franchise Cha en to Y _Nadine S - 30 m solid Briefing m+n. o e DRD reen ssr in Franchise ° eeting 0120 - o - Business M oats munica mend & Rezone PGp T ele 0 ni mm Update - Margaret - Update comp COUncplan Amend .10 CPAR New I-ibrary C°nsuuci+on 5 rain project UPdate- Bond clip tion -Ron ° 5 min pick B ' & 10 min ona Update - ortaCion ? 10 m+n Meier Cac D Clp prole-t TransP +n gi111Ron. - 1p min 15 m Flea°g Bond & Gus- Sheriff i-evy Cathy W - Trans Pohation board & WACounw igh\N in library 5ru in dR Assoc for Safer H Noreen M Gus- 15 m of Resigning Susan - Franchise - Recognition bens- PN- Solidwaste Budget Committee Mend & Rezone - comp Plan pm CPAR 60 min Sewer Reimburse- Laune N " Neighborhood RES - Greg B ° 10 min Continuation ment p*1 ict - Page 1 tats agive3 ~9-0•xis 1:ladmlgreerlten 9j5(2000 city CoBncil Tigard ends -CV Tentative A9 11114(00 'Business Moon Due.. 1111100 @ o 10124100 Business N Study Sessi n 10111100 @ Noon rksh8 P Due: 10117100 Study Session Moon Due: 1014100 @ W orkshoP -topics Ed 30 min term Water Supply ' BLUE SHEET a Long` ontract - Ed - Consent Agend USA Model C tiat -zones- )f-ID s in Rest den $ed & Breakfast Use Consent Agenda T,n i pol;cy Mantenance walk Rr9ht o1 Way 1 hr Srde Ed1Lfz " Discussion ' Business Idle ,ode mendment ReQuir Tents D _ Code , e Develop or 4H OR & Indemnity forS H 30 min Who Live Warranty 10°l° - Dick . ' Business Meeting veterans ss of Busrn Korean War in Exce Recognizi igard `gill -10 min Mork in page 2 i reerltentaty agiyear99 0•xls I:ladm 9 9(512000 AGENDA ITEM # 4 , 3 FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Training Request for Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association PREPARED BY: Capt. Gary L. Schrader DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK VV?V ~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve a training request for Detective Gary Wayt to attend the Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association training Conference? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend Approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY This training is provided to keep criminal investigators informed on techniques of criminal investigation and criminal activity of organized criminal enterprises involving fraud and deception. Although not specifically mentioned in the budget document it was included as "General Training" in the department's budget request. Sufficient detail was not available at the time the budget was prepared to make it a specific item, but it was identified as important training for the City's fraud investigator. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY i Supports Public Safety Goal #1, stategies 5 and 6. i FISCAL NOTES 3 Budgeted in FY2000 budget. a a is ,ci meidi xum.Jot CITY OF TIGARD TRAVELITRAINING AUTHORIZATION Authorization # TA NAME Gary Wayt DEPT ACCT.# 1130 DPSST# 13725 JOB TITLE Detective EXT. # 224 Title of Training Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association Fall 2000 Mandatory Training? ❑ Yes ® No Budgeted Item? ®Yes ❑ No Conference PURPOSE OF TRIP (Complete Conference/Workshop/Meeting agendas MUST be attached to each TA submitted) Please TRAINING DATES see attached Course outline. From: 09-28-00 To: 10-01-00 LOCATION City: Harrison Hot Springs State: British Columbia, Canada REGISTRATION BOOKS/MATERIALS Vendor Costs $ 160.00 Vendor Costs $ N/A Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association N/A Mailing Address Z Mail Check Mailing Address ❑ Mail Check Attn: John Clarke PO Box 61567 Brookswood PO N/A City/State/Zip ❑ Hold For Employee City/State/Zip ❑ Hold For Empioyee Lan le , BC V3A8C8 N/A Phone # ❑ Reimburse Phone # ❑ Reimburse 604534-8343 NIA LODGING TRANSPORTATION Dates to sta : 09-28-00 to 09-30-00 Dail rate incl tax : $110.89 Vendor Costs $ 332.68 Vendor Costs $ N/A The Harrison Hot Springs Resort Ci Vehicle Mailing Address ® Mail Check Mailing Address ❑ Mail Check 100 Esplanade Ave. N/A .City/State/Zip ❑ Hold For Employee City/State/Zip ❑ Hold For Employee Harrison Hot Springs British Columbia, CA N/A VOM1K0 Phone # ❑ Reimburse Phone # ❑ Travel Agency to 800-663-2266 N/A bill City of Tigard Confirmation # 64242 PER DIEMIMEALS MILEAGE N/A miles @ 31¢ per mile Costs: $ 44.00 ® Advance ❑ Reimburse ❑ Advance ❑ Reimburse By signing this travel authorization, I agree to reimburse the City of Tigard any excess amount advanced. I authorize the City to deduct any outstanding advance from m check, if repayment is not made. Empl Date Supervisor D Dept. Head 1 r 1 Date Human R ources rector Date City Manager at Ci cil D to Ia•oO travtng.dot Now dTRT,B A,T,T` ffT?)grT PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES... The following levels of approval are required for all employee requests for expenditures for education, training, and travel requests: If the expenditure will be over $500 or involves travel over 500 miles from the City, specific City Council approval is required unless the request was specifically approved by the City Council in the budget document. If the expenditure will be over $300 or involves travel over 300 miles from the City, the request will require the approval of the City Administrator. If the expenditure is less that $300 or involves travel of less than 300 miles, the request will require the approval of the employee's Department Head. • Training riot previously budgeted must be reviewed by the Human Resources Director who will forward the request to the City Administrator. At least two weeks prior to the anticipated travel, the employee should complete a Training Authorization form. The purpose of this form is to provide advance approval of the requested travel and, if necessary, to provide the means for an advance of funds to the employee for the anticipated travel. Within one week after the travel has been completed, the employee shall complete a "Travel Expense" form documenting all expenses from the travel and providing receipts when required. 1:\PD\TRAVTN G. D OTI:\P D\TRAVTN G. D OT •f NORTHWEST FRAUD INVESTIGATOR'S ASSOCIATION FALL 2000 CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 28 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 HARRISON HOT SPRINGS, CANADA Crimes Across the Wire Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:00 pm Registration/Networking Information Exchange Suite Opens Past Presidents Meeting 5:00 pm Executive Board Meeting Friday, September 29, 2000 8:00 am Continental Breakfast/Registration 8:30 am OPENING CEREMONIES 9:15 am Internet Fraud Danny L. Barkley, SSA Federal Bureau oflnvestigation 10:00 am Break - Door Prizes 10:15 am Introduction to LEO - (Law Enforcement Online) Danny L. Barkley, SSA Federal Bureau oflnvestigation 11:00 am The New Millennium Fraud Challenges Stan E. Belitz, Vice President Security MasterCard International 12:00 pm Hosted Lunch 1:30 pm Technology Forensics David Toddington, President DM Toddington and Company (Over) d arrison ~ot Yprings R E S O R T WWW.HARRISONRESORT. COM NORTH WEST FRAUD INVESTIGATORS SEPTEMBER 28-OCTOBER 1, 2000 REQUEST FOR RESERVATION FORM EAST TOWER: $155.00 SINGLE OR DOUBLE OCCUPANCY WEST TOWER: $ 135.00 SINGLE OR DOUBLE OCCUPANCY PLEASE NOTE: The above rates are guaranteed only until August 28, 2000/or should your group use the contracted room block prior to this date. After this date/or contracted block usage, the Resort cannot guarantee that these rates will apply. Rates are subject to 8% provincial room tax and 7% gst. SEND THIS FORM TO: THE HARRISON HOT SPRINGS RESORT Harrison Hot Springs, B.C. VOM 1KO Attention: Reservation Department Fax: 604-796-3682 Phone: 800-663-2266 Please reserve the following accommodation: 1 _@ $ 1 10 89 (IT 4 Do lays) Arrival date: 09-28-00 Departure date: 10=01-00 If sharing NSA will occupy this accommodation with me. NAME: Gary Wayt ADDRESS: 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 TELEPHONE: 503-639-6168 ext. 224 POSTALCODE: 97223 Reservations must be received no later than August 28, 2000 in order to guarantee the space held. A deposit to cover one night's accommodation plus taxes is required to guarantee your reservation. As this is a request for reservation, confirmation will be sent within seven days. In the event you do not have your confirmation prior to travel, please call to confirm. CREDIT CARD#/TYPE & EXPIRY DATE: 7 DAYS CANCELLATION NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR DEPOSIT REFUND. CHECK IN TIME IS 4:00 PM/CHECKOUT TIME IS 12 NOON. 100 ESPLANADE AVE. • HARRISON HOT SPRINGS • BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA VOM 1KO • INFOOHARRISONRESORT.COM (604) 796-2244 • FAX: (604) 796-3690 • OPERATED BY: HOSTMARK HOSPITALITY GROUP J - NORTHWEST FRAUD INVESTIGATOR'S ASSOCIATION FALL 2000 CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 28 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 HARRISON HOT SPRINGS, CANADA REGISTRATION FORM INSIGHTS@TELUS.NET NAME: Gary Wayt COMPANY: Tigard Police Department ADDRESS: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 PHONE: ( 503 ) 639-6168 ext. 224 E-MAIL 13725@ci.tigard.or.us Registration Fee NWFIA Members 160.00 US Dollars $ 160.00 (Includes Friday Lunch and Saturday Banquet) Saturday Only Fee NWFIA Members 100.00 US Dollars $ (Includes Saturday Banquet) Non-Member Registration Fee 50.00 US Dollars $ Additional Friday Lunch Ticket 20.00 US Dollars $ Additional Saturday Banquet Ticket 50.00 US Dollars $ Hotel Room Registration must be done directly with the Harrison Hot Springs Resort (604- 796-2244 or www.harrisonresort.com). The price on the Registration Form for the hotel is in Canadian dollars. Please contact the hotel for the exchange rate. Payment enclosed $ 160.00 Pay upon arrival $ Please make checks payable to the NWFIA and mail your registration by September 10, 2000 to: John Clarke PO Box 61567 Brookswood PO Langley, BC V3A8C8 NORTHWEST FRAUD INVESTIGATOR'S ASSOCIATION FALL 2000 CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 28 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 HARRISON HOT SPRINGS, CANADA Crimes Across the Wire Speaker Biographies Danny L. Barkley Mr. Barkley is a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) out of the Seattle Division. He is currently serving as Seattle's White Collar Crime Program Manager and Supervisor for the squad of agents, having primary investigative responsibility for Health Care Fraud, Governmental Fraud and Public Conuption. SSA Barkley also has served in the Financial Crimes Section, Governmental Fraud Unit, at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., where he was Program Manager for Fraud Against Government Programs related to procurement, entitlement, and contracts. In that capacity, SSA Barkley served as the FBI's Program manager for the Electronic Commerce in Government Fraud Program to include electronic contacting and procurement, electronic benefit transfer, electronic funds transfer and smart card technology. Career: Police Officer/Detective Sergeant, North Platte, NE Police Department, 1979 - 1991; FBI Special Agent 1991 - Present. Education: BA, Criminology, University of Nebraska, Kearney, NE 1990 Stan E. Belitz Mr. Belitz is the Vice President of Security for MasterCard International. Stan has been a driving force in the credit card industry for many years and the Vice President of Security for eight (8) years with MasterCard International. He specializes in White Collar Crime and Counterfeit Credit Card Fraud. Career: Stan's law enforcement career includes 23 years in the U.S. Secret Service. He was an Agent in Charge for the Credit Card Fraud Squad and the Financial Crimes Squad, both in Los Angeles. He assisted in the development of the US Secret Service Manual on Credit Card Investigation. Education: BA in Education from the University of Nebraska and a Master's Degree from Drake University in Public Administration. David Toddington A former Vice President and General Manager of a national Canadian Internet service provider, Mr. Toddington has operated an Information Technology consulting firm that provides services to the private and public sectors for the past three years. Utilizing a diverse team of technical, legal, and investigative professionals, DM Toddington & Company provides Information Technology forensic and operational support services to a number of law enforcement and related agencies in North America including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the British Columbia Organized Crime Agency. The company also provides Internet based Open Source Intelligence services in support of investigative activities and threat assessment requirements. Mr. Toddington regularly lectures on IT issues relating to security and intelligence in various public and private sector groups in Canada, the United States, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. In addition to his teaching at the Canadian Police College, he also instructs through the British Columbia Police Academy, the Forensic Sciences Department at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, the RCMP Training Academy, and the Idaho State Police Academy. Gerrit Bilkes Gerrit Bilkes was appointed Senior Representative for Operations at the Vancouver regional office of the Bank of Canada in 1998. In this capacity, he represents the Bank in matters pertaining to the distribution of bank notes in British Columbia and the Yukon. Having obtained degrees in Economics at McMaster University and the State University of New York, Gerrit joined the Research Department of Bank of Canada in 1974 to do economic analysis. In 1981, he transferred to the Department of Banking Operations to support the Bank's note issue function. Gerrit has worked with the Royal Canadian Mint to coordinate the replacement of $1 and $2 bank notes with coins. In the 1980's, he assisted the Mint in re-engineering its coin distribution system, which led to the pooling of coin inventories of the financial institutions and the Mint across the country. In the 1990's, he participated in the establishment of a new bank note distribution system, in which the regional offices of the financial institutions took over most of the functions of the former regional cash operations of the Bank of Canada. Sgt. Roger Brown Vancouver Commercial Crime Section, RCMP 18 years of service; 7 years on CCS as project team leader. Cpl. Bruce Imrie Vancouver Commercial Crime Sections, RCMP 23 years of service; 17 years on CCS on duties involving computer investigations, hacking, intrusions and forensic audit of computer systems. Sgt. Barry Baxter Vancouver Commercial Crime Sections, RCMP 20 years of service; 9 years on Commercial Crime duties involving currencies, credit cards and debit cards. Cpl. Mark Hepburn Vancouver Commercial Crime Section, RCMP Telemarketing Task Force (Operation Canadian Eagle) 19 years of service; 3.5 in Commercial Crime; 3 years in Telemarketing Investigations (presently on the Vancouver Commercial Crime Section's Telemarketing Task Force and have been since its inception in early 1998. The Task Force consists of members of the RCMP Commercial Crime Section, a FBI agent, and investigators from the British Columbia Attorney General's Consumer Services Division.) I AGENDA ITEM # 4.4 FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of a new collective bargaining agreement between City of Tigard and the Tijzard Police officer's Association (TPOA) PREPARED BY: Sand Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve a new collective bargaining agreement between the City of Tigard and TPOA for the period of July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the new bargaining agreement INFORMATION SUMMARY The terms of the agreement with TPOA and the City of Tigard were reviewed with your Council at its Executive Session of August 22, 2000. The current collective bargaining agreement expired June 30, 1999. Major highlights of this new agreement include a two-year contract expiring in June of 2001; a 1.5% increase to the salary schedule effective July 1, 1999; a 1.5% increase effective January 1, 2000; and a 3% increase effective July 1, 2000. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY FISCAL NOTES Salary adjustments pursuant to the above referenced schedule is\citywidc\sum.dot oil Exhibit DAN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIGARD POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF TIGARD i i Expires: June 30, 2001 a a LMM City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 [003678736) TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE .......................................................................................................1 ARTICLE 1 - RECOGNITION 1 ARTICLE 2- EXISTING CONDITIONS ..............................................................1 ARTICLE 3 - CHECK OFF AND PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DUES 1 ARTICLE 4- EMPLOYEE RIGHTS 2 ARTICLE 5 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS 3 ARTICLE 6 - CITY SECURITY 3 ARTICLE 7 - ASSOCIATION BUSINESS 3 ARTICLE 8 - GENERAL AND SPECIAL ORDERS ...........................................4 ARTICLE 9 - DEPARTMENT MANUAL AND CONTRACT 4 ARTICLE 10- BULLETIN BOARD 4 ARTICLE 11 - OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT .........................................................4 ARTICLE 12 - WORKING OUT OF CLASS 4 ARTICLE 13 - HOURS OF WORK 5 ARTICLE 14 - OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY 6 ARTICLE 15- HOLIDAY COMPENSATION 8 ARTICLE 16 - VACATIONS 8 ARTICLE 17- INSURANCE BENEFITS 9 ARTICLE 18 - SICK LEAVE 11 ARTICLE 19 - LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH PAY 13 ARTICLE 20 - LEAVE WITHOUT PAY 15 ARTICLE 21 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 15 ARTICLE 22 - MILEAGE AND PER DIEM ALLOWANCE 17 ARTICLE 23- CLOTHING AND UNIFORM 17 ARTICLE 24 - SENIORITY 18 ARTICLE 25 - LAYOFF AND RECALL 19 City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 I mmmmi ARTICLE 26 - SHIFT AND DAYS OFF BIDDING .............................................19 ARTICLE 27- PROBATIONARY PERIOD 20 ARTICLE 28- DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 21 ARTICLE 29 - PERSONNEL FILE 21 ARTICLE 30 - WAGES 21 ARTICLE 31 - EDUCATION INCENTIVE/LONGEVITY MERIT INCENTIVE 23 ARTICLE 32 - SAVINGS CLAUSE ....................................................................24 ARTICLE 33 - TERMINATION 24 ADDENDUM A JULY 1999 COLA 25 ADDENDUM B JANUARY 2000 COLA 26 ADDENDUM C JULY 2000 COLA 27 ADDENDUM D INTERNAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES 28 ADDENDUM E SWORN PERSONNEL INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATION. 30 ADDENDUM F SIDE LETTER 31 ADDENDUM G SIDE LETTER 32 ADDENDUM H 33 ADDENDUM I SIDE LETTER 34 n N a City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 I I PREAMBLE This contract entered into this day of , between the City of Tigard, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and the Tigard Police Officers' Association, hereinafter referred to as the "Association," has as its purpose the promotion of an efficient police department; harmonious relations between the City and the Association; the establishment of an equitable and peaceful procedure for the resolution of differences; and to set forth their entire agreement with regard to rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. ARTICLE I - RECOGNITION The City recognizes the Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent with respect to wages, hours and other conditions of employment for the employees in the bargaining unit as set forth in Addendums A through C. The City shall notify the Association of its decision to add any new classifications to the Police Department. If the City and the Association cannot agree whether a new position is supervisory, managerial, confidential, or if a new classification should be included in the bargaining unit, the dispute shall be submitted to the Employment Relations Board. When the parties are unable to agree as to the representation status of such a new position, the City shall have the option of leaving the position vacant or filling the position at a provisional wage rate until the issue is resolved. If such a position is filled on a provisional basis and if there is a subsequent adjustment in the wage rate, such adjustment shall be retroactive to the date that the position was filled. The bargaining unit shall consist of those classifications listed in the salary schedule set forth in Article 30, that are regular full-time employees and those employees within those classifications that are regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week, excluding supervisory and confidential employees as defined by the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. ARTICLE 2- EXISTING CONDITIONS The City shall be obligated to negotiate over existing conditions that are mandatory subjects of bargaining, whether or not they are covered by this agreement, if the City intends to alter, change or modify such conditions. ARTICLE 3 - CHECK OFF AND PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DUES 3.1 Check-off " The City will deduct Association dues from the wages of employees when so authorized and directed in writing by the employee on the authorization form provided by the City. Any authorization for the payroll deductions may be canceled by any a employee upon written notice to the City and the Association prior to the 15th day of each month, to be effective on the 1 st day of the following month. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 1 The City will not be held liable for check-off errors but will make proper adjustments with the Association for errors as soon as is practicable. It is also agreed that neither any employee nor the Association shall have any claim against the City for any deductions made or not made, as the case may be, unless a claim of error is made in writing to the City within forty-five (45) calendar days after the date such deductions were or should have been made. 3.2 Payment in Lieu of Dues Any regular employee who is a member of the bargaining unit and has not joined the Association within thirty (30) days of becoming a regular employee, or who has joined within such time and then withdrawn from membership after such thirty (30) days, shall have deducted from his/her pay by the City a monthly service fee in the uniform amount of a payment in lieu of dues to the Association. The payment in lieu of dues shall be segregated by the Association and used on a pro- rata basis solely to defray the cost for its services rendered in negotiating and administering this Agreement. Such deduction shall be made only if accrued earnings are sufficient to cover the service fee after all other authorized payroll deductions have been made. 3.3 Religious Objection Any individual employee objecting to payment in lieu of dues based on bona fide religious tenets or teachings of a church or religious body of which such employee is a member, is required to inform the City and the Association of his/her objection. The employee will meet with the representatives of the Association and establish a mutually satisfactory arrangement for distribution of a contribution of an amount of money equivalent to the above mentioned payment in lieu of dues to a charitable organization mutually agreed upon by the employee and the Association. The employee shall furnish written proof to the City that such has been accomplished, as appropriate. 3.4 Indemnification The Association will indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless against any claims made and against any suit instituted against the City as a result of any City action taken pursuant to the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE 4- EMPLOYEE RIGHTS i 4.1 Employee Organizations i i Employees shall have the right to form, join and participate in the i activities of employee organizations of their own choosing, for the purpose of a representation on matters of employee relations. Employees shall also have the right to refuse to join and participate in the activities of any employee organization. No employee shall be interfered with, intimidated, restrained, coerced, or s discriminated against by the City or by an employee organization because of his a exercise of these rights. 4.2 Non-Discrimination City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 2 The provisions of this Contract shall be applied equally to all employees in the bargaining unit without discrimination as to age, marital status, race, color, sex, creed, religion, national origin, labor organization affiliation, or political affiliation. The Association shall share equally with the City the responsibility for applying the provisions of this Contract. ARTICLE 5 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The City administration and department heads shall exercise the sole responsibility for management of the City and direction of its work force. To fulfill this responsibility, the rights of the City include, but are not limited to: establishing and directing activities of the City's departments and its employees determining services to be rendered, standards of service and methods of operation, including subcontracting and the introduction of new technology and equipment; establishing procedures and standards for employment and promotion; to layoff, transfer and promote; to discipline or discharge for cause; to determine job descriptions; determine work schedules, to establish performance standards, and assign work; and any other rights except as expressly limited by the terms of this Agreement. ARTICLE 6 - CITY SECURITY The Association agrees that during the term of this contract its membership will not participate in any strike against the City under any circumstances. For the purpose of this contract, the meaning of the word "strike" is any concerted stoppage of work, slowdown, speedup, sit-down, absence from work upon any pretext that is not founded in fact, interruption of the operations of the City by the Association, or any similar act. Violation of this section by any bargaining unit member shall be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including discharge. ARTICLE 7 - ASSOCIATION BUSINESS 7.1 Association Business Up to three (3) members of the bargaining unit selected to serve as authorized representatives shall be certified in writing to the Chief of Police. When authorized in advance, up to two (2) representatives shall be granted time off without loss of regular pay for the purpose of meeting with City representatives. Employees may attend Association meetings on duty, subject to call, when authorized by the Chief of Police. 7.2 Contract Negotiations The Association's negotiating team may be comprised of more than two (2) employees; provided however, that the City's obligation to allow such individuals to attend negotiations during duty hours without loss of pay shall be limited to two (2) individuals. Hours utilized for this purpose shall not be considered hours worked in determining the payment of overtime. The date, time, and place for negotiating sessions shall be established by mutual agreement between the parties. The Association's attorney may participate in negotiating sessions at the Association's discretion. 7.3 Special Conferences City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 3 Special conferences to discuss employment relations matters shall be arranged between the Association and the City or its designated representatives within a reasonable period of time after either party receives a request from the other party. Such meetings shall be arranged in advance, and an agenda of matters to be discussed at the meeting shall be presented at the time the request to confer is made. The Association members shall not lose time or pay for time spent in such conferences. Up to two (2) members of the bargaining unit may be allowed to attend conferences directly related to Association matters, provided the City receives sufficient advance notice of the dates of such conferences and the approval of the Chief of Police is obtained. The maximum number of days to be paid by the City shall not exceed an aggregate of six (6) conference days per year. The City shall not pay for travel, lodging, or per diem expenses of the members attending the conferences. ARTICLE 8 - GENERAL AND SPECIAL ORDERS The City will furnish the Association with copies of all general or special orders from within the Police Department promulgated during the term of this Agreement pertaining to wages, hours, and conditions of employment. ARTICLE 9 - DEPARTMENT MANUAL AND CONTRACT The City agrees to furnish each employee of the bargaining unit with a copy of the Department Manual and a copy of this contract as provided by the Association for distribution. ARTICLE 10- BULLETIN BOARD The City agrees to furnish and maintain a suitable bulletin board in a convenient place to be used by the Association. The Association shall limit its posting of notices and bulletins to such bulletin board and shall limit its postings to Association business. Only members of the bargaining unit may post or remove items on the Association bulletin board. In the event the City desires that an item be removed, it will contact the Association with a request for such. The item will be removed if found inappropriate by the parties. ARTICLE 11 - OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT Employees wishing to engage in off-duty employment with another employer must obtain approval from the Chief. ARTICLE 12 - WORKING OUT OF CLASS 12.1 Acting Supervisor Appointment of non-supervisory personnel to a supervisory position may be made on an acting basis to fill a temporary vacancy. An employee holding an acting supervisory position shall be entitled to a five percent (5%) premium for all time so assigned. Corporals are excluded from the provisions of this section. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 4 12.2 Coaching Non-supervisory personnel assigned to coach newly hired or promoted police department employees shall be entitled to a pay increase of 5% of the top-step base pay, for the classification acting as a coach, per day for each day or part of a day for the duration of their acting assignment. Corporals and Sergeants are excluded from the provisions of this section. (Effective 7/1/88). 12.3 Other Employees assigned to work in a higher classification, other than what is described in sections 1 & 2 of this article, shall be entitled to a five percent (5%) premium for all time so assigned. (Effective 7/1/88). ARTICLE 13 - HOURS OF WORK 13.1 Work Week The work week, consistent with the operating requirements of the City, shall consist of a forty-hour (40-hour) shift schedule during a seven day calendar day period commencing midnight Sunday and ending midnight the following Sunday, on a 5-8 or 4-10 schedule. The only exception to these provisions shall be for part-time employees. (a) A "5-8" work schedule shall consist of five (5) consecutive days of eight (8) work hours each followed by two (2) consecutive days off. (b) A "4-10" work schedule shall consist of four (4) consecutive days of ten (10) work hours each followed by three (3) consecutive days off. In the event a 4-10 schedule is implemented, the parties agree to meet to negotiate its implementation and any contract changes as may be necessary. (c) The City and the Association may agree to an alternative work week consisting of five (5) consecutive nine (9) hour workdays, followed by three (3) consecutive days off. In the event an alternative work schedule is implemented, the parties agree to meet to negotiate its implementation and any other contract changes as may be necessary. (d) Regular part-time employees shall be covered by the terms of this Agreement but shall receive a pro rata City contribution towards the cost of the i insurance benefits as specified in this agreement and all paid time off (vacation, i holidays, sick leave, etc.) based upon the relationship the employee's work schedule bears to that of a full-time employee. 13.2 Work Day a A normal work day shall consist of either eight (8) hours per day on the 3 basis of a five-day (5-day) work week, ten (10) hours per day on the basis of a four- day (4-day) work or nine (9) hours per day workday as specified in "c" above. The work day for all employees shall include meal and rest periods as set forth below. 13.3 Meal Period City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 5 Each employee covered by this agreement will be permitted a 30 minute paid meal period each workday to the extent consistent with operational or duty requirements. 13.4 Rest Periods Each employee covered by this agreement will be permitted two (2), fifteen (15) minute paid rest periods each work day, to the extent consistent with operational or duty requirements. 13.5 Work Schedules An employee will normally be given adequate advance notice of any change in his regular hours of work, except where an emergency exists. Notice will not be given less than two (2) weeks prior to the employee's change of work schedule, except where a change of schedule is for the purpose of the employee's voluntary training. 13.6 Safety Release Employees working sixteen or more hours in a twenty-four hour period may be given their next scheduled shift off with pay. In such event, no deduction shall be made from the employee's leave. If employees are directed to work their next scheduled shift, they shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half for such shift. The twenty-four hour period described herein shall commence at the start of the employee's regularly scheduled shift. ARTICLE 14 - OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY 14.1 Definition All work under the following conditions shall be compensated at the rate of time-and-one-half: (a) For employees assigned to a 5-8 schedule, all work in excess of eight (8) hours on any work day, and all work performed on the 6th or 7th day of the employee's work week. A work day shall for purposes hereof be a twenty-four-hour (24-hour) period commencing at the start of the employee's scheduled shift. (b) For employees assigned to a 4-10 schedule, all work in excess of ten (10) hours on any workday and all work performed on the 5th, 6th or 7th day of the employees work week. A work day shall for purposes hereof be a twenty-four- hour (24-hour) period commencing at the start of the employee's scheduled shift. All overtime pay shall be computed to the nearest one quarter (1/4) hour. Paid compensatory time off and all other paid time off, unless otherwise specified in this agreement, shall be counted as hours worked for purposes of determining overtime compensation. All non-paid time off shall not be counted as hours worked for purposes of determining overtime compensation. 14.2 Form of Compensation City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 6 The employee may elect to be compensated for all overtime in cash, or he/she may elect to accrue compensatory time to the extent such is allowed by law, to a maximum accrued balance of forty (40) hours, with the remainder to be paid in cash. Compensatory time shall be scheduled and taken off at the mutual convenience of the parties. 14.3 Callback Authorized court and call-back overtime shall be compensated at the below minimums: (a) On a Scheduled Work Day: Three (3) hours (either overtime pay or compensatory time, at the employee's choice, as provided in Section 14.2), but this minimum shall not apply if the court or call-back assignment begins one (1) hour or less before the start or after the end of the employee's regular shift. (b) On a Scheduled Day Off: Four (4) hours (either overtime or compensatory time, at the employee's choice, as provided in Section 14.2), scheduled days off include scheduled leave days, provided the employee complies with current court notification procedures. As a condition of receipt of payment for the time involved, all witness fees, mileage allowances, and other remuneration paid for appearances in court proceedings under this Article shall be turned over to the City. An employee who is on court call-back remains on call-back until finally released for the day by the court. 14.4 Standby Any employee required to be on standby will be compensated one dollar ($1.00) for every hour so acting. This benefit shall be effective July 1, 1988. 14.5 Special Assignment Pay. Recognizing the right of the City to transfer and assign as determined by the Chief, special assignment pay will be paid per an employee's current assignment as follows: Motorcycle 5% K-9 5% Detectives 3% Narcotics Officer 3% 14.6 Shift Differential Any member of the bargaining unit who has been employed at least six (6) months and who is required to work two (2) or more different shifts within a normal work week shall be compensated with two (2) hours of overtime for that week. This differential shall not apply when the above occurs as a result of a shift assignment as described in Article 26 or is the result of mutual agreement between members of the bargaining unit for their own Personal benefit. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 7 14.7 No Pyramiding The City shall not be required to pay twice for the same hours. ARTICLE 15- HOLIDAY COMPENSATION In lieu of holidays off, each full-time employee shall be credited with eight (8) hours of holiday compensatory time or cash, at the option of the employee, for each month worked. If the employee elects to receive compensatory time, such time off shall be credited to his/her vacation/holiday account. Part-time employees shall receive a prorated compensatory time credit based upon the relationship their regularly scheduled work week bears to that of a full-time employee. Within 30 days of the dates specified herein, employees will be required to advise the City what portion of their holiday time is to be converted to their vacation/holiday account and/or paid monthly or on the dates specified below. If an employee elects to have a portion of their holiday hours paid, such payment shall be made on December 1 and/or June 1 of each year and shall not exceed 48 hours on either date. The City will provide employees with a selection form and each employee will be required to make a selection and return the form within the time period described in this section. ARTICLE 16 - VACATIONS 16.1 Accrual Vacations shall accrue as follows: Years of Continuous Monthly Accrued Annual Hours Equivalent Accrual Service Rate Days 0-12 months/0-1 yr. 6 2/3 hours 80 10 13-60 months/1-5 yrs 8 hours 96 12 61-120 months/5-10 yrs 10 hours 120 15 121-180 mos/10-15 yrs 12 hours 144 18 Over 180 months 13 1/2 hours 160 20 Notwithstanding the above specified rates of vacation accrual, no employee shall be allowed to accumulate vacation/holiday in excess of 280 hours. It shall be the responsibility of each employee to schedule sufficient vacation/holiday so that he/she is not denied accrual of additional vacation. If an employee is unable to take vacation due to the operational needs of the department, he/she may make arrangements with the Chief to exceed the maximum accrual specified above. Accrued vacation shall be credited as earned vacation for each month of service or pro rata for each fractional month of service, in accordance with the above schedule except that vacation accrued during the first six (6) months of continuous service shall not be credited as earned vacation until the employee JIM= completes the first six (6) months of continuous service. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 8 16.2 Scheduling Vacation periods shall be scheduled at the mutual agreement of the City and the individual employee. Between April 1st and 15th of each year, the City shall circulate within each classification and in order of seniority, with the most senior employee afforded the first selection, a vacation sign-up roster for the following twelve-month (12-month) period. Each employee shall be allowed to select one continuous vacation period (vacation/holiday and comp time included) from the portions of the year in which vacation is available. After the seniority vacation selection as provided for above, all additional vacation will be scheduled subject to the operational needs of the department on a first-come first-served basis. Once a vacation request has been approved, it shall not be canceled by the City unless due to circumstances beyond the control of the City. 16.3 Separation All employees shall be entitled to payment for unused vacation/holiday and comp time upon separation from City service. In the event of death, the employee's heirs will be entitled to payment of such accrued time. 16.4 Bonus Employees, at their option, may elect to be paid up to forty (40) hours of accrued vacation in addition to vacation time taken when they take vacation leave totaling 40 hours paid time per fiscal year. ARTICLE 17- INSURANCE BENEFITS 17.1 Health Insurance The City agrees to provide and maintain LOC Trust Plan II ($100 individual, $300 family deductible effective 1/1/95) at no cost to the employee. LOC Trust Plan IV or LOC Kaiser Plan will be available at employee option upon employment with the employee paying the difference between the current monthly cost of LOC Plan II and the monthly cost of LOC Plan IV or LOC Kaiser Plan, as the case may be. 17.2 Dental Insurance The City agrees to provide the current dental insurance plan or a substitute plan of the same service delivery type at substantially the same or a better benefit level at no cost to the employee. 17.3 Vision The City agrees to provide UCR Vision coverage, employee coverage only, and effective 7/1/98 add dependent/employee, coverage no cost to the employee. 17.4 Life and Disability Insurance City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 9 The City agrees to provide and maintain the current life and disability insurance plan or a substitute plan of the same service delivery type at substantially the same or a better benefit level at no cost to the employee. Effective on or before October 1, 1991, the City agrees to make optional life insurance available for employee purchase subject to the limits available to the City, maximum $500,000 coverage. 17.5 Physical Examinations and Capability Test The City may require each employee to take a physical examination, or it may choose to require such an examination only for sworn officers. Each employee who is required to take such an examination may choose to use his/her own physician, at the employee's expense, or to use a physician designated by the City, at the City's expense. The spirit of the physical examination and the annual physical capability test is for the welfare of the employee and is not intended to be punitive in any manner. The physical examination will focus on specific health maintenance issues and early identification of potential job related health problems in the future. The report form will address only those health issues related to personnel in their specific working environment. Access to the report is limited to the City Administrator, Chief of Police, Personnel Director, and the named employee. 17.6 Retirement Effective July 1, 1989, all sworn officers will be placed in the Public Employees Retirement System based on their last effective date of hire. Effective as of March 30, 1997, City payment of PERS "pickup" will be discontinued and all sworn officers will make a contribution on their own behalf in accordance with the requirements of the Public Employee Retirement System. Individual members or the Association as a whole, will not be responsible for the cost of the conversion. All non-sworn employees will receive a vested benefit into the ICMA retirement program based on their actual account balances as of July 1, 1989 and the formula provided the City in the parties May 11, 1989 agreement. Effective July 1, 1989, the City will contribute 12% of salary as defined by ICMA into an ICMA 401A plan. Effective March 30, 1997, the City's contribution will be 11 % and effective July 1, 1997, the City contribution will be 10%. 17.7 Liability The City shall continue liability protection at least equal to its level of insurance as of June 30, 1991. The City may choose to self-insure. 17.8 Plan Descriptions The City will annually provide each employee with a list and description of those insurance plans which this contract enumerates and a list and description of j those plans which are available as options to City employees. 17.9 Flexible Spending Account City of Tigard and TPQA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 10 LM Effective January 1, 1992, subject to IRS approval, the City will make available the IRS Section 125 flexible spending account for child care and medical reimbursement purposes. Elder care will be added as an option as of January 1 following availability. ARTICLE 18 - SICK LEAVE 18.1 Purpose The purpose of sick leave is to allow continuation of pay while an employee recuperates from an illness or other approved reason causing absence as noted in Section 18.6. Sick leave is also intended to provide employees with the assurance of pay in order that they may be away from the job to avoid exposing others to illness. 18.2 Accrual System Employees shall be credited with eight (8) hours of accumulated sick leave for each full calendar month actively employed by the City. All regular employees and all probationary employees (after 30 days employment) are allowed sick leave for non-occupational disability. Sick leave may be accrued without a limit, except as provided for conversion to retirement. 18.3 Part-time Employees Sick leave benefits for regular part-time employees (twenty (20) hours per week or more) shall be granted on a prorated basis (hours per week divided by forty (40). 18.4 Utilization Accumulated sick leave shall be payable at the employee's regular straight-time rate in an amount equal to the time the employee would have worked, to a maximum of eight (8) hour per day. Employees may utilize their allowance for sick leave whenever they are unable to perform their work duties by reason of illness or non-occupational injury. 18.5 Notification i 1 In the event an employee is absent from work because of sickness or a injury, the employee shall notify the supervisor, at least one (1) hour prior to the employee's scheduled start time, of the expected absence and the nature and i expected length thereof. However, should an employee fail to call within the first hour of the regular work shift due to extreme illness, a physician's statement may be required by the supervisor and shall be paid for by the City when so required in the a event the employee's health insurance does not cover the cost. r a 18.6 Family Use Employees may use sick leave where there is an illness in their family which necessitates making arrangements for the ill relative. Members of the City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 11 employee's family are defined as relatives and/or dependents domiciled in the employee's household. Variances to this policy are to be approved by the Chief of Police prior to authorization of sick leave. 18.7 Integration with Worker's Comp In the case of on-the-job injuries covered by Workers' Compensation, the City will provide to the employee an amount equal to the difference between the payments received for Workers' Compensation time-loss benefits and regular net salary. Whenever an employee receives a check for Workers' Compensation time-loss benefits, he/she shall report to the Finance Director of the City in writing the amount of the check and the period for which it represents payment. Sick leave will not be charged to the employee for injuries covered by Workers' Compensation or that are the result of on-the-fob injury. 18.8 Retirement or Death (a) Sworn employees covered by PERS shall have 50% of their unused sick leave credited to their retirement as per guidelines of PERS. The benefits of this sub-section shall be applied to a maximum of 1,200 hours of unused sick leave. In the event of the employee's death, the employee's heir will receive a cash death benefit equal to one-half of unused sick leave accrual at the time of death. This death benefit will be inapplicable if any portion of unused sick leave is converted for retirement or survivor benefits. (b) All other employees who have completed 20 years of credited service or have reached their normal retirement date or have become disabled, shall have one-half (1/2) of their unused sick leave applied to their retirement benefit. This benefit can be a cash-out at the employee's regular straight-time rate or the time can be applied to enable the employee to retire early. In the event of the employee's death, his/her survivors would receive the cash benefit equal to one-half (1/2) of the value of the employee's unused sick leave. 18.9 Vacation Bonus An employee shall receive one extra vacation day for twelve (12) consecutive months of non-use of sick leave in the previous calendar year. It shall be the responsibility of each employee to notify the department of his/her qualifications prior to January 31. 18.10 Appointment Leave Effective July 1, each employee shall receive sixteen (16) hours appointment leave to be used for medical or dental appointments. (Appointment leave will be non-accumulative.) 18.11 Maternity City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 12 Maternity leave shall be covered by sick leave or disability insurance pay during the period that the employee's doctor certifies "disability". The employee will be required to provide written certification before such payments are made. The length of leave, both prior to and after delivery, is a decision to be made by the woman and her doctor. Any time taken before or after the certified period of disability must be taken as compensatory time, vacation leave, holiday time or leave without pay and the regulations governing these forms of leave shall apply. The employee must notify her supervisor in writing of her intention to return to work (including date of return) prior to the commencement of her maternity leave, and within 15 days after delivery she must reaffirm her intention to return to work in order to assure that her position will be held open. An employee who confirms her intention to return to work in accordance with the above shall have her position held open until the date specified in her statement of intention, after which reinstatement will be dependent upon the availability of a suitable vacancy. Vacancies created by such leave, if filled, will be by temporary or conditional appointments. Vacation leave, seniority and time toward annual evaluation shall accrue during the sick leave period of maternity leave. In addition, health and other insurance benefits will continue without interruption. During the periods of disability insurance pay, health, dental and life insurance benefits will be discontinued. However, the employee will have the option of picking up health insurance at their own expense (group rate) for a period of ninety (90) days. During periods of leave without pay, standard rules governing leave and fringe benefits under leave without pay shall apply. Pregnancy shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal. 18.12 Family Medical Leave The City agrees to abide by the applicable provisions of state or federal law regarding family medical leave. 18.13 Sick Leave Donation An employee with a minimum of four hundred eighty (480) hours of unused sick leave may, on written notice to the City, donate sick leave time to another employee who has exhausted all sick leave and is in documented need of sick leave due to extended illness or injury. The donor's sick leave will first be converted to cash based on the donor's base salary and then converted to an appropriate amount of sick leave based on the donee's base salary. ARTICLE 19 - LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH PAY 19.1 Compassionate Leave In the event of death or critical illness in the employee's family or of an individual of significant personal relationship to the employee, the Chief of Police shall grant needed time off with pay, not to exceed five (5) working days. For the purpose of this section, family shall be defined as: parents, parents-in-law, children, City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 13 step-children, brothers, sisters and grandparents. For purposes of this provision, "critical illness" shall be defined as a life-threatening situation which reasonably requires the employee's presence. 19.2 Voting When an employee's work schedule is such that he/she would not be able to vote prior to or after his/her normally scheduled work hours, he/she shall be granted off duty time of up to two (2) hours to vote without loss of pay or accrued vacation. 19.3 Training (a) Training Information - The City shall provide the Association with information regarding law enforcement-related training opportunities as such information is received. The Association may submit recommendations for review by the Chief regarding the available training opportunities that it believes are of particular value or are lacking in value to the Department. (b) Mandatory Training - An employee may request assignment to a training activity or be so assigned upon the initiative of the Department. When an employee is assigned to attend a training activity, the following shall apply: 1. All receipted course registration fees, tuition, and other out-of-pocket expenses shall be reimbursed by the City. All textbooks and other literature received as a result of taking the training shall be the property of the City. 2. All mileage and per diem shall be reimbursed in accordance with this agreement. 3. All time required for travel and course attendance shall be paid at the employee's regular or overtime rate, as applicable. (c) Voluntary Training - Training to which an employee is not specifically assigned pursuant to "b" above, shall be designated as voluntary training. Such training may occur on paid or non-paid time or a combination thereof and may be with full, partial, or no reimbursement of expenses. At the time that a training request is approved, the Department shall specify whether the training is considered to be voluntary or assigned and, if voluntary, the specified expenses, if any, that the City will reimburse and the paid time, if any, that the City will grant. 19.4 Jury Duty ai a (a) Employees shall be granted leave with pay for service upon a jury provided that the day to be served on jury duty is a scheduled work day. Should the employee's regular schedule be other than a day shift, the City shall City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 14 LOO reschedule the employee to a day shift for the duration of the employee's jury service. The City shall not incur any liability for adjusting the shift of the employee on jury duty or for adjusting any other employee's shift to comply with this Article. No more employees than reasonably necessary will be adjusted to fill in for the shift of the employee on jury duty. (b) The employee is required to seek all fees due him or her for such jury duty and turn said fees, excepting personal vehicle mileage, over to the City. Upon being excused from jury duty for any day, the employee shall immediately contact his supervisor for assignment of the remainder of his or her work day. (c) This Article shall only apply to those work weeks of the member during which the member is serving on an impaneled jury or is required to report for juror selection. ARTICLE 20 - LEAVE WITHOUT PAY The City will consider a written application for leave of absence without pay, not to exceed 180 calendar days, if the City finds there is reasonable justification to grant such leave and that the work of a department will not be seriously handicapped by the temporary absence of the employee. The City may terminate or cancel such leave by 30 days written notice mailed to the address given by the employee on his/her written application for such leave. Such leave shall not be approved for the purpose of accepting employment outside the service of the City and notice that an employee has accepted permanent employment or entered into full time business or occupation may be accepted by the City as a resignation. Any employee who is granted a leave of absence without pay under this section and who for any reason fails to return to work at the expiration or termination of said leave of absence shall be considered as having resigned his/her position with the City and the position shall be declared vacant unless the employee, prior to the expiration of the leave of absence or prior to the termination date has furnished evidence that they are unable to work by reason of sickness, physical disability or other legitimate reasons beyond their control and seeks an extension of leave for such reason. Such a request for extension shall be in writing. An extension shall be granted only for a specified period of time and only if the City determines that the request is reasonable and justified and that the extension may be granted without unduly handicapping the operation of the department. ARTICLE 21 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 21.1 Process To promote better relations, the parties agree to settle any disputes as to the meaning or interpretation of this contract by the following procedure: STEP 1: After first attempting to resolve the grievance informally, the Association or any employee with notice to the Association, may claim a breach of this Agreement in writing to the employee's immediate supervisor within fourteen (14) City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 15 ON days from the occurrence thereof, or of the employee's knowledge thereof. The notice shall include: a) a statement of the grievance and relevant facts; b) provision of the contract violated; C) remedy sought. The supervisor shall respond to the grievance in writing within seven (7) days, with a copy to the Association. STEP 2: If after seven (7) days from the date of submission of the grievance to the supervisor the grievance remains unadjusted, the grievance may be submitted within seven (7) days to the Chief of Police. The Chief may meet with the aggrieved party, who may request an Association representative at the hearing. The Chief shall respond to the grievance in writing within seven (7) days with a copy to the Association. STEP 3: If after seven (7) days from the date Of Submission of the grievance to the Chief the grievance remains unadjusted, the grievance may be submitted within seven (7) days to the City Administrator, who shall meet with the aggrieved party and Association representatives and shall respond to the grievance in writing within fourteen (14) days with a copy to the Association. STEP 4: If the grievance is not resolved within fourteen (14) days from submission of the grievance to the City Administrator, it may be submitted within fourteen (14) days to an arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement of the parties as follows: A list of seven (7) arbitrators shall be requested from the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the parties shall alternately strike one (1) name from the list until only one (1) is left. The one remaining shall be the arbitrator. A coin flip shall determine which party strikes the first name on the first arbitration after the signing of this contract. After that, the duty to make the first strike will rotate with each subsequent arbitration. The parties shall jointly request that the arbitrator render a decision in writing within thirty (30) days of the close of the hearing and receipt of briefs. The power of the arbitrator shall be limited to interpreting this Agreement and determining if it has been violated. The arbitrator shall have no authority to add to, subtract from, or modify this Agreement. The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on both parties. The parties specifically agree that, in the event issues are submitted to a arbitration (grievance or interest), the decision shall be strictly limited to those issues a disputed by the parties. The costs of the arbitrator shall be borne by the losing party. Each party shall be responsible for the costs of presenting its own case to arbitration. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 16 21.2 Time Limits Any time limits specified in this grievance procedure may be waived by mutual consent of the parties. "Day" shall be defined as calendar day. Failure to submit the grievance in accordance with these time limits without such waiver shall constitute abandonment of the grievance. Failure by the City to submit a reply within the specified time will constitute a denial of the grievance. A grievance may be terminated at any time upon receipt of a signed statement from the Association or the employee that the matter has been resolved. ARTICLE 22 - MILEAGE AND PER DIEM ALLOWANCE 22.1 Mileage Reimbursement Whenever an employee is authorized to use his/her personal vehicle in performance of official City duties, he/she shall be compensated at the standard IRS- allowed rate. 22.2 Expenses An employee traveling on authorized City business shall receive, in addition to his/her transportation and lodging expenses, a per diem allowance of $22.00 per day, or fraction thereof, actually spent on City business for each programmed day of a conference or meeting and for time spent in travel, except that per diem for travel shall not exceed one (1) day each way. The purpose of per diem is to cover ordinary expenses such as meals, refreshment, tips, etc. If upon return to work the employee justified to the satisfaction of the City Administrator that the per diem allowance was insufficient to cover reasonable actual costs, the per diem amount shall be adjusted accordingly by the City Administrator. Employees anticipating the need for per diem compensation shall so advise the City Administrator in advance of travel on forms provided by the City and receive advance authorization therefor. ARTICLE 23- CLOTHING AND UNIFORM 23.1 Uniform If an employee is required to wear a uniform, Such uniform shall be furnished by the City, and the City shall pay for initial tailoring. Any required leatherware and personal firearm is specifically excluded from this provision and shall be the responsibility of the employee to provide. The employee shall make restitution to the City for loss or damage to any City supplied uniform unless such loss or damage occurred in the line of duty and was not caused by negligence on the part of the employee. Proper maintenance of a required uniform is the responsibility of the employee. 23.2 Clothing Allowance The City will provide a clothing allowance for employees while assigned i to plain clothes duty at the rate of $40.00 per month. The provisions of this section shall apply to reimbursable expenses incurred in the fiscal year for reimbursement within the same fiscal year and shall apply only to sworn personnel who wear plain clothes seventy-five percent (75%) or more of duty time calculated monthly. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 17 23.3 Property Reimbursement The City shall reimburse employees for personal property reasonably and necessarily worn or carried when such property is stolen, damaged, or destroyed as a direct result of the employee's performance of his/her official duties. Reimbursement shall not be granted if the negligence or wrongful conduct of the employee was a substantial contributing factor to the theft, damage, or destruction. 23.4 Cleaning The City shall provide every uniformed employee with one (1) cleaning per week of the required uniform, and the City shall provide cleaning for the duty jacket on a quarterly basis with a contracted cleaner as specified by the City. 23.5 Equipment Allowance The City will provide an equipment allowance for sworn personnel. The equipment allowance will be in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) per year, paid by separate check as of the first pay date following July 1 of each year, and will be for the purpose of reimbursing sworn employees for the costs of equipment necessary for the performance of their job, including articles of clothing and footwear. ARTICLE 24 - SENIORITY 24.1 Definition Only regular full-time employees shall have seniority. Seniority shall be achieved following the completion of the probationary period as defined in Section 27.1 and shall thereafter be established as the employee's total unbroken service in the bargaining unit. Time spent in the armed forces on military leave of absence, authorized leaves with pay and time lost because of duty-connected disability shall be included in the employee's total unbroken length of service. If an employee is on an authorized leave without pay for a period in excess of fifteen (15) calendar days, such time in excess of fifteen (15) days shall not apply to seniority provided that the employee's seniority will not be considered broken or terminated by authorized leave in excess of fifteen (15) days. In cases where employees were hired on the same date, seniority order shall be determined by lot. Employees who are promoted to a position outside of the bargaining unit shall retain existing seniority but shall accrue no seniority during the time they work outside the unit. 24.2 Loss of Seniority Seniority shall be broken or terminated if an employee: (a) Quits; (b) Is discharged for just cause; (c) Is laid off and fails to respond to written notice as provided in Article 25; (d) Is laid off from work for any reason for twenty-four (24) months (e) Fails to report to work at the termination of a leave of absence; (f) While on a leave of absence accepts employment without permission; (g) Is retired. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 18 If an employee's seniority is broken and he is subsequently hired to work in the Police Department, his seniority shall run from his most recent date of hire within the bargaining unit. 24.3 Application Seniority shall apply by classification in the matter of layoff recall, and shift and days off bidding, except that if an employee has been demoted, seniority shall include all time in the employee's present or higher classification within the bargaining unit. Seniority shall apply by total unbroken service in the bargaining unit for purposes of vacation scheduling under Section 16.2. 24.4 Seniority List The City will provide the Association with a seniority list on January 1 and July 1 each year and shall post the list in a conspicuous place available to all employees. ARTICLE 25 - LAYOFF AND RECALL In the event of layoff for any reason, employees shall be laid off in the inverse order of their seniority in their classification. Any employee who is to be laid off shall be given a position, in a lower classification in the bargaining unit, providing the employee has greater seniority than the employee being bumped, and is qualified to perform the requirements of the job. An employee who is promoted out of the bargaining unit and into management shall retain his/her unit seniority and may bump back into the unit, if laid off, if the management employee has the greater seniority as a unit member. The employee shall bump the employee in the lower class with the least seniority with the department. A sworn employee may not bump a non-sworn employee unless the sworn employee previously held the non-sworn classification. Employees shall be called back from layoff according to seniority in the classification from which the employees were laid off within the department. No new employees shall be hired in any classification until all employees on layoff status in that classification have had an opportunity to return to work. An employee on layoff status shall accept or decline an opening within fifteen (15) days of notice of termination of layoff. If there is a shortfall of unencumbered general purpose money in the General Fund and it is necessary to lay off personnel within the bargaining unit, the City and the Association will meet and consult prior to the City finalizing and implementing its decision. ARTICLE 26 - SHIFT AND DAYS OFF BIDDING 26.1 Rotation All shifts shall be rotated each six (6) months. 26.2 Shift and Days Off Prior to regular shift rotation, eligible employees shall be entitled to submit written bids for shift assignments and days off from the slots made available City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 19 by the Department. Employee bids for both shifts and days off shall be submitted in writing to a designated supervisor at least 30 days prior to the regularly scheduled rotation. Shift and days off bids shall be honored on the basis of seniority within the bargaining unit except as follows: (a) Unless written permission is granted by the Chief or a designee, no employee shall be eligible to remain on the same shift more than 18 consecutive months. (b) Between regular shift rotations, the Chief or a designee may, for good cause and based upon a good faith analysis of operational and personnel needs of the Department, reassign employees to a different shift. Such good faith assignments shall not be grievable but employees shall receive at least two (2) weeks notice prior to such re- assignments, unless precluded by an emergency, and shall be afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chief. (c) Probationary employees shall not bid for shifts. 26.3 Overtime Waiver For the purpose of this article, the City shall not be obligated to pay overtime that arises as a result of shift rotation so long as the employee does not work more than 80 hours in a 14 day period or work more than five (5) consecutive days. ARTICLE 27- PROBATIONARY PERIOD 27.1 Definitions (a) For individuals who have less than 24 months satisfactory experience with a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, the probationary period shall be 18 months. (b) For individuals with at least 24 months satisfactory experience with a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, the probationary period shall be 12 months. (c) Non-sworn personnel shall be subject to a 12 month probationary period. , , { Prior to completion of the probationary period, employees may be discharged at will and such discharge shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. , 27.2 Promotional Probation a s All promotions shall be subject to a six (6) month promotional a probationary period. Any employee who fails to complete the probationary period, including any employee who is promoted to a position outside the bargaining unit, shall have the right to be reinstated to the classification he/she held prior to being promoted. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 20 ARTICLE 28- DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 28.1 Definition Disciplinary action or measures for violations of rules or regulations shall include only the following: oral reprimand, written reprimand, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay, other monetary assessment or discharge. Notice of suspension or discharge will be given in writing. Employees are subject to discipline or discharge for cause. 28.2 Process If the City has reason to suspend or discharge an employee, the employee shall have the right to be represented by an Association representative during such procedure. If the City has reason to discipline an employee, it will take all reasonable measures to assure against embarrassment of the employee before other employees or the public. 28.3 Association Representation In the event of any interview which may reasonably lead to disciplinary action, the affected employee shall have the right to be assisted by an Association representative during such procedures. The parties mutually agree to the "Internal Investigation Procedures" attached hereto as Addendum A and incorporated herein. ARTICLE 29 - PERSONNEL FILE No material in any form which can reasonably be construed, interpreted, or acknowledged to be derogatory shall be placed in the employee's personnel file unless he/she has been allowed to read such material. Any employee upon his/her request shall have access to his/her personnel file and shall have the right of reproduction of his personnel file in full or in part. No portion of an employee's file shall be transmitted without the explicit consent and request of the employee, other than to those authorized within the Tigard Police Department, the City Administrator or his/her staff, or a court of competent jurisdiction. The official personnel file shall be maintained in the Personnel Division. ARTICLE 30 - WAGES 30.1 Salary Schedules Retroactive and effective on July 1, 1999, for all employees employed upon ratification, increase the salary schedule across the board by one and one-half percent (1.5%), as reflected in Addendum A. Retroactive and effective on January 1, 2000, for all employees employed upon ratification, increase the salary schedule across the board by one and one-half percent (1.5%), as reflected in Addendum B. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 21 Retroactive and effective on July 1, 2000, for all employees employed upon ratification, increase the salary schedule across the board by three percent (3.0%), as reflected in Addendum C. Each employee shall be paid at one of the steps in the range prescribed for his/her classification. Normally, an employee will be appointed or reinstated at the first step of the range established for his/her classification. The Chief may make an appointment or reinstatement above the first step. 30.2 Schedule Movement A new employee or promoted employee is eligible for consideration for advancement to the next step of the salary range for his/her classification at the beginning of the next pay period following completion of the equivalent of six (6) months of service. Advancement of employees to higher pay steps shall not be automatic, but may be made to the next pay step in the employee's classification, effective on the first day of the next pay period following the completion of each 12 months of satisfactory work performance. Such advancement shall be subject to a written employee evaluation by the department head to the City Administrator certifying that the employee had been making normal improvement in the ability to carry out his/her job assignment. Advancement may be withheld or postponed in the event the employee is not performing his or her job assignment satisfactorily. 30.3 Promotions Upon promotion, corporals and sergeants will move to the next highest step, minimum 5% pay increase, computed on the basis of the base rate of pay exclusive of premium, special assignment, or incentive/longevity pay. 30.4 Demotion Unless a lesser sanction is provided by the City Administrator, an employee voluntarily demoted or demoted as a result of a disciplinary action shall be paid at the same step of the lower range as he/she occupied before being promoted, with consideration of length of service of the employee in the higher range. A i demoted employee shall retain the same salary increase date. a i 30.5 Salary Range Changes When a range is changed, the employee's pay is based upon the same step of the new range as in the old. Such changes shall not alter the employee's 3 eligibility for salary increases. a 30.6 Pay Periods The City shall pay employees once every two weeks. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 22 ARTICLE 31 - EDUCATION INCENTIVE/LONGEVITY MERIT INCENTIVE 31.1 Certification/Education Certification pay increments will begin as of the date of issuance shown on the certification. Educational achievement pay increments will begin as of the date of written notice to the City of a degree or equivalent hours. Members of the bargaining unit shall be eligible for educational and training incentive increments to be applied to their current salary after meeting the following requirements: (a) Completion of probation. (b) Accrual of the necessary education and training points for the intermediate or advanced certificate as set forth by Addendum B. Incentive premiums and education requirements are as follows: Sworn Personnel Premium BPST Certification Educational Achievement 2.5% a. Intermediate b. A.A./A.S. or equiv. Hours 5% a. Intermediate A.A./A.S. or equiv. Hours b. Advanced 7.5% a. Advanced A.A./A.S. or equiv. hours See Addendum C, Sworn Personnel certification Standards. 31.2 Longevity Longevity merit incentive shall be paid in accordance with the following schedule: 2% after 5 years 3% after 6 years 4% after 7 years 5% after 8 years 6% after 9 years 7.5% after 10 years 10% after 15 years The above percentages shall be applied to the individual employee's base salary but not to exceed a maximum of the top step of the police officer classification salary. These percentages shall be applied to the base pay step, not including educational incentive pay to previous longevity increases (i.e., shall not be compounded). The parties agree that this longevity merit incentive schedule at the percentages shown above is a permanent method of recognizing longevity of service and it is the intention of the parties that these step intervals and respective percentages shall not be subject to additional negotiations. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 23 ARTICLE 32 - SAVINGS CLAUSE If any article or section of this Agreement or any amendment thereto should be held invalid by operation of the law, or by any lawful tribunal having jurisdiction or if compliance with or enforcement of any article or section should be restricted by such tribunal, the remainder of this Agreement and addenda shall not be affected thereby, and the parties shall enter into immediate collective bargaining negotiations for the purpose of arriving at a mutually satisfactory replacement for such article or section. ARTICLE 33 - TERMINATION This contract shall be effective as of the date of its signing by both parties or as otherwise specified herein and shall remain in full force and effect until June 30, 2001. The parties agree to commence negotiations on or before January 5, 2001, for a successor Agreement. This contract shall remain in full force and effect during the period of negotiations. The parties agree to administer this contract and negotiate for a successor agreement in accordance with ORS 243.650, et. seq., the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Law. Signed this day of , 2000. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION City Manager TPOA President Date: Date: City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 24 ADDENDUM A JULY 1999 COLA Classefcat~or stdp 7 'step Z ' Sp3p 4"y WPB tier~ r Police Records Monthly 2192 2302 2417 2539 2664 Specialist Hourly 12.65 13.28 13.94 14.65 15.37 Annually 26304 27624 29004 30468 31968 Property/Evidence Monthly 2426 2547 2675 2809 2949 Clerk Hourly 14.00 14.69 15.43 16.21 17.01 Annually 29112 30564 32100 33708 35388 Detective Monthly 2192 2302 2417 2539 2664 Secretary Hourly 12.65 13.28 13.94 14.65 15.37 Annually 26304 27624 29004 30468 31968 Community Monthly 2426 2547 2675 2809 2949 Service Officer Hourly 14.00 14.69 15.43 16.21 17.01 Annuall 29112 30564 32100 33708 35388 Police Officer Monthly 3136 3218 3386 3564 3753 4 Hourly 18.09 18.57 19.53 20.56 21.65 Annually 37632 38616 40632 42768 45036 H -1 i City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 25 ADDENDUM B JANUARY 2000 COLA Classaf ~t~on, S#e~ fi S eq 2x Step 4'st,6 4 Stew a Tetle Pi Records Monthly 2225 2337 2453 2577 2704 Specialist Hourly 12.84 13.48 14.15 14.87 15.60 Annual) 26700 28044 29436 30924 32448 Property/Evidence Monthly 2462 2585 2715 2851 2993 Clerk Hours 14.20 14.91 15.66 16.45 17.27 Annual) 129544 31020 32580 34212 35916 Detective Secretary Month) 2225 2337 2453 2577 2704 Hour) 12.84 13.48 14.15 14.87 15.60 Annual) 26700 28044 29436 130924 32448 Community Service Monthly 2462 2585 2715 2851 2993 Officer Hour) 14.20 14.91 15.66 16.45 17.27 Annual) 29544 31020 32580 34212 35916 Police Officer Month) 3183 3266 3437 3617 3809 Hour) 18.36 18.84 19.83 20.87 21.98 Annual) 38196 39192 41244 43404 45708 City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 26 ADDENDUM C JULY 2000 COLA Ciassificaiuora ;S r ti "title.: - _ tep 1 Ste►pr2 SiEsp3 ; S't®pr~~S,t~p, ~i*_ r r. Police Records Monthly 2292 2407 2527 2654 2785 Specialist Hourly 13.22 13.89 14.58 15.31 16.07 Annually 27504 28884 30324 31848 3420 Property/Evidence Monthly 2536 2663 2796 2937 3083 Clerk Hourly 14.63 15.36 16.13 16.94 17.79 Annually 30432 31956 33552 35244 36996 Detective Monthly 2292 2407 2527 2654 2785 Secretary Hours 13.22 13.89 14.58 15.31 16.07 Annually 27504 28884 30324 31848 33420 Community Monthly 2536 2663 2796 2937 3083 Service Officer Hourly 14.63 15.36 16.13 16.94 17.79 Annually 30432 31956 33552 35244 36996 Police Officer Monthly 3278 3364 3540 3726 3923 Hourl 18.91 19.41 20.42 21.50 22.63 Annually r39336 40368 42480 44712 47076 City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 27 ADDENDUM D INTERNAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES A. Advance Notice. Prior to any internal investigation which could result in suspension or discharge, the employee concerned shall be notified not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the interview or such time as written reports are required, except when, in the opinion of the City, a delay will jeopardize the success of the investigation or when criminal conduct is at issue. An employee may voluntarily waive the above twenty-four hour (24-hour) notice. The notice shall include the specific reasons for the interview, a statement of whether the employee is a witness or a suspect, and any other information necessary to reasonably inform him/her of the nature of the investigation. Upon request, the employee shall be afforded an opportunity and facilities, subject only to scheduling limitation, to contact and consult privately with an attorney and/or a representative of the Association. B. The Interview 1. Interview shall be conducted in the Department Office unless mutual agreement of the parties or the particular circumstances of the situation require another location. 2. Any interview of an employee normally shall be when he/she is on duty, unless the serious nature of the investigation dictates otherwise. 3. Parties to the interview shall be limited to those reasonably necessary to conduct a thorough and fair investigation. The employee shall be informed as to the name, rank and command, or other similar information of all persons present, if they are unknown to him/her, and may have an Association or other representative present to witness the interview and assist him/her. 4. The interview shall be limited in scope to acts, events, circumstances and conduct which pertain to the subject investigation and shall be conducted in a manner devoid of intimidation or coercion. The employee shall be granted reasonable rest periods, with one (1) intermission every hour if so requested. Interviews exceeding two (2) hours shall he continued only by mutual consent. b. If the interview is recorded, the employee shall be provided with a copy of the recording upon request, or he/she may record the interview himself/herself at his/her own expense, and the City shall be provided with a copy. If any portion of the recording is transcribed, the employee shall be given a copy. Interview proceedings shall be kept strictly confidential by all concerned. C. Investigation Findings: City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 28 1. When the investigation results in charges of violation of department policy being filed, the employee, upon request, shall be given a copy of the summary report of the investigation, including all material facts of the matter. 2. When the investigation results in discharge or suspension, the employee shall be notified immediately of the nature of the action to be taken, the reasons therefor, and the effective date of such action. Copies of the notice and summary report of the investigation shall be placed in the employee's personnel file and made available for his/her inspection. 3. An employee may protest any suspension or discharge through the regular contract grievance procedure. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 29 ADDENDUM E SWORN PERSONNEL INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATION Minimum 8 yrs 7 yrs 6 yrs 5 yrs. 4 yrs 3 yrs 2 yrs Years of Experience Minimum 15 23 30 38 45 BPST BPST Training (300 (460 hrs.) (600 hrs.) 760 hrs.) 900 hrs.) Basic Basic Points, hrs.) Course Course Including BPST Basic Course (Equivalent hours in parentheses) Minimum 15 23 30 38 45 Assoc. Bach. Education Degree Degree Points ADVANCED CERTIFICATION Minimum 12 11 10 9 8 9 6 4 Years of Experience Training 30 35 40 45 60 BPST BPST BPST Points, (600 (700 hrs.) (800 hrs.) (900 hrs.) (1200 Basic Basic Basic Including hrs.) hrs.) Course Course Course BPST Basic Course (Equivalent hours in parentheses) Minimum Education Points City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 30 ADDENDUM SIDE LETTER The parties are agreed tat tae Association has no interest in and expressly waives any c'la'im to represent employees employed in the Computer Specialist Classification. Signed this day of , 1994. CITY OF TIG;U-~D, OREGCN TIGAr3.D POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION at ck J. _ ly l John Gtildspin'k Cit Mana r TPOA President Date 113 Date 7/1-3 l G1c1 City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Dace: June 30._'Qgx ~/~7 33 03 2 A' 1~ ADDENDUM r- Side Letter July 96 - June 99 Agreement The parties agree that during the term of this Agreement there will be an ongoing dialogue which may be initiated by either party concerning the current longevity merit incentive pay program and possible modification of or alternatives to that program. Modification of the current program during the term of this Agreement may be made by mutual consent only. William Monahan Michael Webber City Manager TPOA President Date Date U a y 7 n N city of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 1999 41 ADDENDUM H Effective with the pay period commencing March 30, 1997, the City agrees to increase the salary of each sworn officer and each step of the current salary schedule by six percent (6%) From that time forward, the TPOA agrees that sworn officers shall contribute six percent (6%) of salary to PERS. The City shall withhold from the salary of sworn officers the employee's PERS contribution, with other required withholdings, and shall pay the amount withheld for PERS to PERS in lieu of payment to PERS by the employee. Sworn officers shall have no option to receive the amount withheld and contribute directly instead of having it paid by the City to PERS. For the limited purposes of Internal Revenue Code Section 414 (h) (2) and related tax statutes, the employee's contribution to PERS will be picked up by the City as a pre-tax contribution as the term "picks up" is used in the Internal Revenue Code. This change is not applicable to any employee until they become eligible and qualified for membership in PERS. City of Tigard and TPOA - Expiration Date: June 30, 2001 33 MM ADD9N'DuM ()C) TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT ~ D` • I~ MEMORANDUM u"- M ORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING It is hereby agreed and understood at due to the nature of the narcotics and gang Detective positions, they will work flexible sh ts. The split shift differential and the overtime article of the TPOA contract will be waived, exc t that any time worked on scheduled days off will be compensated as per contract. It is further agreed and understood that any t' ne worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week will be compensated at the rate of time and on -half, either comp or paid time, at the option of the employee. W-r-~ _Z04 3 Chief Ron Goodpaste Date TPOgI'-rr~si ent Erick Boothby Date l !7- Ssj ((:~fficer Assigned Date AGENDA ITEM # • 5 FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT # 2 TO THE FY 2000- 01 ADOPTED BUDGET TO ALLOW PAYMENT OF THE NEGOTIATED SALARY SETTLEMENT WITH TPOA. PREPARED BY: Crate, Prosser DEPT HEAD OK_ CITY MGR OK 4° 1 ►'~TP ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council amend the FY 2000-01 Adopted budget to allow payment of the negotiated salary settlement with TPOA? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve budget amendment #2. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City and TPOA have reached tentative agreement on the current year employment contract. The City Council considered the tentaive agreement in Executive Session on August 22, 2000. The tentaive agreement is scheduled for ratification by the City Council on September 12, 2000. The agreement calls for retroactive payments to TPOA members back to the start of the current contract. The current budget did not provide for this retroactive payment because it was assumed that these negotiations would be concluded last fiscal year. In addition, the combined retroactive settlements are slightly higher than that assumed in the FY 2000-01 budget. The combined effect of these two factors requires a budget amendment of $71,662. Funds for this budget amendment are available in the General Fund contingency. i { + OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the amendment. This would require the Police Department to generate salary savings over the course of the year to cover the budget amount requires. If the department were unable to generate sufficient { savings, it would run the risk of overspending its FY 2000-01 budget. s a a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY e NA FISCAL NOTES This budget amendment transfers $71,662 from the General Fund contingency to the Police Department budget for FY 2000-01. i:tcitywidclsunWot AGENDA ITEM # 4, Lo FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA2000-00001) to Allow Bed and Breakfast Uses and Outdoor Wedding Uses in Historic Overlay Zones. PREPARED BY: Julia Haiduk DEPT HEAD OK / ITY MGR OK 6'~'~ I,~ I~} Y Y~.AK( ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve a resolution denying a requested Zone Ordinance Amendment to allow both Bed and Breakfast uses and Outdoor Wedding uses in Historic Overlay Zones? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Resolution denying the requested Zone Ordinance Amendment in accordance with the Council's decision at the August 22, 2000 Business meeting by consent agenda. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the August 22, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the requested Zone Ordinance Amendment. After the close of the hearing, Council deliberated and voted to deny the requested amendment. By adopting the attached Resolution, the decision will be formalized and the final order will be mailed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A is\curpln\julia\ZOA\ZOA2000-00001 AIS2.doc 30-Aug-00/8:32 AM 7,, kf Le I, I-a Cow vl u - ~l hal 0 u September 12, 2000 C~bU` V) o l (It F InGARD G t ~h~c t~ OREGON Cary Holzwarth 9240 SW Millen Drive Tigard, OR 97224 RE: Letter of September 11, 2000 Dear Cary: Thank you for your letter of September 11, 2000, adding further detail to the issue raised by Dan Quello. A copy of your letter will be distributed to the Tigard City Council this evening prior to the City Council meeting. Thank you for taking the time to clarify the nature of Councilor Ken Scheckla's site visit. Sincerely, William A. Monahan City Manager c: Cif)RCouncil Jim Hendryx H ~ I:WDM\BILLU.ETTERSkHOLZWARTfi.DOC 1 q~ i 7 a 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 RECEIVE' C.O;f. SEP 21. 2000 Administratton September 11, 2000 City of Tigard Administration Tigard City Hall Tigard, OR 97224 I am sure by now, the City of Tigard Administration has received their copy of Rev. Dan Quello's letter in regard to Mr. Ken Scheckla's visit to our home prior to the council meeting held on August 22, 2000. I would like to clarify that yes, Mr. Scheckla visited our home prior to that meeting, but this was not a planned encounter. A man had parked his car on Millen, in front of Karen Butler's home (our neighbor), he walked down 92nd and then came back down the sidewalk of Millen. I asked him if I could help him He asked me if I was Benton Holzwarth's wife--I said yes and that is when he introduced himself. He told me that he had just come from the Quello property. He said that he had driven in their driveway and looked around--Mr. Quello was not home. I invited him to our backyard to get the view from that side of the fence. The conversation that Mr. Quello calls a "coaching session was little more than my husband and myself voicing our opinions. Mr. Scheckla's suggestions and or comments could never change or alter our testimony. Anyone that cares to know us, knows that we are opinionated individuals and have no problem voicing that opinion. His questioning the strength and validity of our viewpoint matter and thinks we would alter our testimony after speaking to the councilman lessens the importance of our opinion. Remember, our viewpoint was only one family's and there were many other neighbors that voiced the same concerns as ours. It was no secret that Mr. Scheckla had come out to view the sight-- he voiced that in the council meeting promptly after the meeting was called to order. It was unfortunate that he only had the opportunity to speak to neighbors in person before the meeting, but Mr. Quello's inference that this was a pre-planned meeting in our backyard is far than from the truth. Perhaps, Mr. Quello should have invited the council members out to his home to discuss his request prior to the meeting and plead his case then with them. Yes, we voiced our concerns, viewpoint, and pointed out various aspects of the situation that we felt were pertinent on the matter. If our concerns were not valid ones, Mr. Quello would have had convincing responses to Mr. Scheckla's pointed inquiries that t occurred during the council meeting and those responses would have allayed all the fears and trepidations of all the council members. Point of fact, in Mr. Quello's correspondence he states that he "overheard" comments in our backyard, which reaffirms our point by neighbors, the ability to hear all activity and conversations of the weddings held on his property. My husband or myself did not feel at the time that Mr. Scheckla's visit was inappropriate. I remember durring the conversation I asked Mr. Scheckla if such a visit was inappropriate and he said that he 'had visited the Quello property, and by chance that he visited our back yard--he was only trying to be an informed person in this proceeding. By the council member chairman's own words, it was not necessary for Mr. Scheckla to state about his visitation to the site.' What ever impact that Mr. Quello's correspondence has on the process of his petition, I thought it was important that the City of Tigard Administration, the city council, and Mr. Scheckla hear both sides to this reported illicit conversation. I think it is important to realize that the version of the conversation that Mr. Quello is reporting, and my version, are somewhat different and certainly the motivation behind the responses are different. Sincerely, Cary Ho zwart 11 9240 SW Millen Drive Tigard, OR 97224 cc:Ken Scheckla Mr. Dan Quello i i i 1 1 a AGENDA ITEM # 4. 4- FOR AGENDA OF September 12.2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Rejection of Bid Proposals for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary, Sewer Improvements ~Cyj,( V ,~Mn PREPARED BY:_ Varo i Nguyen DEPT HEAD OK: Gus Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board reject all bid proposals for the construction of Ash Avenue- Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject all bid proposals for the construction of Ash Avenue-Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements due to high bids received at the bid opening. INFORMATION SUMMARY The existing sanitary sewer line running from Ash Avenue south of Burnham Street across the railroad tracks to Commercial Street is currently undersized for existing flow. The sewer line varies from 8- inches to 15-inches in diameter and tends to surcharge frequently during the rainy season. The City currently cleans line sections at Commercial Street on a monthly basis to keep them from becoming septic. This project proposes to upsize the existing line to 15Ainch and 18-inch pipes, using the open-trench method, to alleviate the surcharging problem during the winter months. The proposed line begins on Ash Avenue from a point approximately 335 feet south of the intersection of Burnham Street, extends to the Ash-Burnham intersection and proceeds west on Burnham Streets for approximately 150 feet. The line then turns north into an existing easement for approximately 400' at which point it enters an existing casing under the Railroad tracks. After crossing the railroad tracks, it crosses an existing easement and proceeds north for approximately 143 feet before it connects to an existing manhole in Commercial Street. The new design will also allow for future extension and improvement of the existing sanitary sewer system on Burnham Street, and will eliminate the need for the two existing systems currently in the street. The project was advertised for bids on August 15 and August 17, 2000. The bid opening was conducted on August 29, 2000. The bid results are: Miller & Sons Contractors, Inc. Sherwood, OR $240,112.05 S & V Rentals, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR. $264,053.80 Engineer's Estimate $156,200 The difference between the lowest bid and the Engineer's estimate is approximately $84,000. Bid items "Trench excavation and Backfill - 0 to 10 feet deep" and "Trench excavation and Backfill - 10 to 16 feet deep" were submitted at unusual high prices of $90.25 and $117.00 per linear foot in compared with normal price range of $25 and $35. Miller & Sons Contractors said that their bid was higher than usual because they were uncertain about the condition of the existing ground. The staff intends to re-design the project with a different design option which includes a combination of pipe- bursting and open-trench methods. The bursting method does not require trenching for installation of pipes, minimizes impacts to existing landscaping, and hence would cost less than the open-trench method. The project will be re-bid in spring next year. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES This project is funded in the amount of $150,000 in the FY 2000-01 CIP Sanitary Sewer System Program. There are sufficient reserves in the Sanitary Sewer Fund to allow for higher costs, should award at a higher contract amount be desired. 11tig333WSr%depts%citywide\sum\agenda summary for ash•bumham street sewer project.doc IA ST DA%D ~Y NpftiN ~'ly GREENDURG oJ~~ P N a a r sj St ~ $r k ~w st P P w T Agenda Item No. 5 September 12, 2000 Board, Committee, & Task Force Member Sign-in Name Board/Committee/Task Force r, u t I:WDM\GREERICCSIGNUPIBRD & COMM SIGN IN.DOC 0 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution to Acknowledge Completion of the Transportation Bond Task Force Mission to Deactivate O,v the Task Force and to Commend the Task Force Members for a Job Well Done. ,q, ~M,, PREPARED BY: A.P Duenas DEPT HEAD OK ~ CITY MGR OK CAW I V o) W ~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL With the placement of the proposed Transportation Bond on the November 2000 Election Ballot, the Task Force mission has been sucessfully accomplished. This resolution acknowledges the completion of the Task Force's work, deactivates the Task Force, and commends the members for a job well done. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve, by motion, the attached resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY A Transportation Bond Task Force was created by City Council Resolution No. 99-19 to identify transportation, safety, sidewalk, and pedestrianibike path projects for inclusion in a bond measure to be submitted for voter approval in the year 2000. In April 1999, this Council-appointed Transportation Bond Task Force began a yearlong process to identify transportation, safety, sidewalk, and pedestrian/bikepath projects that would meet the City's goals of improving traffic safety, improving traffic flow, and enhancing pedestrian and bike transportation. The Task Force provided ample opportunities for citizen input and conducted a series of public meetings to hear from the citizens. After careful consideration of public input, the Task Force prepared and submitted a list of projects and other recommendations to the Planning Commission on April 17, 2000. The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council. The City Council heard the details of the project package on May 9, 2000 and subsequently approved the project package for submittal to the voters in the November 2000 election ballot. a The Proposed Transportation Bond was filed with the Washington County Elections Division and is now identified j as Ballot Measure 34-20. With the placement of the Proposed Transportation Bond on the November election i ballot, the Task Force mission is successfully completed. Since the Task Force work is completed, deactivation of the Task Force is appropriate at this point. The City Council takes the opportunity to thank the Task Force members for their efforts and commends them for their 3 excellent work in selecting a list of key projects for voter consideration. a a OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The improvements proposed for funding through a Transportation Bond issue would meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals of Improve Traffic Safety and Improve Traffic Flow. FISCAL NOTES None. L\Citywide\SumWgenda for Deactivation ofthe Transportation Bond Task Force I 14 N 71 AGENDA ITEM # C~ FOR AGENDA OF 9/12/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Community-wide Opinion Poll Results - FolloMW PREPARED BY: Liz Newton. L. Mill DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive staff plans for follow-up to the opinion poll results. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive briefing. INFORMATION SUMMARY In August, Council received the results of the latest opinion polls. These polls were conducted to assist with the update effort of the City's vision, Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. Attached is the final opinion poll report. Staff will highlight their plans for immediate follow-up efforts to the opinion poll results. In October, the citizen-based Vision Task Force will use the opinion poll results to guide their update to the vision goals and directions. By January, 2001 Council will receive an updated vision document which will outline the action plan for the next few years. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY 1 i This meets the overall commitment the City made to citizens in 1997 to keep the City's vision on track with the changing times and desires of the community. a i y FISCAL NOTES a N/A Oci ywid6sum.dot 2000 COMMUNITY OPINION POLL RESULTS INTRODUCTION The Visioning Process The Tigard community has experienced overwhelming change throughout recent years. Rapid growth occurring within the City and surrounding areas has resulted in a community that is much more diverse than that which existed only a short time ago, with different needs and priorities. The issues that we face today are also seen in the larger society: increasing population, traffic, and crime; escalating housing and healthcare costs; and heightened competition between schools, cities, special districts and counties for tax dollars. Furthermore, resources to provide services and meet public expectations are shrinking. These continuing challenges make it crucial for community leadership to identify and drive toward a long-term vision. What should our community be like in 20 years? How do we get there? What can we do to ensure that our community continues to stay a great place to live? Certainly, our future is far too important to leave to chance. The City of Tigard has undertaken a series of steps designed to identify and address those issues that pose the greatest threat to our current quality of life. Initiated in 1996, the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Vision process defines what our community will look like in 2017. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow is the collaborative effort of residents, government professionals, business people and community group leaders working together to determine the community's future. It is a citizen-driven process that brings the people of our community together with a shared vision. Through this visioning process, citizens have defined a plan for our future, and have helped create specific goals and action plans to help achieve that vision. In fact, direction statements and action plans have been developed for each of six public service target areas: ➢ public safety ➢ schools and education ➢ transportation and traffic ➢ urban and public services • growth and growth management ➢ community character and quality of life The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow process is currently in its fourth year of working towards the community's long-term goals. Every few years, the Vision Task Force and City staff works with citizens and other community partners to revisit the vision through community-wide review. Periodic review and evaluation is essential to ensure that Tigard Beyond Tomorrow stays on track with the changing times and desires of our community. In addition, the City will spearhead the preparation of ongoing annual visioning reports, which will update the community on progress made towards the vision. Opinion Poll Background Community polls are an important method for tracking citizen's opinions and values. The 1996 Community Vision Survey laid the initial groundwork for the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow process, ensuring that every part of the Tigard community was considered when obtaining information about important issues. The foundation of the Tgard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results initial survey was a scientific, statistically valid telephone survey conducted with 400 residents in November 1996. The same survey was also distributed in the City of Tigard's newsletter Cityscape, the King City Regal Courier, and in the Chamber of Commerce's newsletter Hotline. In all, there were 899 surveys collected by mail, with 746 responses coming from Cityscape. Analysis of the results revealed that responses from the Cityscape survey were extraordinarily similar to the responses obtained from the scientific telephone survey. The 2000 Community Vision Opinion Poll The goal of the 2000 Community Vision Opinion Poll is to provide a general description of community opinion on several public service areas, and to give everyone who wants to contribute to the visioning process an avenue to do so. Since results of the 1996 telephone and mail surveys were almost identical, the 2000 Poll uses only a self-selected mail version that was distributed in Cityscape. The City reasoned that it would be much more cost effective to conduct a mail survey only, especially one expected to yield comparable results to a significantly more costly telephone survey. The 2000 version also does not consider demographic variables. The 1996 edition identified and provided baseline information regarding the most pressing issues facing the community; in particular, the areas of traffic and transportation, and growth management stood out. The 2000 poll allows for a more complete look at citizen's opinions on these topics as it attempts to shed light on why citizens are concerned about specific issues. Are people frustrated with the rate of growth because open spaces are rapidly disappearing? Is it because the community doesn't have the "small town" feel that it once did? Or is growth seen as a main contributor to other problems, such as congested streets and poor traffic flow? The 2000 poll was distributed in two segments: the May poll focused on library service, parks and recreation, and public safety; the June poll focused on bus service, transportation, and growth. In all, a total of 598 surveys were returned: 301 for May and 297 for June! The purpose of this report is to describe the results of both in a way that summarizes the opinions of the residents who responded. 2 -Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Library Services m It appears that those who use the Tigard Public Library do so on a fairly regular basis, as 54% use the Library either monthly or weekly. Only 11 % have not used the Library at all in the last twelve months. The most common reasons cited for not using the Library were lack of time and the availability of other resources. o The services that Library patrons have used most include: borrowed books (87%), spent time reading/researching in the library (61 borrowed videocassettes (60%), used the copy machine (38%), and picked up tax forms (31 o Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon were mentioned as the most convenient time to use the Library. The least convenient times to use the Library appear to be Sunday morning and evening, as well as Saturday evening. Parks and Recreation ® Survey respondents stated the following were very important to them: natural greenways (75%), trails (62%), and playgrounds (54%). Most respondents did not indicate that any parks and recreation category was very unimportant, however, sports fields and athletic activities received the most responses in that category. Respondents rated the Tigard area service provision in the following areas as very good: sports fields (29%), playgrounds (23%), and picnic facilities (22%). All of the Tigard area services received strong marks for being somewhat good, especially playgrounds (56%) and natural greenways (51 Services that received the lowest rating were the community center (Tigard does not have one). s When planning and acquiring land or providing services, respondents wanted Tigard to focus energy in the following areas as very high priorities: Natural greenways (65%), open spaces (62%), trails (54%), active park areas (55%), and playgrounds (42%). Sports fields and athletic activities were observed to be the lowest priorities. o When asked to specify a location in which services considered to be very high priorities needed to be provided, most respondents indicated that they had "no opinion" or that the item should be provided "throughout the community" or at "multiple locations." Public Safety ® When asked if there was a problem that they would like to have the Police Department address, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that speeding automobiles were their greatest concern (57 responses). 3 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results Transit Services e An overwhelming majority of respondents indicate that they do not currently use bus service (71 Most respondents that indicated they do not use regular bus service cited similar reasons for not doing so: "not convenient/offers little flexibility" (26%) and "no service near my residence/frequent destinations" (26%). Most regular bus riders apparently use the service exclusively for either work or non-work (78%). Only 19% said they have used the bus for both. A majority of survey respondents feel that the Tigard community definitely needs better internal transit. "Strongly agree" and "agree" received a combined 66% response rate, while "disagree" and "strongly disagree" received only a 15% response rate. e Respondents were asked to consider seven possible options for transit service connection and prioritize them in terms of their importance. The Washington Square Transit Center received the greatest response rate, followed by the Library/City Hall area and the Tigard Transit Center. ® Survey respondents indicated they are not likely to pay more than $1.50 per trip for transit service. Only 7% said they would pay $1.75 or more, while 91% would pay between $.50 and $1.50. ® Respondents were generally in favor of a commuter rail plan, as nearly two-thirds indicated that they would use the proposed system. The majority of respondents cited similar reasons for not using the commuter rail: a combined 48% said that the system "would not provide service near their residence/frequent destinations" or that it "would be inconvenient." Pedestrian and Bikeway Systems o Survey respondents were asked to rate pedestrian pathways and bikeways as very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant. Although both categories received a high response rate for very important, pedestrian pathways (63%) appear to be valued slightly more than bikeways (44%). ® Respondents were again asked to consider pedestrian pathways and bikeways and to indicate the level of priority that the City should assign to each when planning to provide services, when compared to the priority level for vehicle traffic ways. Again, both categories received a high response rate for very important, with pedestrian pathways receiving 49% and bikeways receiving 37%. Growth Management ® The majority of respondents support private sector programs that maintain diverse a and affordable housing (65%). When asked if affordable housing units should be placed in existing neighborhoods, 57% suggested that this was either very important or somewhat important. According to the survey response "affordable housing" appears to be a poorly understood or misunderstood concept, indicating a possible need for increased public education regarding this topic. 4 'Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results Public Involvement ® The Cityscape newsletter appears to be the most popular method for respondents to obtain information about the City of Tigard (88%). The Oregonian (51 and Tigard Times (39%) also received numerous mentions. The majority of respondents (70%) indicated that they know how to get involved in the City's decision-making process. ® Mail appears to be the most popular method by which to receive information regarding City-related issues (Mail and Newsletter received a combined 52%). Surprisingly, E-mail received a higher than expected rate of response (13%). 4 H H H H H Fig J 5 'Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community vision s. 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results RESULTS- May Survey, 2000 LIBRARY SERVICES LIBRARY QUESTION ' - How often have you used the Tigard Public Library during the last twelve months? It appears that those who use the Tigard Public Library do so on a fairly regular basis. Of the 299 respondents, 54% use the Library either monthly or weekly. Only 11% have not used the Library at all in the last twelve months. The Library seems to be extraordinarily well utilized by the Tigard community. However, it should be kept in mind that the indicated rate of use may not be representative of the entire community. Since this is a self-selecting survey, it is reasonable to assume that the type of person that is most likely to use the Tigard Public Library may be the same type of person that would respond to a community survey. Total Respondents - 299 Number % None during the last twelve months 32 11 At least once 30 10% Three to six times 76 25% Monthly 78 26% Weekly 83 28% LIBRARY QUESTION 2 - During the past twelve months, which of the following services of the Tigard Public Library have you or a member of your family used at least once? The services that Library patrons have used most include: borrowed books (87%), spent time reading/researching in the library (61%), borrowed videocassettes (60%), used the copy machine (38%), and picked up tax forms (31 Surprisingly, only 18% of respondents used the Internet, and only 8% used a personal computer for something other than Internet access. With the increased dependence on technology and information via Internet, it is possible that Library patrons use these services more often than results suggest, but do so at home. , I I I 6 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results I LIBRARY QUESTION 2 - Continued Total Respondents - 267 Number % Borrowed books 231 87% Spent time reading/researching in the library 163 61% Borrowed videocassettes 160 60% Used the copy machine 101 38% Picked up tax forms 82 31% Borrowed audio tapes 77 29% Borrowed CDs 54 20% Used the Internet 49 18% Attended a children's program 47 18% Attended a meeting or adult program 36 13% Used a PC for something other than Internet access 22 8% Borrowed large print material or "described" videos 20 7% Attended a young adult program or movie night 10 4% Used the Homework Center 8 3% Other 31 12% Interactions: Library Question 9 and Library Question 2 Cross-tabulation data can provide additional information by looking at the possible interaction between two or more variables. Cross-tabulation data for Library Question 1 (frequency of library use) and Library Question 2 (types of services used) gives us a more detailed description of how the rate of library use may be affected by the type of service used. The results for Library Question 1 indicate that the majority of patrons have used the Library either weekly or monthly (54% combined), as opposed to less frequently (35% for one to six times in the last twelve months). We would expect to see this trend in rate of use for each type of service used. Generally this trend holds true, and we see that the rate of use for most services adheres to the overall frequency distribution. However, there are a few services that do appear to be used significantly more by patrons that attend the Library either weekly or monthly. The services that have been used proportionately more often by regular t Library users include: attended a children's program, borrowed CD's, borrowed ' videocassettes, borrowed audio tapes, borrowed large print or "described videos," and attended a meeting or adult program. I I I 7 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results EMW LIBRARY QUESTION! 3 - If you did not use the Library in the last twelve months, why not? 32 respondents (11 % of total) indicated that they did not use the Tigard Public Library in the last twelve months. Of this 11 the reasons "why not" appear evenly distributed. The most common reasons cited received six responses each. They were: personal (too busy), prefers to use their own resources, and recently moved to Tigard. Five respondents indicated that another branch is more convenient, and six did not respond. Total Respondents - 32 Number % Personal (too busy) 6 19% Prefers to use their own resources 6 19% Recently moved to Tigard 6 19% Another branch is more convenient 5 16% Other 3 9% No response 6 19% LIBRARY QUESTION 4 - Which hours would be most convenient for you to use the Tigard Public Library? Weekend afternoons appear to be the most convenient times for patrons to visit the Tigard Public Library. Saturday afternoon (188 responses) and Sunday afternoon (174 responses) were mentioned as the most convenient times to use the Library. The category of weekday evenings also received a large number of responses. Saturday was indicated to be the most convenient day. The least convenient times for respondents to use the Library appear to be Sunday morning and evening, as well as Saturday evening. Weekday mornings received a low response rate, especially when compared with weekday afternoons and evenings. In general, Sunday appears to be the least convenient day to visit the Library. Day Morning Afternoon Evening TOTAL Sunday 72 174 99 345 Monday 102 139 160 401 Tuesday 106 139 156 401 Wednesday 103 140 159 402 Thursday 107 137 161 405 Friday 103 140 141 384 Saturday 139 188 100 427 TOTAL 732 1057 976 xxx s "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results Interactions Cross-tabulation data was also analyzed for possible interactions Library Question 1 (frequency of library use) X Library Question 4 (days/times that are most convenient), and Library Question 2 (types of services used) X Library Question 4 (days/times that are most convenient). As expected, the frequency of responses for each variable mirrors the overall distribution, and no significant interactions were observed. LIBRARY QUESTION 5 - Do you have any comments or suggestions to improve library service in Tigard? In all, only 79 respondents provided comments regarding the services that are provided by the Library. The two most common suggestions to improve services were expand Library hours (13%), and improve the computer system used to check out books (11 Also, a fairly large number of respondents (24%) indicated that services are currently just fine, or that they could not think of anything to improve. In general, this question did not receive a high rate of response (225 did not respond, or 75% of total). Since this was an open-ended question that asked respondents to suggest improvements, it is not expected that they would go out of their way to indicate "that services are just fine." Therefore, the response rate indicating that "services are just fine" may be misleading. It is possible that, if given the choice, a large portion of the group that did not respond also could not think of improvements for Library services or would have also rated services as "just fine." Total respondents- 79 Number % No, services are just fine now 19 24% Expand hours 10 13% Improve computer system 9 11% Need more space 6 8% Allow phone/on-line renewal 5 6% Add more convenient locations 4 5% Expand/improve children's area 4 5% Improve customer service 4 5% Other * 18 23% Mote: "Other" responses were miscellaneous suggestions that occurred with a frequency of <2. 9 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS & REC. QUESTION ? - How important are the following to you? Respondents were asked to consider eight components of parks and recreation and to rate the importance of each as very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, and very unimportant. Natural greenways (209), trails (173), and playgrounds (147) appear to be the most important park issues to survey respondents. Non-athletic activities (127) and picnic facilities (112) received the highest frequency of responses to issues that are considered somewhat important. Most respondents did not indicate that any parks and recreation category was very unimportant. Sports fields (33) and athletic activities (32) received the most responses as issues that were very unimportant. It is interesting to note the number of no responses (NR) for each category, where we see only 18 did not respond for trails, and only 19 did not respond for natural greenways. The high response rate for both categories may likely be indicative of the strong feelings that are common toward trails and natural greenways. Generally, it is observed that respondents are most likely to consider parks and recreation categories very important (920 total responses for VI). L L Im C CL a) 0 a ~Cy Q Z oN a. E - (0 ~ Trails 173 79 19 10 281 18 Sports fields 81 92 55 33 261 38 Playgrounds 147 78 24 21 270 29 Picnic facilities 96 112 36 17 261 38 Natural greenways 209 59 8 4 280 19 Non-athletic activities 63 127 36 20 246 53 Athletic activities 59 106 51 32 248 51 Community center 92 105 51 16 264 35 P-1 Total 920 758 280 153, 281 P4 H m PARKS & REC. QUESTION 2 - How do you rate Tigard area service in the following areas? Pq 5 a Respondents were asked to consider the same eight components of parks and recreation and to rate Tigard area service for each as very good, somewhat good, somewhat poor, and very poor. Sports fields (59), playgrounds (52), and picnic facilities (50) were rated the highest, receiving the most responses for very good service. All of 10 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results the Tigard area services received strong marks for being somewhat good, especially playgrounds (127) and natural greenways (122). Services that received the lowest rating were the community center (45), and to a lesser extent, natural greenways (24). There seemed to be significantly more ambiguity among respondents in rating Tigard services (690 "no responses"), when compared to how important each issue was to them personally (only 281 "no responses"). In general, respondents were most likely to rate Tigard area services as somewhat good (864 total responses for somewhat good). Also, a much greater number of responses for Parks & Rec. Question 2 were distributed between somewhat good and somewhat poor, as opposed to the frequency of strong responses seen in Parks & Rec. Question 1. These results may be an indication that opinions regarding the quality of service provision are not nearly as strong as opinions regarding personal priorities for parks and recreation. This assumption, especially when combined with the relatively high "no response" rate for Parks & Rec. Question 2, may suggest that respondents are generally not well informed about parks and recreation service provision in Tigard. 0 co 16 `o (0 3 -a "D 0 3: 0 CL ¢ 0 0 a) 0 a) 0 CL aa, E o (7 o d Z U)i > co co > It Trails 39 116 63 17 235 64 Sports fields 59 109 27 9 204 95 Playgrounds 52 127 35 14 228 71 Picnic facilities 50 115 49 13 227 72 Natural greenways 39 122 52 24 237 62 Non-athletic activities 23 98 56 17 194 105 Athletic activities 36 103 38 12 189 110 Community center 25 74 44, 45 188 111, Total 323, 864, 364 151 xxx 690 Interaction The effect of Parks & Rec. Question 1 (personal importance) X Parks & Rec. Question 2 (Tigard service provision rating) is an important interaction to investigate to determine whether the City of Tigard's parks and recreation service provision is in. line with community values. As demonstrated previously, natural greenways (209), trails (173), and playgrounds (147) received the highest ratings for personal importance. The majority of survey respondents indicated that the City of Tigard performs somewhat good in each of these areas. Sports fields received the most very good responses for service provision; however, this category also received the lowest rating for personal importance (33 very unimportant and 55 somewhat unimportant responses). While the City of Tigard received the lowest service provision rating for a community center (45 very poor responses), it is observed 11 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results 111111111 11M11 M111111 - ISM that this service is viewed largely as somewhat important to very important. It should be kept in mind that there is currently no community center in Tigard. PARKS & REC. QUESTION 3 - What do you believe Tigard's priorities should be in planning and acquiring land or providing services to address the following areas? Respondents were asked to consider ten components of parks and recreation and to indicate the level of priority that the City should assign to each when planning to provide services: very high priority, somewhat high priority, somewhat low priority, or very low priority. As expected, the priority level indicated for each area was consistent with the personal importance ratings given in Parks & Rec. Question 1. Natural greenways (169), open spaces (159), trails (136), active park areas (133), and playgrounds (103) were rated as the highest priorities. Open spaces and active park areas were added to the list of options, not appearing in Parks & Rec. Question 1. A community center (93) also received a significant number of very high priority responses. Similar to the responses given in Parks & Rec. Question 1, sports fields (31) and athletic activities (25) were observed to be the lowest priorities. The low ratings for sports fields and athletic activities could be attributed to the fact that these are just not important issues to respondents, or that they feel these aspects of parks and recreation are already adequately provided for. c is is . 3 N -J r_ 0 X-_ _J -r- 00 L CL Z (D dn. 0 C 0 3 > cA= C0 > W Trails 136 86 26 4 252 47 Sports fields 48 101 52 31 232 67 Playgrounds 103 109 19 13 244 54 Picnic facilities 62 114 47 18 241 58 Natural greenways 169 76 10 4 259 40 Non-athletic activities 39 107 61 18 225 74 i Athletic activities 46 90 59 25 220 79 i Community center 93 91 42 17 243 56 Open spaces 159 73 18 5 255 44 ! Active park areas 133 87 14 7 241 58 -Total 988 934 348 142 xxx 577 a 12 'Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results PARKS & REC. QUESTION d - If you chose items in the previous question as a very high priorities, in what location of the community do you believe these need to be provided? When asked to specify a location in which services considered to be very high priorities needed to be provided, most respondents indicated that they had "no opinion" or that the item -should be provided "throughout the community" or at "multiple locations." Responses that did indicate a specific location were coded geographically using the City of Tigard's Police Department Grid Map. Generally, there appeared to be few significant trends in specified locations as responses were scattered evenly across several grid sections. Exceptions included the area of Bull Mountain, which received several responses for trails (16), playgrounds (19), natural greenways (16), open spaces (13), and active park areas (13). Also, Main Street received several responses for a community center (8) that would be centrally located. „ o 07 = c o rn o a> 7 « E CL °M c)0= z°0 H `m .°-z Trails 40 64 2507-2, 2503-2, 2401-2, 2302-16, 2208-3 Sports Fields 20 13 2302-6, 2208-2 Playgrounds 38 26 2503-3, 2405-2, 2302-19, 2208-3, 2105-2, 2103-2 Picnic Facilities 31 17 2503-2, 2302-7 Natural greenways 59 78 2503-4, 2302-16, 2208-4 Non-athletic activities 23 10 2302-2 Athletic activities 25 7 2408-2, 2302-2, Community center 37 27 2302-6, 2301-2, 2211-2, 2105-4, 2103-8 Open spaces 64 65 2302-13, 2208-3, 2103-2 ,aim Active park areas 63 37 2408-2, 2302-13, 2208-3, 2103-2 Total 400 344 *Note: NO = no opinion and/or did not specify a location, TIO = throughout the community and/or at i multiple locations. Grid locations are recorded for responses receiving a frequency of >1, with the frequency listed after the grid a i a 3 a a 13 °Tgard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC SAFETY QUESTION 1 - Is there a problem in your neighborhood that you would like your Tigard Police Department to address? If so, what is the issue and what is the location of the problem? When asked if there was a problem that they would like to have the Police Department address, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that speeding automobiles were their greatest concern (57 responses). The areas in which speeding appeared to be the biggest problem was the area around Tigard High School (7) and the Bull Mountain area (6). ~ o v • E ca ~a- U.6 O W N - M O J O` 0 U a LL Z J-0 :3 Z Speeding 57 11 2507-2, 2405-2, 2403-2, 2401-2, 2303-6, 2302-6, 2212-7, 2209-2, 2202-3, 2201-2, 2109-3 Cars left on streets/eye sores 12 5 2507-2, 2302-2 Reckless driving/road rage 12 3 2302-2 Improve traffic signage 11 1 Noise 9 1 2501-2, 2209-2 Vandalism 7 2 2503-2, 2209-2 Theft 5 2 Leash law 4 3 Cut-through 3 0 traffic Purchasing/distributing drugs 3 0 Lighted streets/pathways 3 3 Traffic divides/street lines 2 0 Transients 2 0 Other 24 8 2503-2, 2407-2, 2208-2, *Note: Grid locations are recorded for responses receiving a frequency of >1, with the frequency listed after the grid a J 3 i a 14 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results mill RESULTS- June Survey, 2000 TRANSIT SERVICES TRANSIT QUESTION 9 - Do you currently use the bus now? An overwhelming majority of respondents indicate that they do not currently use bus service (71 Only 6 of the 292 total survey participants did not respond. Total Respondents- 286 Number % Yes 84 29% No 202 71% TRANSIT QUESTION 2 - If you don't use regular bus service now, why not? Most respondents that indicated they do not use regular bus service cited similar reasons for not doing so: "not convenient/offers little flexibility" (26%) and "no service near my residence/frequent destinations" (26%). In addition, 15% explained that they "prefer to use an automobile," and 9% did not specify a reason. Total Respondents 202 Number % Not convenient/no flexibility 52 26% Does not service residence/frequent 52 26% destinations Prefers automobile 30 15% Time consuming/too many transfers 13 6% Car needed for work 10 5% Residence close to employment 8 4% Not safe 7 3% P-4 Don't travel much 7 3% ~ Other 17 8% a] Did not specify 18 9% ~H *Note: Because some respondents cited more than one reason for not using Erl bus service, responses total more than 100%. a W a 15 'Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results TRANSIT QUESTION 3 - If you currently use the bus, what for? Respondents that indicated they currently use regular bus service were asked to indicate whether they use it for work, non-work, or both. Most regular bus riders apparently use the service exclusively for either work or non-work (78%). Only 19% said they have used the bus for both. Total Respondents - 84 Number % Work 33 39% Non-work 33 39% Both 16 19% Did not specify 2 3% TRANSIT QUESTION 4 - How many trips per day would the members of your household take if bus service ran hourly between Tigard neighborhoods and nearby Tigard shopping centers? (If two family members would take the bus to and from a location five days a week, then it would count as twenty trips). This question was intended to ask for the number of "trips per week," not the number of "trips per day." Many respondents caught the error and noted that the wording was inconsistent through the question. It is uncertain how many respondents answered in terms of trips per day or trips per week; therefore, the results to Transit Question 4 must be thrown out. TRANSIT QUESTION 5 - How often would you use the bus? Respondents were given three choices (0-2 times per week, 3-4 times per week, and daily) and asked to indicate how often they would use bus service that ran hourly between Tigard neighborhoods and nearby Tigard shopping centers. As we may expect based on the results of previous questions, bus service remains a less than popular transportation alternative. Only 16% indicate they would use it on a daily basis, and 69% would only use it 0 to 2 times per week. Seventeen percent of the total (49) did not respond. Total Respondents - 243 Number % 0 to 2 times per week 165 69% 3 to 4 times per week 38 15% Daily (5 or more per week) 40 16% 16 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results TRANSIT QUESTION 6 - At what times of the day would you use transit the most? When asked to indicate which times were most preferable to use transit, respondents rated "mornings" (115) highest, followed by "afternoons" (83). Number Morning 115 Mid-day 62 Afternoon 83 Evening 68, TRANSIT QUESTION 7 - The Tigard community needs better internal transit than currently exists. How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement? Clearly, a majority of survey respondents feel that the Tigard community definitely needs better internal transit. "Strongly agree" and "agree" received a combined 66% response rate, while "disagree" and "strongly disagree" received only a 15% response rate. Total Respondents 269 Number % Strongly agree 92 34% Agree 85 32% Neutral 51 19% Disagree 19 7% Strongly disagree 22 8% TRANSIT QUESTION 8 - What do you want transit service to connect you to? Please rank with "I" being most important. Respondents were asked to consider seven possible options for transit service connection and prioritize them in terms of their importance. The Washington Square Transit Center received the most total responses (176), followed by the Library/City Hall (157) and the Tigard Transit Center (143). The Washington Square Transit Center also received the greatest number of responses rating it as the VV priority (69), with the Tigard Transit Center receiving 37 responses. I Interestingly, the Senior Center appears to be the lowest priority for transit connection among the options listed. One may expect that the elderly would be in greatest need for public transit. However, the responses to this question may suggest that it is in fact the elderly population that relies most on the automobile. It may also be possible that the 17 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Pall Results Malin, MIN is, 1~ffmnwm elderly population was not well represented among respondents to the opinion poll. 1" 2" 3* 4* 5* 6* 7* NS* TOTAL Washington Square Transit Center 69 35 15 15 12 2 4 24 176 Health Services 19 13 20 17 18 17 13 9 126 Main Street Tigard 8 20 26 21 19 23 2 9 128 Tigard Transit Center 37 33 16 11, 15 121, 7 12, 143, Library/City Hall 27 24 39 21 15 9 2 20 157 Senior Center 6 6 6 13 4 20 51 6 112 Local Shopping 26 18 11 17 22 13 13 6 126 *Note: Columns indicate the frequency of a given priority occurring for each choice, NS = indicated as a priority, but rank not specified. TRANSIT QUESTION 8a - What local shopping locations are most important for transit connection? As a follow-up to the previous question, respondents were asked to specify which local shopping options were most important to have transit connection. This was an open- ended question, and the most popular destinations are grouped in the categories below. Transit to grocery stores received the greatest number of total responses (35), while 40 respondents that indicated "Local Shopping" was a priority did not specify a location. Total Respondents - 87 Number Grocery _ 35 King City shopping 12 99W/Durham 8 Downtown Portland 5 Downtown Tigard 4 Other 23 TRANSIT QUESTION 9 - Would you need to use transit that is wheelchair accessible? When asked if they would require transit that was wheelchair accessible, only 3 respondents (1.2%) indicated that this was a necessity. Forty-three survey participants did not respond. Total Respondents 249 Number Yes 3 No 246 1s 'Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results TRANSIT QUESTION 10 - Most transit programs require a fare to provide service. How much would you be willing to pay each way? Survey respondents are not likely to pay more than $1.50 per trip for transit service. Only 15 respondents (7%) said they would pay $1.75 or more, while 91% would pay between $.50 and $1.50. A majority of respondents (40%) would pay $1.00. Total Respondents - 227 Number % Number % $-0- 5 2% $1.75 4 2% $0.50 48 21% $2.00 8 4% $0.75 36 16% $2.50 1 0% $1.00 91 40% $2.75 0 0% $1.50 32 14% $3.00 2 1% TRANSIT QUESTION 11 - What days of the week would you most prefer to have transit available? All weekdays received a relatively high response rate for the days that respondents would most prefer to have transit available. Weekend days were not quite as popular, and Sunday was the least popular day. Number Monday 141 Tuesday 135 Him Wednesday 139 Thursday 139 Friday 148 Saturday 123 Sunday 78 99 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2ooo community opinion Poll Results m TRANSIT QUESTION 12 - There are discussions occurring now to use existing train tracks to create a commuter rail connection south to Wilsonville and north to Beaverton and the Westside Light Rail System" It appears that this system could be available in 2004 and would be available mornings and evenings during rush hour. Currently plans show pickup points at Tualatin @ Maggen's, Tigard @ Main Street, and Beaverton @ Cascade Plaza near Scholls Ferry Road. Would you use the proposed system? Respondents were generally in favor of the commuter rail plan outlined above, as nearly two-thirds indicated that they would use the proposed system. Total Respondents 272 Number % Yes 169 62% No 103 38% TRANSIT QUESTION 13 - If you would not use commuter rail service, why not? As a follow-up to Transit Question 12, those that indicated they would not use the commuter rail system were asked to explain why they would not. Like bus service, the majority of respondents cited similar reasons for not using the commuter rail: a combined 48% said that the system "would not provide service near their residence/frequent destinations" or that it "would be inconvenient." A large number of respondents (41 listed other reasons for not using this service. Total Respondents - 99 Number % No service to residence/destination 32 32% Not convenient 16 16% Prefers automobile 6 6% ca Needs more information 4 4% Other 41, 41 H r~ W a 20 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY SYSTEMS PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAY QUESTION 9 -blow important are the following to you? Survey respondents were asked to rate pedestrian pathways and bikeways as very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant. Although both categories received a high response rate for very important, pedestrian pathways (185) appear to be valued slightly more than bikeways (128). Bikeways received a combined total of 91 responses for somewhat unimportant and very unimportant, while p pedestrian pathways received only 40 responses for these two categories. As indicated by the low number of "no responses" for both categories, it appears that pedestrian and bikeway systems are issues that most residents have an opinion about. 3 d n. O d p CL 0 C O C O N V) V7 > > > Z rY Pedestrian paths 185 59 20 20 8 Bikeways 128 67 38 53 6 PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAY QUESTION 2 - What do you believe Tigard's priorities should be in planning and acquiring land to connect pathways and bikeways in comparison to vehicle traffic ways? Respondents were again asked to consider pedestrian pathways and bikeways and to indicate the level of priority that the City should assign to each when planning to provide services, when compared to the priority level for vehicle traffic ways. Again, both categories received a high response rate for very important, with pedestrian pathways receiving 144 responses and bikeways receiving 107. Bikeways received a combined total of 104 responses for somewhat unimportant and very unimportant, while pedestrian pathways only received 72 total for both unimportant groups. i It is interesting to note that respondents listing pedestrian pathways and bikeways as personally very important (185 and 128 responses, respectively) were somewhat less likely to indicate that each should be a very high priority for the City, especially when compared to vehicle traffic ways. cc M = C N ? m 3 m 3 n n o 7 n E °a E E ?--g N a > 9 (n 9 cn ° > » z° Pedestrian paths 144 69 35 37 7 Bikeways 1107 73 43 61 8 21 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results Bill! gill PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAY QUESTION 3 - If you chose pathways as a "very high" priority, where in the community do you believe they need to be provided? Respondents selecting pathways as a "very high" priority were asked to specify locations throughout the community in which they should be provided. Answers were given in an open-ended format, and similar responses were grouped into the categories below. The most common response was "throughout Tigard," while a large number of participants did not specify a location. Number Number Hall 15 Main Street Tigard 4 Around schools 11 Connect to shopping 3 Walnut 10 Throughout Tigard 31 Gaarde 9 Other 37 Bull Mountain 8 No opinion 33 121st 8 "Note: Throughout Tigard = responses citing Fanno Creek 6 several locations, or "wherever possible," Other Beef Bend 4 = responses with a frequency of < 2, and no opinion = location not specified. I PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAY QUESTION 4 - If you chose bikeways as a "very high" priority, where in the community do you believe they need to be provided? Respondents selecting bikeways as a "very high" priority were asked to specify locations throughout the community in which they should be provided. Answers were given in an open-ended format, and similar responses were grouped into the categories below. Again, the most common response was "throughout Tigard," while a large number of participants did not specify a location. Number Number 121 st 13 Main Street Tigard 3 Walnut 12 Connect to shopping 3 z Hall 12 Throughout Tigard* 26 Gaarde 9 Other* 24 N Around schools 8 No opinion 23 North Dakota Street 7 'Note: Throughout Tigard = responses citing Bull Mountain 4 several locations, or "wherever possible," Other Beef Bend 4 = responses with a frequency of < 2, and no opinion = location not specified. a 22 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results GROWTH MANAGEMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUESTION 1 - Should the City continue to encourage and support private sector programs to maintain diverse and affordable housing? The majority of respondents support private sector programs that maintain diverse and affordable housing (65%). Of the 32 individuals that did not respond, several comments were made asking for a clarification of the term "affordable housing." In addition, many of the respondents answering "no" to this question provided comments such as "it destroys existing neighborhoods" and "not where I live." Generally, "affordable housing" appears to be a poorly understood or misunderstood concept, indicating a possible need for increased public education regarding this topic. Total Respondents - 260 Number % Yes 169 65% No 91 35% GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUESTION 2 - How important is it to provide options for affordable housing units to be placed in existing neighborhoods? When asked if affordable housing units should be placed in existing neighborhoods, 57% suggested that this was either very important or somewhat important. Only 19 participants did not respond. It appears as those that support programs to maintain affordable housing are somewhat less likely to suggest that it is very important or somewhat important for units to be placed in existing neighborhoods. To some extent, this continues the trend observed in Growth Management Question 1 in which many respondents support affordable housing programs but "not in my neighborhood." Total Respondents - 273 Number % Very important 69 25% Somewhat 87 32% important Somewhat unimportant 42 15% Very unimportant 75 28% 23 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUESTION 3 - Should urban services be provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary with recipients of the services paying their share? The majority of respondents (60%) indicated that urban services should be provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary, with recipients of the services paying their share. Only 9% answered they should not, while 31% said that they "did not know." Nineteen individuals did not respond. The high response rate for "don't know" may be indicative of a number of trends. First, respondents may not have an opinion on urban services. Second, "urban services" may be a poorly understood term; in fact, a number of respondents commented that they really didn't know what urban services were. Finally, the wording of the question may have caused some confusion. It may be unclear whether "should be provided to all citizens" does or does not assume "with recipients of the services paying their share." Total Respondents - 271 Number % Yes 163 60% No 23 9% Don't know 85 31% a i i f 24 'Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT QUESTION 1 - How do you currently get your information about City events, issues, codes, etc.? The Cityscape newsletter appears to be the most popular method for respondents to obtain information about the City of Tigard (257). However, this information may not be representative of the entire community since the survey was distributed in Cityscape. The Oregonian (148) and Tigard Times (114) also received numerous mentions. Number Number City Council 15 Regal Courier 13 Tigard Times 114 City's website 24 City staff 14 Neighbors 77 Oregonian 148 Other 22 Cityscape newsletter 257 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT QUESTION 2 - Do you believe you know how to be involved in the City's decision-making process when you want to be? The majority of respondents (70%) indicated that they know how to get involved in the City's decision-making process. Twenty-six participants did not respond. Total Respondents - 266 Number Yes 186 70% No 80 30% PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT QUESTION 3 - If you would like to obtain information about City-related topics, what would be the most effective way to reach you? Mail appears to be the most popular method by which to receive information regarding City-related issues (Mail and Newsletter received a combined 152 responses). Surprisingly, E-mail received a higher than expected rate of response (38), though Internet was somewhat lower than expected. Number Number I Mail 77 Tigard Times 13 Newsletter 75 Telephone 12 E-mail 38 Other 6 Internet 15 No response 103 25 "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Community Vision 2000 Community Opinion Poll Results ~6~C?;ucl 9 Z~ b0 AGENDA ITEM 4 FOR AGENDA OF 9,12.2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Final Order No 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 and 2 (.Option 1 Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (_MIS) 2000-00002• and tion 2• Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 04/L Lin Adjustment MI 2000-0 PREPARED BY: Karen Perl Fox DEPT HEAD OK '~CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An appeal of Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC filed on June 5, 2000 by the applicant for Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 regarding certain conditions of approval. At the July 25, 2000 Council meeting, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Conditions. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the July 25, 2000 Council meeting, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staff's response are as follows: D ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for a approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. a OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OP' ION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition #7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition #22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition #25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition #26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition #56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition #58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition #73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St. to Hermoso Way. The staff response to each condition under appeal is included in the attached memorandum from Planning Staff to the City Council dated July 12, 2000. Attachments: 7/12/2000 Staff Memo to the Council Exhibit "A" - 7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit "B" - 6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx Exhibit "C" - 5/15/2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Exhibit "E" - Appeal Form & Related Materials Exhibit "F" -120-Day Extension Letter from the Appellant OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\citywide\sum\,pd2000-00001 & 2 summary.doc 14-Aug-00/2:27 PM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.00- A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE FINAL ORDER AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TRI-COUNTY CENTER/OPTIONS 1 AND 2 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000- 00002, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000- 00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003). WHEREAS, the applicant requested approval of a conceptual plan for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development on a 27.33 acre site. Option 1 is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center. Option 2 is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center. Both alternatives included a request for a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. WHEREAS, on May 15, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing concerning the proposed shopping center and following discussion and the close of the public hearing, voted to approve the shopping center, subject to conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2000 the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision appealing Conditions No. 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58 and 73; and WHEREAS, the issues raised by the appellants are not substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Condition; and WHEREAS, findings contained within the Planning Commission's decision (Final Order No. 2000-02 PC) and the conditions of approval will insure that all required permits and engineering review is obtained for this project prior to the beginning of any construction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard hereby determines that the Planning Commission's decision for approval is appropriate based on findings in the Planning Commission Final Order, the June 26, 2000 letter from the Director of Community Development regarding the wall along Hermoso Way, the July 12, 2000 Memorandum from Staff to City Council, the July 11, 2000 Memorandum from the City's Development Engineer regarding Condition #7, and the testimony provided at the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting, and hereby denies the appeal of Tri-County Center (Option 1 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002, and Option 2 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003). RESOLUTION NO.00- iAcitywide\res\tri-county.res Page 1 of 2 KPF-July 17, 2000 PASSED: This day of 2000. Council President - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard a i i 3 a l RESOLUTION NO.00- iAcitywide\res\tri-county.res Page 2 of 2 KPF-July 17, 2000 City of Tigard Community (Deveropment Sfraping fT Better Community E CITY OF TIGAROP OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council PROM: Karen Fox, Associate Planner DATE: July 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center CASE NOS.: (Option 1) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002 (Option 2) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00002 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003 BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 4 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staffs response are as follows: i i CONDITION #1: CHAPTER 18.620, TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (AND SECTION 18.620.090) 3 a Overall Condition: a The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified. 9/12100 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 1 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 Summarx of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that this condition was modified by the Planning Commission to make DET review optional rather than mandatory and is, therefore, a restatement of the code requirement and is extraneous. The applicant also stated concern that should the applicant choose to go through DET review, that the wording of the condition would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. The applicant indicates that it was unclear whether the Planning Commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, making it impossible to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. The example cited was whether or not the proposed wall along Hermoso Way meets the definition for a "building" under the code and thus satisfies the zero to ten foot setback requirement in Conditions #56 and #58. Staff Response: Condition #1 was modified (from the Staff Report) by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant the option, rather than requirement, to go through the DET review prior to the detailed plan review. Typically, the detailed plan review process would occur prior to the conceptual plan review, however, the applicant did not elect to do this. If the applicant elects to go through the DET review prior to submitting the detailed plan, the DET's recommendations would have to come before the Planning Commission, and all other procedure's under Section 18.620.090.D for the Design Evaluation Team Review Process would apply. The Planning Commission decision would be final unless appealed to the City Council. Staff Recommendation: As the DET review is optional, no action is necessary. CONDITION #7: CHAPTER 18.810 (AND SECTION 18.810.030) The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72"d Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) (lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition). Appellant's Statement: 'a This condition requires the applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. i Staff Response: A Rough Proportionality Analysis was included in the Staff Report and Final Order. For Option 1, the 3 estimated full traffic impact is $2,237,375, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,521,505. For Option 2, the estimated full traffic impact is $2,478,218, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,685,188. 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 2 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 a Much of the proposed street improvement work allows for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit. The estimated value for the street improvements, TIF credits, and any non TIF creditable work as provided in the decision is roughly $1,000,000. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. Additional comments are attached and provided by the City's Development Engineer, Brian Rager, regarding this issue (Exhibit "A"). Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #7. CONDITION #22 & #25: CHAPTER 18.775, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Condition #22: The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent. Condition #25 (Option 2 only): Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25 percent slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25 percent. Appellant's Statement: These two conditions do not recognize the fact than many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the site. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25 percent. This condition should be modified accordingly. Staffs Response: This issue was discussed by the Planning Commission who consulted with staff during the May 15, ' 2000 hearing. Staff clarified, at that time, Condition #22 was simply asking for verification by the applicant that there will not be any ground disturbance in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent (which existed prior to ground disturbance by the applicant on this site). Similarly, Condition #25 is referring to pre-ground disturbance slopes which exceed 25 percent. It was clarified at the hearing that the applicant's were being asked to provide verification via topographic evidence, and site history regarding whether, or not, there were slopes exceeding 25 percent from the time the applicant/owner began work on the site; and if so, whether the work exceeds 10 cubic yards on those portions of the site. Condition #25 is applicable in the case that there is ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on.lands sloped greater than 25 percent (slopes that existed at the time that the applicant or owner began work on this site). Staff Recommendation: No action necessary. 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 3 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 CONDITION #26: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030). The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth street between the structures and the wetiands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal. Front Yard Setback Design: Section 18.620.030.A.3 Landscaping, and arcade or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.0406 and Table 18.520.2. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that due to the wetlands location between the structure and the public street, that code Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design, is inapplicable. The applicant states that this code section does not require landscaping, or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. Staff Response: The applicant states that it meets the criterion from Section 18.620.030.A.2, Building setback, by counting the wetland (rather than a building) along SW Dartmouth, as the feature located between zero to ten feet from the public street right-of-way. The applicant concludes that Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design is inapplicable. However, the fact that the wetland meets the criteria for Section 18.620.030.A.2 does not preclude that landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path shall be provided between the structure and the public street, in addition to the wetlands. The landscaping, arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path is intended to meet the design principles as set forth in the Section 18.620.010, Purpose and Applicability, as follows: A. Design Principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenience pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. The applicant's proposed conceptual building and site design along SW Dartmouth does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area, as pedestrian friendly design features are not included in the design. In addition, the building's are oriented to the interior of the lot and away from the wetlands. Building facades were shown in the plans submitted with blank facades along SW Dartmouth Street. The addition of pedestrian friendly elements between the wetland and the building 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 4 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 facades along SW Dartmouth, such as additional landscaping or an arcade along the perimeter of the building, would meet the code criterion under Section 18.620.030.A.3. At present, it is unclear how, or if, service access will be provided to the (rear) building facades and the south side of the wetlands which front SW Dartmouth. Staff is also concerned that without service or pedestrian access between the buildings and the wetlands, the wetlands will be negatively impacted. The wetlands have the potential to be an amenity to the streetscape and the shopping center. However, the current proposal does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area as the buildings turn their backs on the streetscape, the site design lacks streetscape design features, and the wetlands are not utilized as a integral visual amenity in the streetscape design. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #26. CONDITION #56 & #58: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030.A.2.) Condition#56 (Option 1 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.14.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Condition #58 (Option 2 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Majors II-IV or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building Setback: Section 18.620.030.A.2 The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features shall be 0 feet, the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Summary, of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that a sound wall is proposed along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street (Hermoso Way), and should satisfy the requirement for the zero to ten foot building setback from the public street. The applicant cites the definition for "building" from Chapter 18.120. The definition for building is "that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Staff Response: It was not clear from the Planning Commission's hearing on May 15, 2000 whether or not a wall could be used as a substitute for a building to meet the Tigard Triangle Design Standard, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for building setback. The Director of Community Development, Jim Hendryx, provided a letter regarding this issue to the applicant dated June 26, 2000 which is included in Council's material packet (Exhibit "B"). The letter states that a wall can be used to meet the building location requirements of the TTDS, and advises that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 5 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 of the Triangle. For example, the wall must include design features such as ground floor windows, display areas or door openings. The applicant will need to carefully review all the design criteria under Section 18.620.40 (18.620.040), and address and meet all of these criteria in the narrative application, and plans and elevations, in the detailed plan review process. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #56 and #58. CONDITION #73: CHAPTER 18.620, SECTION 18.620.020 The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant concurs with the May 8, 2000 Staff Report which found that the street connectivity was satisfied via the eight intersections per mile option (Performance Option). The Staff Report included the planned intersection at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road, and the intersection at SW Dartmouth at the planned fly over to SW Hall Boulevard in the count. Condition #73 requires the applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when the planned connecting street to Dartmouth Street is completed. If only one of the two planned streets are constructed along Dartmouth, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of Condition #73. Further, Condition #73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. This condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Staff Response: The Planning Commission consulted with Staff during the May 15, 2000 hearing and discussed this issue at length at that time. Staff did not object to the addition of Condition #73 after considering the fact that the identified planned intersections are very unlikely to be built in the near future (next five years), and may never be built. As the length of SW Dartmouth is 4,100 lineal feet, approximately six to seven (actual figure is 6.2) intersections would be required to meet this standard. There are five (5) existing intersections on SW Dartmouth within the Tigard Triangle. , The applicant raises the issue of Rough Proportionality in the requirement of the street connectivity, however, street connectivity is one of the guiding principles of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Further, the applicant is given the option of providing a private street or public street. A private street street does not require dedication. Notwithstanding the fact that staff does not concur that the rough j proportionality test applies in this case, the value of the connecting public street is approximately $184,000 (920 lineal feet x $200 per lineal feet). Therefore, the value of all public improvements, if the connecting street were added to the cost, would be approximately $1,130,000 (using the figures in the attached memo from the City's Development Engineer). The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated costs by approximately $555,000. 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 6 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 The applicant's argument that the connecting street would bisect the parking field (lot) does not hold up as it is premised on a shopping center design which is oriented toward the interior of the lot and away from the streetscape and pedestrian way. The applicant's statement that the connecting street would create an unsafe environment assumes no re-design of the site to appropriately and safely accommodate the street. Some re-design of the site is anticipated due to this modification of the original plan. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #73 Summary of Staff Recommendation• It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Condition. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - 7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit "B" - 6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx i:\curp1n\karen\pd001 U.cc.appeal.memo.doc i i 2 i 3 a a 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 7 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 & 2 ~ HI31T A~ MEMORANDUM - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: July 11, 2000 TO: Karen Fox, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: PDR 2000-00001, 2000-00002, Tri County Options 1 and 2 This memorandum is in response to the applicant's argument over Condition #7, which requires them to widen SW Dartmouth Street, east of SW 72nd Avenue. Right-of-Way Issue First of all, the applicant claims that they will have to purchase right-of-way (ROW) from the parcel at the southeast corner of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72"d Avenue (2S1 01AB, Tax Lot 100). This is not true. As a part of the previous land use approval (SDR 98-00002), the applicant was able to obtain ROW on the east side of SW 72nd Avenue, adjacent to Tax Lot 100, to provide 46 feet from the centerline. In addition, a 45-foot ROW radius was dedicated at the intersection corner. Both dedications were completed and are illustrated on the most current tax assessors maps. There is approximately 40 feet of ROW on SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to Tax Lot 100, and 30 feet of ROW on the north side of centerline, for a total ROW width of 70 feet (existing). The 40- foot width on the south side of centerline is sufficient to contain the improvements required in Condition #7. One last point regarding this issue. On July 11, 2000, Staff met with Specht Development, who is interested in developing Tax Lot 100, and other parcels in the vicinity. Obviously, if that occurs, Specht would be required to dedicate ROW and construct street improvements to SW Dartmouth i Street adjacent to Tax Lot 100 that include the improvements listed in Condition #7. But in the event the Tri County project moves forward before Specht, it stands to reason that Specht would { be motivated to cooperate with the Tri County developer, especially if part of their future street improvements would be constructed for them. 3 a a Value of Improvements Required The applicant asserts that the value of the street widening is over and above their impact on the transportation system., Staff has estimated the value of the street widening as follows: • Roadway Widening: $ 92,000.00 (conservative) • Wetland Issues (If any) $ 10,000.00 • Public Improvement Permit $ 4.500.00 (additional) • Subtotal $ 106,500.00 • Contingency @ 5% $ -5,325.00 • TOTAL $ 111,825.00 In the previous Staff Report, it was noted that the unmitigated impact of this development will be approximately $1,685,188.00. The applicant had given Staff an estimate of the cost of all public improvements (less the improvements described above) that would be tied to this project. The value of those improvements is $834,074.00. With the addition of the roadway widening east of SW 72nd Avenue, the total value of all public improvements would be approximately $946,000.00. The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated impact by approximately $739,000.00. Basically, in order for Staff to buy into any of the applicant's arguments, Staff would have to be convinced that the value of any unforseen issues would exceed $739,000. This is not likely. In summary, Staff is not convinced the applicant is powerless to construct the improvements described in Condition #7, as sufficient ROW already exists. Staff also disagrees that the value of these improvements exceeds the project impacts. i:Nw V%bnanrkommerdsWr%pd2000-00001-00002<ond#7-m Wma[doc { { { { { 1 I~ i ' II{ I PAGE 2 C EXHIIBIT B CI8 ® OF TIGARD June 26, 2000 OREGON Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: There has been some confusion regarding whether a wall can substitute for building location relative to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. I would like to assure you and your clients that a wall, indeed, can be used to meet the building location requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Please be advised that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards of the Triangle. I hope this will clarify the City's position. Sincerely, James N.P. Hendryx Director of Community Development I:\curpln\dick\letters\Christensen TTDS letter.doc c: PD2000-00001 Land use file PD2000-00002 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 EXHIBIT C CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 15, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson (arrived late), Griffith, Mores, Olsen, Padgett, Scolar, and Topp Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Incalcaterra Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Karen Fox, Associate Planner; Augustin Duenas, City Engineer; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff proposed some meeting dates to address a code amendment for an historic designation and a conditional use to allow weddings and other similar activities in a residential zone. It was decided that the matter would be heard on July 17th. Mr. Bewersdorff also advised that cameras were being installed so that all public meetings held in the Tigard Civic Center may be televised. Training is being offered to prepare Planning Commission members for televised meetings. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion to approve the April 17, 2000, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 2000-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Augustin "Gus" Duenas discussed the process for determining capital improvement projects, funding sources, and the program areas and priorities. The PowerPoint presentation detailing each project is attached as Exhibit A. Program areas are: the street system; the storm drainage system; the park system; and the water system. Mr. Duenas detailed the priorities of each program area, upcoming projects, the fiscal 1999-2000 committed projects that are still to be completed, and funding of the projects. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page I Commissioner Topp asked about underground utilities, fiber optics, and cable that need to be installed in the street extensions and unpaved portions of the right-of-way. Mr. Duenas said the task force is working on coordinating those installations with the County so that underground work is done prior to paving. Commissioner Olsen commended the task force for its work on the traffic count, transportation bond, and Summerlake issues. Commissioner Padgett asked about the portable speed humps. Mr. Duenas said there is a process for rating the streets. President Wilson asked if a feasibility study of the Walnut/Hunziker connection should be looked at. Mr. Duenas said that was one of the recommendations in the transportation plan. Mr. Wilson commented that while this project may be expensive, it would be less expensive than widening Hwy. 99W. A brief discussion was held regarding the public's frustration with Hwy. 99 traffic as opposed to the disruption that would be attendant upon such a project. The downtown redevelopment plan will be confronting this issue, and while it may be considered in long-term planning, it is not in the scope of this CIP. It is recognized that something must be done to alleviate Hwy. 99 traffic. Commissioner Olsen moved to accept the 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Projects, with the revisions presented, and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. No one signed up to speak on this item. 5.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTION 1 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 297,179-square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd I'LANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUITGS - May 15, 2000 - I'agc 2 Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. STAFF REPORT Karen Fox presented the staff report on behalf of the City. Refer to Exhibit B for proposed changes to the staff report. She emphasized that this is a concept plan versus a detailed plan review. The two options are presented together, with the only difference being the square footage of the gross usable space and building area. Ms. Fox detailed the site location and particulars of the two options. The current plan differs from the prior-approved 1998 plan by including six lots on SW Hermosa Way to the southern portion of the site and adding a new access on Hermosa Way, and it presents different building configurations and locations. It has blank walls on three streets and most of the facades are below grade. The current proposal has gone through wetlands and water resources overlay review and the wetlands designation has been removed; however, a sensitive lands review is requested as the project is in noncompliance with the Division of State Lands regarding the wetlands infill location. Ms. Fox presented details on the areas where the plan options currently do not meet the Tigard Triangle design standards and criteria regarding building placement on arterials, building setbacks, walkway connections, parking locations, landscape requirements, and building design criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6. She also outlined changes/corrections to the staff report and recommendations. Because the standards are not met in concept, there is a basis for denying the proposal; however, based on alternative designs by the design evaluation team, staff recommends that overall conditions be imposed and that the applicant be required to go through the design evaluation process. Staff recommends approval only after the conditions are met and a detailed plan is submitted. Dick Bewersdorff pointed out that this is a complicated project and both the planning staff and applicant struggled with the recommendations. There are conditions in the evaluation that will take care of the majority of the issues and the applicant would prefer not to go through the design evaluation team process. Brian Rager stated that as part of the 1998 approval, the applicant has already submitted construction plans for most of the public improvements that were conditioned for this project, has obtained plan approval from the Engineering PLANNING CON1111SSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 3 Department for those plans, and has proceeded with the rough grading. To move forward with the proposed options, the applicant must amend those construction plans, which will be difficult. Mr. Rager discussed some of the issues that have been dealt with, such as signalization. There is a report from Kittleson & Associates for mitigation. The applicant has made improvements and provided for further recommended improvements in their plan, but there may be some misunderstandings regarding potential traffic impacts. Generally, there are no other changes in traffic impacts from the 1998 plan and the applicant has made some progress and only needs design approval from ODOT on the signalization at 68th and Dartmouth. There is also mention in the report for a reimbursement district for the sewer line put in on Hermosa Way, so the applicant will need to pay the assessments, and the report also requires clarification of the storm drainage and water quality design. It will not be difficult for the applicant to meet those standards. Additional grading has been requested and the Engineering Department is questioning some of the fill that they have put in, so has recommended a geotechnical engineer certification before any further grading is done. Commissioner Padgett asked if widening to two lanes and then narrowing back to one lane east of 72nd and Dartmouth is possible to do within the existing city right- of-way or whether it will require the purchase of private property by the applicant. Mr. Rager said that he believes it will require some acquisition of right-of-way by the applicant. The applicant has already acquired the right-of-way from the property owner in order to do full-street improvements on 72"d and there should be no problem acquiring it on Dartmouth. Commissioner Topp asked if the current project would be affected if the options presented are approved or not approved. Dick Bewersdorff said that construction has begun on the 1998 application that was approved. If either Option 1 or 2 is approved, then the applicant will have to meet the new conditions of approval, and if neither is approved, they will continue with the current project as approved in 1998. It wasn't known that there was a problem until the signal coordination report was done. President Wilson expressed concern with staffs interpretation of the connectivity standards. Staff counted eight streets and seven intersections along Dartmouth, a including the planned backage road and "flyover" of Hall Blvd. The connectivity standards says all development must demonstrate how certain conditions will be met as to design and performance, and he questions how it can be demonstrated that these planned streets will actually be built. Additionally, evaluation of a Dartmouth Street and 72"d Avenue has been made, but not Hermosa Way, which would also apply to that standard. Mr. Wilson contends that a street is needed a connecting Dartmouth to Hermosa. Everything has been provided for except s connection and without it there is a huge amount of unmitigated traffic impact. a Karen Fox and Dick Bewersdorff agreed that this was a good point. The concept that was utilized was the performance option distance between various frontages I'I.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Pagc 4 on buildings to various driveways and this met the standard. President Wilson responded that he feels the whole spirit of connectivity is being violated here. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering, said they felt they had presented a detailed, site friendly plan and had tried to work the pedestrian connectivity through the site as much as possible while meeting the design standards. The plan was resubmitted in 1998 in order to meet the criteria and intent under Tigard Triangle design standards. The current options are requested due to changes in the retail community since 1998 requiring larger, more flexible retail sites. These two options are presented as concept plans in order to provide for more flexibility in meeting the design standards and then detailed plans can be provided later. Mr. Christensen explained the various areas in which they felt the intent of the Triangle design standards had been met. He noted that it is not an easy process meeting all of the requirements. They do not feel there is a large difference between the options presented and what they are trying to achieve and what was approved in 1998. Option 2 differs from the 1998 plan by adding 1.5 acres. This will actually reduce the overall traffic impact that would result from future development of that land. It also differs by allowing the flexibility to move pad C, but does not change frontage along Dartmouth and 72"d as contended by staff. Working with staff, sidewalk overhangs and covered walkways were included in the overall length of buildings on both those frontages to meet that standard. There is more than adequate connectivity through the site for pedestrian and traffic movement. The performance option is also met for the number of access points onto Dartmouth Street, but not for the number of intersections along a section of Hermosa Way. However, existing intersections and driveways function at a level of service of A-B, bringing into question whether more connectors are necessary. Mr. Christensen also discussed topography and the various elevations of the shopping center, explaining the physical difficulties in meeting the connectivity criteria, ADA standards, and retail community standards due to grade levels. Slope issues raised by staff were actually stockpiled materials that staff did not realize were there. Fill concerns raised by staff have been tested by a geotechnical consultant and all meet or exceed the standards. Mr. Christensen stated that the concept plan allows for the needed flexibility to better implement a shopping center. He briefly discussed the tenancy issues and the need for flexibility. He said it is not possible to go through the design evaluation team process for each tenant space because that would be too time consuming and would result in construction not beginning this year because of the time needed to meet the current conditions of approval. The landscaping and other concept plans are detailed as previously submitted. They want to work with staff to remedy anything missed in the plans, but the DET process will considerably delay this development. PLANNING COMMISSION M1:1:"1'IN(; 1\11NUTL'S - May I5. 2000 - Page 5 President Wilson asked if the 1998 approved plan went through the DET process. Mr. Christensen responded that it did not, the plan was deemed to have met the design standards outright. Mr. Wilson stated that if the standards are not met, an applicant must go through the DET process. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to say that an applicant does not have to comply with the Code. Mr. Christensen stated that there is only one major issue of compliance, which is the fagade along Hermosa Way. There only needs to be agreement that a wall with display windows constitutes a fagade. The other items in the recommendation can be shown to be met. Dick Bewersdorff clarified a misunderstanding about the DET process. He said the applicant does not need to go through the process for each detailed plan for tenant spaces, only one time for the concept plan, and then each detailed plan goes through the review process with staff. Commissioner Padgett commented that the only disagreement with the conditions in the staff report that the Planning Commission has seen is a letter from Perkins Coie (Exhibit C). President Wlson pointed out that there are two major issues. One is meeting the Triangle design standards and the other is condition #1 requiring the DET process. The staff report, starting on page 20, sets out where staff feels the plan does not meet the standards. Those are DET issues and they can relax the standards to a degree. The other conditions are technical and not related to the DET process. Commissioner Topp added that the applicant must either demonstrate that they are in compliance with the standards or must go through the DET process. Mr. Christensen said that functionally this is the same plan as what was submitted and approved in 1998, except for the sound wall on Hermosa Way. He detailed the applicant's position on the conditions, as follows. Condition #1: Request that this. be removed. Condition #5: The applicant agrees with this condition and will comply. Condition #7: This was based on information not provided to them and they are unable to comply because it is not under their control. Condition #22: Request that this condition be removed. This was in regards to the 25% slopes along Hermosa Way, which was a stockpile from stripping the areas below for grading. This is not sensitive lands, it is under construction. Condition #23: Modify 4" fence to 4' fence. Condition #26: Request that this condition be removed because it is not necessary under the design standards for zero setback to the wetlands. Condition #27: There is no revision required. The requirements of pedestrian walkways are met. PLANNING COMMISSION MBA TING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Pa-c G ~e Condition #28: They agree with parking area redesign along 72"d Avenue. Along Hermosa Way, the wall would be acting as a fagade, resulting in zero setback to the right-of-way, so no additional landscaping would be required along there. This is contingent upon approval of a wall versus a building. Commissioner Topp stated that he has trouble with the concept of a freestanding wall being the fagade and resulting in a zero setback as opposed to a building wall. Mr. Christensen responded that it is allowable under the Triangle design standards. President Wilson said that was only if there was some topographical or similar constraint, and that is the way it has been interpreted in the DET meetings also. If there is some reason why it cannot be met, then an alternative is usually acceptable. Condition #29: They ask that this be removed because it requires going through the DET process for zero-to-10-foot setbacks, which they contend is met all around the site. There is some question about whether they are required to have 50% of the building fronting non-arterial streets. The design standards are not specific on this because they say arterial and collector streets, but not local streets. In addition, the condition says no false windows are allowed for the purposes of meeting design standards, and that is not correct. The terms "false windows" and "display windows" are used interchangeably, and display windows are allowed and are currently being used. They ask that the whole condition be removed because it is unnecessary. The windows will be properly placed according to the standards. President Wilson advised that the staff report conditions simply recite parts of the code. If a condition cannot be met, then an alternative design proposal can be submitted to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Because this is conceptual and the Planning Commission is not supplied with all of the details, either the standards must be met or the applicant must submit to the DET an alternative to meeting the standards. Staff does not have enough information from a conceptual plan in order to make an evaluation. Mr. Christensen replied that the standards will be met, they understand the criteria and the concept, and they simply want the flexibility to change the site in order to develop it. The staff report in condition #1 requires them to go to the DET. President Wilson said this was because staff saw some things in the plan that did not appear to comply with the standards. Instead of requiring them to go to the DET as a condition of approval, preferable language would be that when a detailed plan is provided, the applicant will comply with the entire letter of the Triangle standards. Mr. Christensen agreed and reiterated that the standards will be complied with in the detailed plans, if the issues regarding Hermosa Way can be taken care of here. Mr. Wilson said that i may be the one issue that should go to the DET, and Mr. Christensen responded that the time involved in that process will considerably delay construction. Although they will still have to submit detailed plans and have a site design review, that is not required for a grading permit. They need to be able to do the grading during the summer months when the moisture content of the dirt is less. s a a Commissioner Topp disagreed that this was the only issue to be resolved, there is also the disagreement with condition #29. Staff says false windows are not allowed and the applicant says they are allowed. Karen Fox replied that the plan showed N ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUITS - May 15, 2000 - Pane 7 blank walls, not false or display windows, so staff assumed that they were proposing blank walls. If the applicant provides for display windows, then that meets the standards. Upon Commissioner Topp's inquiry about the purpose of the windows, Ms. Fox quoted from the design principles in the Tigard Triangle standards that, in summary, says they are for aesthetic purposes. Display windows are an option listed in the standards and are acceptable. The conceptual plan submitted only showed blank walls, which would not meet the standards, and this was the reason for the condition. Mr. Christensen said that the 1998 plan also omitted some details on the elevations, but it was noted that the applicant would meet the standards and this was sufficient to both the applicant and the Commission for approval of that plan. He then continued with detailing the applicant's position on the conditions: Condition #30: The criteria regarding building facades extending more than 300 feet has been met by adding entrances to the buildings at less than 300-foot intervals. Mr. Christensen explained the changes made to the 1998 plan to accomplish this. Condition #33: This is similar to a condition for the proposal in 1998. They do not have the ability to hide the mechanical rooftoy equipment because of the 35-foot elevation drop along Hermosa Way and 72" This is alleviated by painting the equipment the same color as the roof. President Wilson commented that it is common to put screens around the equipment and agreed that this should not be an issue. Condition #35: A foot of landscaping was inadvertently omitted on the plan. This condition is met. Conditions #40 and #41: They have an existing permit with the Army Corps of Engineers and DSL that expired because the improvements were not complete, and have been advised that their request for a one-year extension will be granted. For condition #41, a 15-foot buffer is approved and in some cases had to mitigate the buffer off-site. They have submitted to staff documentation of that approval. Karen Fox indicated that she has not had time to verify the documentation. Condition #42: Visual clearance is not applicable to the design standards. Karen Fox explained that staffs reason for imposing this condition is due to a conflict in Tigard Triangle design standards and the city's code for visual clearance on a corner. She agrees with the applicant that there is no conflict as it applies in this case. After a brief discussion, it was determined that this is not an issue. + Condition #50: They have no problem designing something to catch cars; however, j they do not understand the definition of drop-off grade or separation. There is a j distinction between the Uniform Building Code, which is applicable, and the Zoning 1 Code that applies to anything that is not a building as far as drop-off is concerned. This could be considered a 4:1 slope. Mr. Christensen asked if this term is defined in the code. Karen Fox said there is no definition pertinent to this site; this was intended to relate specifically to the parking lot by driveway D next to 72"d. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Pagc 8 UBC states that any drop-off greater than 30" requires a handrail. A 2:1 slope is the most common slope for development concerns. President Wilson said the applicant's concern is noted. Condition #56: They feel that the wall would suffice to meet this condition. Condition $57: This condition will be complied with. Condition #58: They feel that the wall along Hermosa Way with display windows would suffice. A break was convened at 10:00 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Barbara & Dan Bauer, 12335 SW 72"d, own two corner lots on 72"d & Hermosa. Their home and business is on 72nd where the five lanes will narrow down to two lanes. If that road goes through, it will be only eight feet from their home and will cut their business parking area down to 15 feet, causing delivery trucks to extend onto 72"d when unloading, which will put them out of business. There is no off- street parking. Other concerns are regarding run-off into the wall if the road is not put in, and the soil nails that will create problems for future development. President Wilson noted that the applicant will have to purchase right-of-way for the road and the Bauers, as the property owners, can negotiate these issues for that acquisition. Mr. Bauer is also concerned about the current traffic problem being exacerbated. Dave Cram, 800 NW 6t" Ave. #206, Portland, OR 97205, signed up to speak but did not do so. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Olsen asked for clarification regarding the need to finish the grading this summer. It was pointed out that grading can be done according to the 1998 plan, but no further until the conditions are met for an approved option. President Wilson asked for clarification on how long the DET process takes. It was established that the process takes a minimum of six weeks. Commissioner Topp asked how the DET process affects the applicant's ability to begin grading. Mr. Bewersdorff said the DET meets with the applicant and then determines if the proposal conforms with the design standards. It is unsure how the 30-foot cut into the hill on Hermosa will be handled by the DET. There have been prior approvals where they have modified the standards due to topography. Commissioner Topp outlined the applicant's various options. Option 0 is to grade the entire site pursuant to the 1998 approval. With the proposed options 1 and 2, the access points and most of the parking are essentially the same, but there is a difference in the location of some of the buildings and the 30 feet of excavation PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU'ITFS - May 15, 2000 - Page 9 by Hermosa Way. He asked if there is a possibility of splitting the grading into phases where the portion in contention would be the last to be graded. President Wilson pointed out that grading has already begun, but to grade the proposed area the applicant must purchase the homes, and they don't want to do that unless they know they will get approval. Mr. Christensen stated that with the 1998 plan, they have a 28-foot cut at the back of the Hermosa lots. The option requires additional grading off-site and to do that they must submit and get approval of the improvement plans for Hermosa Way in order to get a grading permit. They cannot get the off-site improvement plans approved through the DET in timely fashion for grading on the site of the Hermosa Way lots during the summer months, which therefore nullifies the option. The street widening requires right-of-way acquisition, which cannot happen anytime soon. Commissioner Tapp asked if it would benefit the applicant to proceed with grading three-fourths of the site while they go through the approval process for the part of Hermosa Way in contention. Mr. Christensen said the grading must be done in the summer because of moisture content in the dirt. Waiting for approval would defer a large amount of grading to after the summer months. Commissioner Tapp said one of his concerns is the response from ODOT and the amount of traffic resulting from this plan. He asked what the reason is for the street improvement. President Wilson responded that this issue was addressed in 1998. At that time it was already zoned, and the zoning assumes a certain traffic generation. Once it is zoned, a project cannot be denied on that zoning short of a moratorium. The problem is that the zoning was a mistake because it was done under the assumption that numerous improvements would be in place that have not actually occurred. Commissioner Tapp said another concern is the letter from the attorneys, item #4 regarding condition #7. He agrees that a condition cannot be imposed if it is not under the applicant's control, but it is up to the applicant to show on the plans how the problem will be remedied, and now they contend that they cannot be required to do what is shown on the plans. President Wilson pointed out that staff cited the condition as a solution for the traffic problem. Mr. Tapp feels the applicant should be required to provide a solution. The applicant's response is that the problem will resolve itself by people taking different traffic patterns in order to avoid that area. President Wilson said that that was the reason he was pushing for the connectivity, in order to give people more options. Karen Pox stated that staff has no objection to a connectivity recommendation by the Commission. Brian Rager added that a traffic study needs to be done. Commissioner Padgett pointed out that if people have a hard time getting onto and off of the property due to heavy traffic, then it is the property that will feel the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 10 IN 'Emil negative results because people will not continue to go there. If the shopping center is willing to accept that, then that is their choice. A compromise may be to agree with the applicant that it is not right to force them to buy the property necessary for widening, but have the applicant sign a non-remonstrance for an LID for the widening of that street when the property across the street does develop. Mr. Rager said that is acceptable. They have a standard street improvement agreement that could also provide the flexibility that if the adjacent property does develop, the applicant is not precluded from participating in that. Commissioner Padgett added that this would continue to recognize that this development has a direct impact on that intersection and what happens across the intersection, and yet possibly eliminates the roadblock they have to making that happen. Mr. Christensen said that would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Padgett reiterated that if the main result of those lanes not being widened on 72nd is that people have trouble getting out of and therefore don't frequent that property, then the applicant is accepting that consequence. Commissioner Topp asked why there would be a traffic backup as reported in the traffic study when there will be coordinated traffic signals. Mr. Bewersdorff explained how a build-up of traffic can occur and pointed out that it is a signal timing situation that will need to be worked out. A brief discussion was held on the future development and traffic problems of the area. Commissioner Padgett stated that when the area on the other side of 72nd is developed, the intent is to have the street wide enough to eliminate the traffic problems. President Wilson stated that the problem regarding Hermosa Way and the DET process still needed to be addressed. Commissioner Topp commented that if that problem can be resolved and the applicant is willing to comply with the other conditions, then they will not have to go through the DET process. Condition #1 cdl, be changed to require the applicant to either comply with the conditions OR go to the DET. President Wilson said he would like to know why staff made this an overall condition and then repeated the other problems individually. He thought there were quite a few unresolved issues. Mr. Bewersdorff said it was done that way to provide the Commission the option of either having that overall condition or dealing with each one individually. Staff struggled with that because they were uncomfortable with trying to approve i something on Hermosa Way that may not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle design. 3 In regard to building frontage and windows facing the street, Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the intent of the design standards is that this requirement applies to local streets as well as collectors and arterials. While the applicant is contending that these standards do not apply to this local access street, staff is saying that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page I I ME, am INN NINE they are applicable to local streets. Commissioner Padgett stated that he was on the task force and that staff is right, that was the intent. A discussion was held concerning the need to add another street to meet the connectivity standard. It was suggested that the addition of a private street could be added as a condition of approval. A private street would not be held to the standards for public streets, but width requirements could still be imposed for two-way traffic to ensure it is not simply an aisle. The discussion continued regarding street and accessway requirements, as well as setback requirements. The applicant contents they can't get the 0'-10' setback on Hermosa because of the slope. Ms. Fox said the current property is a 7-10% slope and the applicant is self-imposing the steep topography, and she feels it is not necessary to drop the building 30' below grade because it could be designed to be above grade and to front the street as is intended by the standards. This portion of the site (the Hermosa lots) is zoned MUE, which allows the same things as General Commercial plus some additional things. There are also practical considerations, such as servicing at the rear of the building. Since they have to have a building fagade within 0-10' of Hermosa, the applicant is proposing a wall with false windows in order to qualify. Pursuant to the discussions, the following determinations were made: A compromise would be made on condition #7 regarding the traffic lanes, as discussed earlier. Approval can be granted by changing condition #1 to require the applicant to be in compliance with the design standards or, if they do not agree with or cannot conform with the standards, they would have to go through the DET process. This would be done by making condition #1 an option rather than mandatory. Condition #23 should be modified to provide for a 4-foot-high fence. Condition #22 should require that the applicant must verify the stockpiling from construction. A new condition should be required for the applicant to construct a 24-foot-wide private street connecting Dartmouth with Hermosa, in accordance with Section 18.620.020 for street connectivity. Condition #7 should require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two eastbound travel lanes. This presumes that the applicant would be joining in with development of adjacent property, so the intent of the condition is that the applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound, based on recommendations from the MUTCD. PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 12 Condition #29 can be struck because the proposal provides for display windows and complies with the standards. Condition #43 should be modified to provide for sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment. Condition #50 regarding the height requirement should be modified to provide for a railing where the drop off rate of separation is at least 30" or a 2:1 slope. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the request for Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002; and Planned Development Review (PD) 2000- 00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003, subject to the conditions of approval with changes, deletions, and modifications as discussed above and summarized as follows: Condition #1 is made optional by changing "shall" to "may, at the applicant's option,"; Condition #7 is changed to require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two eastbound travel lanes. The applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound based on recommendations from the MUTCD; Condition #23 is modified by changing the fence measurement from inches to feet (4" to 4'); Condition #43 is modified to reflect that the applicant shall provide sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment; Condition #50 is modified so that where the vertical drop-off rate of separation is at least 30 inches or exceeds a 2:1 slope, the applicant shall install a guardrail or wall railing; and A new condition #73 is added to provide that the applicant shall provide a minimum 24' curb-to-curb public or private street connecting Dartmouth Street to Hermosa Way, distinguishing the term "street" from the term "aisle" as it is the intent that a street, not an aisle by which cars enter or depart parking spaces, shall be constructed. Commissioner Topp seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMN41SSION MHETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 13 ~M Mile 101, 5.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004/1-OT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTION 2 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 330,312-square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S10113A, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. NOTE: This case was included with item #5.2 above. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 15, 2000 - Page 14 EXHIBIT D CITY OF TIGARD ('urnrrrurrit y Uer (prncnt .tifi,zpiny 4 13e11er('uunnunily CITY OF TIGARD '(Vashington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000 00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 200000004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 Case Name: TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTIONS 1 & 2 Names of Owners: Michael F Laurens Gordon S Martin Gordon R Marlin Sheila Martin Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips Rodney C & Margaret Lyman Mary Manley and Marvin Von Renchler Name of Applicant: Christensen Engineering - Contact: Ed Christensen Address of Applicant: 7150 SW Hampton Suite 226 Tigard Oregon 97223 Location of Property: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72na Avenue and is east of State Highway 217 The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72 Avenue Tax Map/Lot Nos.: WCTM 1 S136CD Tax Lot 04200' 25101 BA Tax Lots 00100. 00101. 00300, 0400. 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403 and 01404. Request: A final order approving with conditions a land use application for a planned development/conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shop ing center on a total site area of 27.33 acres. The approval includes a sensitive lands review a i a lot line adjustment. The commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on this application on May 15, 2000. The planning commission has based their decision on the facts, findings and conclusions described in further detail within this final order. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. Action:: ❑ Approval as Requested 9 Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ❑X Owners of Record Within the Required Distance x❑ Affected Government Agencies ❑X The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator O The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard City Hall. Final Decision: IF THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 19, 2000 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 6, 2000 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED: Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.6.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. r THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 5, 2000. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. N.OTICE"OF°FINAL"`ORDER'IVOe`"~000=®2`PC - BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CRY OF TIGARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD' OREGON Community(Dewfopment Skaping A (Better Community A FINAL ORDER APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR TWO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER ON A TOTAL SITE AREA OF 27.33 ACRES. THE APPROVAL INCLUDES A SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON MAY 15, 2000. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 7/12/2000 SECTION 1 APPLICATION SUMMARY OPTION 1 FILE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001 (Type III Land Use Application) SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 OPTION 2 FILE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00002 (Type III Land Use Application) SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 FILE TITLES: TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTIONS 1 & 2 APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNERS: Gordon R. Martin, Gordon S. Martin, Christensen Engineering and Sheila Martin 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 12265 SW 72nd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 OWNERS OF ADDITIONAL MUE ZONED LOTS: 01300 Michael F. Laurens 7315 SW Hermoso Way 01400 Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 72nd 01401 Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips 7355 SW Hermoso Way 01402 Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman 7395 SW Hermoso 01403 Mary Manley 7453 SW Hermoso Way 01404 Marvin Von Renchler 7475 SW Hermoso Way a PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development on a total site area i of 27.33 acres: and a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to i accommodate future ownership. Option 1 is for the new construction of a 297,179 square foot building with dross leasable space of 307,419. Option 2 is for 330,312 a square feet of building with gross leasable space of 340,552 square feet. A prior i request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands a was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by final order Of the I igZlyd City Council. Water ReSOUI-ces Overlay Review is not addressed in this report due to the 1938 decision to remove the wetland designation from the site. l he 1993 City Council decision a1sO included rl Planned Development Revi(m, Site 6(,m lopnu;nt Review, Sensitive, Lmids l:eview, and a Lot line 111)7(100-00001/51 (::'0110 (101111'i'ti11S?00O (1(1(1(1?;wd I'1)'lO()(1-00007/SI I.:~I11111-(11)II(11!r;llti?Illlll-(1(I(I(1'i PA GI i O fill I I I CUI IIJ l l' SI 101'111N(. ('I N I I R 1' -:'(luu 1 '1 Al4HINI ; 0 )r;lr.ll';';1( )rJ ('111;1 1(:I II AKIN TINAL ORDER NO 2000-02 PC, M M adjustment for a detailed plan for this site, however, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. Neither of the Options involves the detailed plan review step which will be submitted later. This will afford the applicant more flexibility as lease arrangement are finalized. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300; 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMP. PLAN (DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD) and MUE. The Genera) Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. Although it is recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for those who drive. The property is also designated with the following overlay districts: 1) The Planned Development Overlay; and the 2) Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay was placed on the property to allow flexibility in development practices to permit more efficient use of the property. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards were adopted for all properties within the Triangle. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. SECTION 11. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED the proposal subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the report is based are noted within this final order. PD2000-000011SI k7000 OOOO1,'t41S2000-0000:) ruui f'l)2000-(10007/SI 1:2000.0000.1lh91S7000-0QOU:i PAGI: J OF JJ I I I-c;Ul itJ I Y !,I i( )I'i'Ii"w (A H U t l 1' Ou0 I'I ! t1tJltJr r'r r(:L';tl:; J )tJ I'HIil I(: I If lU:IN( ',/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS'SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) ALL CONMIONS APPLY TO BOTH OPTIONS 1 AND 2 UNLESS OTHERWISE INDIC OJED 1. OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified. 2. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for a revision to the current public improvement plans for this project to account for the improvements of SW Hermoso Way and any other changes to public improvements from what has already been approved by the City Engineer. 3. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 4. The applicant must meet the conditions related to public improvements required in the SDR 98-0002 approval, unless otherwise modified in this report. 5. The construction plan revisions shall indicate that the applicant will construct a half-street improvement alon the frontage of SW Hermoso Way in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards YTTDS). The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a local commercial industrial street from curb to centerline equal to 17 feet (NOTE: the applicant may propose an alternate to rebuilding the roadway section that will provide equivalent strength and design life); B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete Curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 6-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TTDS requirements; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities; 1. street signs (if applicable); J. driveway apron (if applicable); and K. adlustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Hermoso Way in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. G. The applicant's construction plans shall continue to show a temporary asphalt walkway connection between the existing sidewalk in Dartmouth Street adjacent to the Costco parcel and the new sidewalk adjacent to this site. 7. The applicant shall enter into a street improvement ac regiment that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, cast of 72"'J Avenue to provide two ((2) east bound triwel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommend.)tion from the Mantmi on Uniform Traffic control devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition). 1'1)%1100 OODU1/Sl 120111) 0000r,/r.lr`;2() 00 MOO2;uuI I'I)2f)Oo-0001)2/SI 1:2000 00004!NIIS2000-000( a - - - I'A('I :1 OI Y) II;I)I1rJIY`;)IOI'I'it y ('IrJI1I; .,I)' I0 I'I AtJHIN( ; t )(.)Lll',];It )rJ I'I)Itl I,. Ill AIfI!NAL.ORDER NO. 20oO-02 F'C 8. If a LID has not been formed to construct improvements in SW Dartmouth Street, as the applicant suggested in the narrative, the applicant shall provide all street improvements related to SW Dartmouth Street mentioned in this report as a part of this project. 9. All main line sanitary sewers in this site that serve more than one parcel shall be public lines designed and constructed to meet USA design and construction standards. 10. The applicant's construction plan shall continue to indicate that the applicant will extend an eight C8)-inch public sewer line southerly in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. he line shall be extended to the south property line. 11. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall pay the reimbursement fees of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 15 for the following Tax Lots on SW Hermoso Way that were made a part of this project: 2S1 01AB, #1300 2S1 01AB, #1401 2S1 01AB, #1403 A 2S1 01AB, #1404 2S1 01AB, #1400, and i 2S1 01AB, #1402. 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit; the applicant shall provide an on-site detention plan for storm water runoff that complies with USA Design and Construction Standards. The plan shall be submitted as part of the site permit application and shall also be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department (Brian Rager). 13. The applicant shall submit a storm drainage plan to the City that clearly indicates how the storm water from this site will be conveyed to Red Rock Creek. If concentrated flows are proposed to convey across the adjacent property to the west, the applicant shall obtain a private storm drainage easement from that property owner prior to construction. 14. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections and public water line work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. The roadway cut and repair in SW Hermosa Way shall be inspected by the City of Tigard as part of their public improvement permit. 15. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a design for an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. The applicant shall revise the current plan to ensure that 100% of the on-site storm water runoff will be treated. P-4 16. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant's geo-technical engineer shall submit a N certification from the project geo-technical engineer that states that all grading work on the site r1) has been inspected and complies with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. H 17. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to ('Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance PA Handbook, February 1994." r-+ W 18. The applicant shall obtain a new 1.200_C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to a ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Pori Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: M. All existing structures that will be in violation of required setbacks as a result of the Lot Line A(IJustrlu;nt shall bu removed. 1'1~:'(IU(1 OOO01/,"1 10000 000 YYI.11S7000 0000:);111d 111):1000 0000:'l;;1 1,7000-0000-14,11SMOO 0000a PAGE 4 01- 59 I {;I (:()I III I Y :;l 111)1 1111111(; (:I If I 1 11 t'.. (i )n f'I l~rJ Ili1 ; t') R.iI.1L';`;i 1111 I'I Iltl I1 : I II AI•;Ifli ; f-INAI ORDFR NO. 2000-02 h:. 20. Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits the applicant shall be required to provide letters from D.'L and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. 21. The applicant shall obtain verification that there is no floodplain on the development site through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and shall obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits as stated in the 1998 decision. 22. The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%. 23. Construction fencing (4 foot high orange fencing) shall be installed and maintained during construction at the USA 15-foot setback buffer to off site wetland areas to the west of the site. 24. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a mitigation deposit or bond with the City for the following trees 1) 992 caliper inches trees already removed 2) 1,666 caliper inches for trees proposed to be removed on the SW Hermoso Way lots, 3) 1,560 caliper inches for the Christmas trees. It is estimated that the combined total of 1) and 2) above will cost $199,350 figured at 1,825 2-inch trees (or 2,658 caliper inches) x $150 per tree, in addition to the cost of the Christmas tree mitigation. The applicant shall provide a bonlfred estimate for cost of the mitigation of all the trees including purchase price and value of labor to plant the trees for purposes of Staff making a final determination of the amount of the required mitigation deposit or bond. Staff Contact: Karen Perl Fox, Planning Division. Option 2 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%. Staff Contact: Karen Perl Fox, Planning Division. AS PART OF THE DETAILED PLAN SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED. Submit To The Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, Ext. 315) For Review And Approval: 26. The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans and provide a walkway system to meet the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in the detailed plan. Specifically, the applicant shall revise Pad C (Option 1) and Pad D and Major II (Option 2) walkways to connect with the public street. It is also recommended that the Major I Anchor in each plan have a walkway connection near the Hermoso Way access. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)- foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. 28. When submitting the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate or redesign the parking areas that front the public street on SW 72"`' Avenue and SW Hermoso Way so {hat parking is limited to no more than 50% of the street frontage; and so that all parking on the street frontages is located behind a landscaped area constructed to L-1 standard with a minimum five (5)-foot depth, or equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 standard, except where a side yard abuts a public; street, where it shall be Iandscaped to an L-1 standard. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with standards in accordance with the Tic and Triangle Site Design Standards as contained in Section 18.620.030.A.5. Alternatively, The applicant shall submit the alternative: design proposal to the DE I- prior to detailed plan review submittal. I'U7000 UUUU1/SI.1~7O0(I-1)I)UI1: /AaIS7Utl0 (I111)ll;',uu! I'I)llll)lh()01111:)n;t i-%,(iu11-InHI(1.1/P:11ti:'lll) I-00003 PA(il. 5 of 59 r I 11 n Ire r v :.1 lr~l'I'IrJ~ , l :I rJ l I I; 1':91~u1 I'I nrJrJlfJl l't I(,1r,111:':IlrJ i•!:Ir R No 1000Il11;1 I: 1 II J- I RNl1 721C •02'C 29. The applicant shall redesign the plans and elevations to include a minimum of 50% of windows, display areas or doorway openings on the street-facing elevations in accordance with Section 18.620.40.1, Ground floor windows or shall submit the alternative design proposed to the Design Evaluation Team who will then make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Tigard Triangle Ground floor window standard (Section 18.620.40) shall apply to all building elevations facing SW Dartmouth Street located between Q-10 feet from the wetland area, all building elevations within the 0-10 foot setback facing 72" Avenue and all building elevations within the 0-10 foot building setback, or required to be located within the 0-10 foot building setback (in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2). Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located on a building corner (this means the first bay of the corner on the side elevations in this case). No false windows are allowed for purposes of the meeting the Tigard Design Triangle Standrd for Ground Floor Windows, Section 18.620.40 standard along 72" Avenue, and no more than 50% of the required ground floor windows shall be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. 30. When the applicant submits the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall provide detailed plans, elevations, and specifications of all buildings indicating fagade building materials, dimensions of any building off-sets, fagade protections, and special design features that reflect the building's structural system to demonstrate compliance with Section 18.620.40.A.2, Building facades. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building whether on a public street or within the interior of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. 31. The applicant shall submit revised plans and elevations with the detailed plan review submission, and clearly indicate the locations of weather protection for pedestrians in accordance with Section 18.620.40.A.3, Weather protection. 32. The applicant shall indicate all materials to be used as exterior finish materials on each elevation in the detailed plan submission, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design criteria in Section 18.620.40, Building Materials. 33. The applicant shall revise the plans and designate areas on the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings where rooftop mechanical equipment will be installed to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the south and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall on Pads A-E. 34. The applicant shall submit for review and approval with the detailed plan submission a sign program that complies with the standards for the shopping center in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs for the General Commercial zoning district, and the Mixed Use Employment zoning district with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in accordance with Section 18.620.050. 35. The applicant shall revise the plans in the detailed plareview submission and provide the L-1 landscaping standard to screen the parking lot facing 72"" Avenue to the south of Driveway D. 36. In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. I 37. In order to n)eet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria In accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. 1'1 )7000 OOOOIi:;I 1?7(1(II) 000(L'~/rv115"ll)(IUd10 )(l;~ tuu1 111)":1000 0000:1!51 10000-0000,130ISM00 000M PAGI- Ii OF Y) 11?1 ))Iti1 Y';In )1'1TV; (:1 N1i 1. )'..')nu) I'I %,f ii i r i 4 )r.1r.'I' ;I~ NI 11IIIJI I(' Ili /\I•,III J) JI7 1NA[ CROFR NO. 2000-02 PC 38. The applicant shall provide a detailed lighting ppIan for review during the detailed plan review process in accordance with CDC Section 18. 5.030.F. 39. In the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall provide evidence that all crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. Applicant to provide detectable warnings at each entrance to the crossing at all accessible crosswalks. Applicant to record with the County and place on permanent file with the City, a crossover easement for the crosswalk which connects separate parcels. 40. The applicant shall bring the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation into compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Division of State Lands and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers permits, and the applicant shall ensure that these permits are current or renewed Due to the differences in the various permits regarding the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved, the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved will be .57 acres in conjunction with the U. S Army Corps Permit, which provides the greatest amount of wetland acreage to be preserved from the various permits. The applicant shall revise the plans to show location of biofiltration separated from wetland area as required under the DSL and US Army Corps permits. 41. The site plan shall provide 15-foot setback buffers in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards (standards in place at the time of the 1998 land use application) to off-site wetlands areas to the west of this site. 42. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18.795 Visual clearance in the detailed plan review process, and shall revise the plans to indicate the visual clearance triangles on the plans. 43. As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations to provide sufficient screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment from the view of residences to the south. In addition, the rooftop mechE i iical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. 44. As art of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations and screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. 45. Upon submission of the detailed plans for the plan review process, the applicant shall revise plans and provide a minimum 6-foot wall above the sidewalk along the north side of SW Hermoso Street, and a retaining wall to the south and west of the Mayor I building with a minimum 6-foot-high extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawing, and/or provide a method for completely screening the view of the residences to the south of the property from viewing the shopping center to the north. The applicant shall provide a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. 46. The detailed plan shall show the location of a minimum of 17 broad spreading street trees along SW 72 and 35 broad spreading Street trees along SW Dartmouth. { 47. The detailed plan shall show the required buffer along the southern property line where the site is adjoining residential uses (southwestern and southeastern corners) In accordance with CDC Section 18.745.050.13. The landscape plan shall show detailed landscaping that fully complies with the applicable screening and buffering standards. The applicant shall revise the buffer at the a south side of the parking lot, south of driveway D to provide buffering to meet the standards of a Section 18.745.050.13. I'U7000-00001/SI R7000-00005/mIS2000 0000:1 mo i,iv o UUI)0•l!:i1 k,"' o UI)(W,vi„11S?000-OOUO:i ['A(;[- 7 01' Y) I I?I i :()l m I Y s1 IOi viiJO (:I tJ I I I: 1' 00 PI ArJNIIJc. )(J I'lll 1 ' I I' i t'I(1 ..f-INA[ ORDER NO 2000.02 PC 48. The detailed plan shall include a landscape plan with specifications that provide sufficient detail to determine that the buffer to the southeast and southwest, meets the minimum requirements for Buffer Standard D. The detailed plan shall also show the location and final height of the proposed sound wall and additional screening mechanisms necessary to meet the screening requirements. 49. The applicant shall address all the criteria contained in Section 18.755.040.D, Waste Assessment Method and all other applicable criteria in Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall revise the plans and show trash enclosures for Major I, and placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. 50. Where drop-off grade separations greater than 30" occur, the applicant shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. 51. The detailed plan shall show wheel stops where the parking is adjacent to landscaping or walkways. 52. The detailed plan shall show the location of all compact and standard spaces, as well as, the dimensions of each type of space (angled, standard, compact, ADA accessible) and the dimension of all interior drives and access aisles. 53. The detailed plan review shall show the location and number of bicycle racks proposed. The detailed plan shall also show the type of bicycle rack proposed and the design of the bicycle parking pad. The applicant shall provide an analysis for each building that shows the required bicycle parking spaces based on the square footage of the building. 54. The detailed plan shall show the location and dimensions of loading spaces adjacent to all buildings over 10,000 square feet. 55. The detailed plan shall show the location of the required number of van pool/carpool spaces based on the final number of parking spaces proposed. 73. The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. Opption 1 Only 56. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. 0f tion 2 Only 57. The applicant shall revise the plans along SW 72"'' Avenue for building placement. The building pads shall cover at least 340 feet of frontage in accordance with Section 18.620.030. Otion 2 Only 5T The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Major II-IV, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design EvakNltlOn team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. - - PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 1'iEM00 000011SI 12:'111)0 0000`-i1f.11S7000 (1000:) .1111 111171100-00007/S1 127000-00004/M1S7000-00003 - - FIA(31 Or 59 1121 ( )1 )(111' ';I {I 11'I'IfJ' 1 :I fJ1I I•: II..If nitlI'1iIf1f11fJ) 1:11'.1(.11' J )(J 1'11!'1 If 11! f7d lf1)11INAI ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 59. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the construction plans for all traffic signals related to this project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The signals in question include: 1) SW Dartmopth Street/Driveway A, 2) SW Dartmouth Stree/Driveway B, 3) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72 Avenue, and 4) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68"' Parkway. The applicant shall provide traffic signals at Driveways A and B. These signals shall all be interconnected, along with the proposed traffic signal at the Costco south driveway. 60. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from OOT for the signal work to be constructed at the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68"' Parkway. Construction at this intersection shall include any roadway improvements as required by ODOT to ensure adequate operation and vehicular storage. (Contact Joel McCarroll, Assf. District Manager, ODOT District 2A, 229-5002). 61. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map showing the proposed suite numbers. The map should be submitted to Kit Church, Engineering Department. The address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the building permit. Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 62. All of the accesses on the site are considered to be joint accesses. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide satisfactory legal evidence in the form of deeds, easements, eases, or contracts to establish the point access use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION OF ANY BUILDING: Submit tote Engineering Department (Brian ager, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 63. Prior to a final inspection, the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 72nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option 1s chosen, the amount will be $18,700 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 64. If the applicant's project obtains franchise utility service from the existing overhead utility lines on SW Hermoso Way, they shall either place those lines under ground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee for this frontage shall be $18,425 and shall be paid prior to final inspection. 65. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for + said improvements. J + 66. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the i public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were a hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. a 67. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall complete construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street in accordance with City standards and as approved by the City Engineer. I'()7000-00001/SLR2000-()u()0`iliv115 70 00-0+1007:uui 111)2000-00002151 1 2000-00004/Iv11S2000-0000:i I)A(F OF 59 11.1-C01)Nl Y SIiOPr)1rJ; ; + :I 1111 I %1`.,17(1+1+) I)I l~IJNRJ~; +:+>i.".il';' I' +i J I'l ll it I+; I II ! ( IIJ 'FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 111111 -MNN 68. Prior to final building inspection, the a pplicant shall complete construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 88th Parkway andpSW Dartmouth Street in accordance with ODOT and City standards. The east leg of the intersection consists of the 1-5 southbound ramp connections at the SW Haines Road Inerchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the state Highway System and under the lurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal needs to be approved by the State Traffic Engineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen-hour (6:00 am to 8:00 p.m. weekday manual turning movement counts at the intersection will need to be provided to ODOT forte traffic signal warrant analysis. ODOT has provided copies of their signal warrant comparison worksheets for the applicant to use. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain ODOT permits/approvals for this signal work. 69. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management that indicates that Stormwater Management wiff provide for the annual maintenance of the StormFilter units proposed for this projec . 70. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facilities -to perform construction and visual- observation of the water quality facilities for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at comple-tion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of,Tigard Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that [he water quality facilities are in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 71. Prior to final inspection, the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall submit a final report to the Building Division that indicates all grading work on this site was inspected by said eotechnical engineer, and that it was completed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of -the Uniform Building Code. Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 72. The applicant shall record the Lot Line Adjustment with Washington County within 1%2 years from the date of approval. Extensions may be granted by the Director in certain cases, not to exceed one year in accordance with CDC Section 18.410.020.D. This approval shall lapse if the final recording is a departure from the approved plans. IN /aDDGENEIRAL PROVISIONS;STHOIS ISS NOT AN EXCOLUSIVE LI TOWING All sign changes and additions shall be submitted as part of a separate sign permit application, and are not addressed in this report. No new signs shall be placed or altered prior to review and approval by the City in accordance with Chapter 18.780 Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 8.780. Section 18.725.020 requires compliance with applicable state and federal regulations pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere ground, sewer system or stream. All future tenants shall be in compliance with the Environmental Performance Standard as set forth in federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations, and compliance is a continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. The applicant shall Comply with State and Federal regulations regarding archaeological artifacts. It is illegal to disturb archaeological sites or remove or alter certain archaeological objects on public or private land unless done by an archaeologist under a permit issued by the State Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant shall stop work immediately if an archaeological site or burial is encountered during construction (an expedited permit process is possible in this situation). Violation of the Indian Graves Protection Law is a Class C Felony. Contact the following in this order if resources are suspected 1) the nearest office of the State Police 2) the State Legislative Commission on Indian Services at the State Capitol, 503-986-1067 3) Oregon State Historic Preservation Office at 503-378-5001 in Salem, Oregon. Please also contact the Tigard Planning Division at 503-639-4171 should any archaeologicA resources be uncovered during the course of excavation. I'i)7UOO 0()(1111/SI 17(10(1 ()I)OO.')/r.ir;:)OO(I onOO:,;m(i i)11:'ll l(11111!Iwl!;I N:.1000 000(14/I1111s700(1 00003 i'A(11 1O OF 51 I I•.I c )I itJ 1 1;11, )1'I'IIJ1 ('1 1111 I: 1',':'u:) 1 1 '1 !•.(1+ JU 1 `i.tt.11' 1 41 1 'l I- 1 11 •.1 :lid .'1 MAI 012E NO. '1.000-02 PC THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site ~Histoo T eh majority of the proposed development site is currently zoned General Commercial with the southern portion of the site along the north side Hermosa Way zoned Mixed Use Employment. The subject site has been the focus of numerous concept plans and revisions. The scheme for the shopping center has evolved in response to market demands and additional Tigard Triangle area development and construction during the project's planning phases. The majority of the site is presently being graded under previous approvals. The remaining site includes nine (9) detached single-family residences and a mixture of related farming and other accessory structures. Much of the property contains a mixture of types and varieties of trees. The site also has a wetland's system which is currently being rehabilitated along SW Dartmouth Street, and a small portion along the central western property line and at the southwest corner of the site. This site generally slopes towards Highway 217 that is west of the property. Some 1.63 acres of the northern portion of the property along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage is registered with the Washington County Tax Assessor as a "Christmas Tree Lot"; these trees have been removed with approved grading permits. Some portions of the property are designated as a "Small Woodlands" by the Assessor. There are also six lots in current residential use within The Hermosa Subdivision and along the southern boundary of the site which front SW Hermosa Way. This development site has been the SUN ect of two prior development applications 11) A 342,500 square foot shopping center with office uses (SR 94-0019, PDR 94-0002, SLR 94-0004). This application was approved b the Planning Commission and became effective on December 19, 1994 but expired on June 19, 1996 due to inactivity, and 2) A 330,895 square foot shopping center with commercial retail space to accommodate primarily large-scale retail. This application ind uded removal of the Wetland desigqnation from the Ti and Comprehensive Plan CPA 98-0002, SDR 98-0002, PDR 98-0001, SLR 98-0002, MIS 98-0004 and became effective July 23, 1998. Early construction phases have commenced under these land-use approvals including wetland relocation, tree removal and rovgh grading. Also, a subsequent Type I land use decision for tree removal of trees numbered 88-96 (on tFie '1998 approved plans) was approved on 9/27/99. The current proposal is due to a revised configuration of Major I, to accommodate a new >gnant, the addition of a new access and egress on SW Hermosa Way, change of access locations on 72' Avenue, and the inclusions of additional lots along Hermosa Way. As tale 1998 land use decision included a concept and a detailed plan, and the current proposal differs in confi uration from the 1998 detailed Ilan, a new land use application is required. The applicant has chose t submit only a concept Ian at )his stage, to allow for future flexibility in developing a detailed plan at a future time. On Option 1, Majors I-IV on the 6/1/98 approved plans have been revised and combined into the proposed Major I, now rotated and separated from the other stores. On Option 2, Major I is now enlarged, rotated and separated from the other stores in this year 2000 scheme compared to the 1998 approval, however, Majors II-IV are included. Division of State Lands Permits and Army Corps of Engineers Permits were also obtained for the wetlands fill and mitigation concept, however, both agencies have conuliented that currently the project is not in compliance with the conditions in the permits. The primary issues relate to the amount and location of the rehabilitated wetlands, and some drainage issues. Vicinity Information: The subject property is located in a City of Tigard special design district arer1 known as the Tigard Triangle, a regionally sic nifrcant 340 acre area bordered by SW Pacific Highway, a state highway to the north, Highway 2.17 to t1le west, and Interstate 5 to the east. The site is hounded to the north by SW Dartmouth Street and to the east by SW 72nd Avenue, both m.ljor collur,lors. 1 he site includes seven (7) lots zoned General commercial and six (G) lots within the Hernloscl Subdivision to the south which are developed with deM(-.hed single-family residences and helve r) /oning designation of Mixed Use Employment (MUL-). A Loca1 tinprovenlenl district w.ls formed )l11Of o Inoju!rty owners on SW D<)rtnlOlJth and as N result SW D,)rtmouth has h0011 wid~N1 r)ca tnt !)rc>``)(!rl y to the north is desk nz)ted for Gcncral ConlrnerciA use. Al()ng SW 71 ' roof nOifh Of f),uinulillh is the newly constructed Winco Foods I:eUlil Centor. III(.. northwest corner of the :;)t(! v: r)dl.)c,rnt to Costco_, largo PD:1 )UO-00001/si r~lol)(1-l)I)1)l) 'r i~, X001) 00002 ;llld 11 )"OHO (1(IIIU; /;ii k."( 111 l (1000-18.11, .111111 111H I l r PACi_ I ) 01-59 i i;i-(;c )uN r si )c)Pr err:(; (:r N r t r.: ):,':'1)1)n r'r AHNINC c. )ra r'r Rkd rl : HL ;sane' HNl1L ORDLh NO 2 uou-u2 Pc wholesale retailer. To the northeast of the site is property zoned General Commercial and farther northeast is property zoned Mixed Use Employment (MUE). To the east, ppropert y is zoned Mixed Use Employment currently vacant or developed wQ detached single-family residences) and General Commercial. W Elmhurst Street T's into SW 72 Avenue from the east approximately 100 feet to the north of the southern pro ert line. To the south is SW Hermosa Way and residential property zoned Mixed Use ~bnployment ~MM)i' SW Beveland Street is south of Hermosa Way and creates a traffic loop onto 72 Avenue. To the west of the site is a 7 acre wetland within an 11 acre parcel under Costco ownership. Site Information and Proposal Description: The pro1'ect proposes approval of gross leasable commercial retail space of 307,419 sf for Option 1 and 340,552 sf for Option 2 as indicated on the plans summary data. The majority of the shopping center has been designed with an emphasis to accommodate larger scale dry goods retailers. The applicant has proposed two (2) driveways to the site alone the SW Dartmouth Street frontage, two (2) driveways on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage, and one ) driveway along SW Hermoso Way. In error, the applicant's narrative proposal description for Option 2 indicates a larger amount of gross leasable space which does not match the amount shown on the plans, therefore, this larger amount was disregarded for purposes of this review. It is also not clear why the gross leasable space amount exceeds the building square footages as provided by the applicant. Option 1 The applicant has proposed to develop retail space within six (6) buildings that would likely contain one (1) Mayor Anchor Tenant and several smaller tenants. Option 2 The applicant proposes four (4) Major Anchor Tenants (3 are attached buildings) and five (5) smaller tenants in nine (9) buildings. On June 1, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and approved a similar proposal for this site subject to Conditions of Approval. At that hearing the Planning Commission expressed strong reservations with the project due to traffic impacts to SW Pacific Highway and unfunded regional transportation improvements listed within the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. On June 23, 1998, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and expressed similar concerns. At that hearing the City Council approved the proposal because needed transportation improvements required regional transportation funding solutions and cannot be solved by any single applicant. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to construct a shopping center to serve commercial retail tenants. This use is classified in Code Chapter 18.130 (Use Classifications) as General Retail. The site is located within the General-Commercial District. Table 18.520.1 lists General Retail as a permitted use in the C-G zone. a The one exception is Animal Related General Retail which is riot permitted. i Summary Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 i Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. a This is a new construction proposal requiring Planned Development Review and is, therefore, defined i as a Type III Application. Decision Making Procedures; Chapter 18.390 Describes the decision making procedures. PD2000-00001/SLR:)000-0000`5/MIS7000-0110107 nn 1 PI V000 -00007/SI N.M00-0000-1/rv1IS700 0 00003 PAGI? 12 Of `.5I 1 I;1-000N 11' `;1 it );'1'IfJ(; (,I N I 1 IJ '1`)/10 0() PI !BMX", ; C( )r.1r715S1 1hJ PHI 0 1(: 111 Al.'INCTINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC A Planned Development Conceptual Plan is reviewed as Type III-PC, and a Planned Development Detailed Plan is reviewed as a Type II procedure in accordance with Section 18.350.030. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that predorninantly contain discretionary approval criteria. Type III actions are decided by either the Hearing's Officer (Type III-HO) or the Planning Commission (Type III-PC), with appeals to or review by the City Council. This application includes only a Conceptual Plan at this time. SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS No neighborhood comments were provided. SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. Zonina Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Land Use Decisions 18.350(Planned Development) 18.390 (Impact Study Section 18.390.040) C. Land Divisions 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments) 18.420 (Partitions) D. Communes Plan Area Standards Tigard Triangle Design E. Specific Develo meat Standards 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands) 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree emoval) 18.795 Visual Clearance) F. Additional Planned Development Review Criteria from 18.350.100.3 G. Public Facility Concerns Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters: 18.715 (Density Computations), 18.720 (Des,gn Com )atibility), 18.730 ((1=xceptions to Development Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overlay), 18.742 (Home Kcupalions), 181.50 (MMILIfNctured/Mobile Home Regulations), 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations), 18.785 (lemporny Uses18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities). These Chapters are, therefore, found to hct irlrlppli1 e os approval standards. In addition, Section 8.430 (Subdivisions), is inapplicable. SECTION VII_ APPLICABLE. REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: A. ZONING DISTRICT CommercialZo.ning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. i'u; uuc)-oooovsi-rz,oou-orlon >rf.41slnOn 0000:1 ;110 111):'nnu m o,":;i I?.,nnu nnnn.i ;;'nm nnnn 1 I>nc r_ i:l 01- s<~ I kI COl1Nl Y SI101'I'IN(l CI rJ it is 1'.:' IUn I'I nNNINt ; t : ir.7G11S ;l )rJ I'I If ii if : Iii 1I:IN1 ;'I INnI 01MI R NO .1000-0.1 PC The majority of the site is located in the C-G zone: General-Commercial District. A portion of the site along the southern boundary is located in the MUE zone; Mixed Use Employment District. Planned Development Overlay-,-Section 18.350 This property was previously designated with a Planned Development Overlay. Tigard 'Triangle Design Overlay: Section 18.620 This site is located within the Tigard Triangle Design District. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.6 States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: EXCERPT FROM C-G AND MUE/C-G STANDARDS FROM TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD C-G AND MUE/C-G Minimum Lot Size None Detached unit - Boarding, lodging, rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft Minimum Setbacks Front yard 0 ft [6] Side facing street on corner & through lots 111 Side yard Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 0/20 ft [3] Rear yard - Distance between front of gxage & property line abutting a public or private street. 0/20 ft [3] Maximum Height 45 ft Maximum Site Coverage 121 85% Minimum Landscape Reduiren)enl 15% 121 lncludes all buif(JIMIS and impervious surfaces 131 No setback shall be required except 20 feet shAl be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. The parcel width standard is addressed within the Lot Line Adjustment review portion of the staff report. The applicant proposes to landscape or provide wetlands mitigation areas for approximately 195,534 square feet of the net site area of 25.70 acres of area. This equals 17% of the net site area and, therefore, complies with the 15% minimum non-impervious surface area requirement. j Setbacks: i i To the South, the site adjoins property that is designated as Mixed Use Employment that permits residential use. These properties are also developed with detached single-family residential uses, i therefore, the 20-foot setback is found to be applicable at the rear yards along Hermosa, and at the side a yard of Pad E (Option 1) and Major IV (Option 2). The applicant has provided a minimum of a 60-foot setback rear yard setback with a minimum 40-foot setback (Option 1) and a minimum 70-foot setback i (Option 2) at the side yards abutting residential property at the southern end of the site, in compliance 3 with this standard. a Building Height: None of the proposed huildind elev.ltions of the Major Anchor building (s) and Prlds A-D (Option 1) and Pad A-E (Option 2) will excocd Z1 height of 28 feet accordinq to the ccmcepl p1mis .111(1, therefore, we in con1pli;ll)G0 With the 115-foot nr.lxnlulnl height restriction. 111 2000-00001;51 1 11)(111 000051.11S:100() 000O:' and 1)1)200O 00ow/`i1 I,20()O OI)oovr lIS20f1o uwfri 11AGI 1.1 O Y) I I:LCUI1rJ 11' I'll V )111'IrJI ; I :1 N 111~ 1!1%If)110 I'I rJlJlnu r .u Jf W.11:;':I, )H 111 J11.1 1t' 111 !11•:IrJr ~!PINl1L ORDFR NO 2000.02 PC a IMPACT STUDY: SECTION 18.390 This Section requires that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real proppert yy interests) the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of- way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not rough)y proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. A traffic impact study, dated February 1998, was submitted with the 1998 SDR application, by Lancaster Engineering. The purpose of the study was to determine how the traffic in this area will increase when the new development begins operation and to determine impacts on vicinity intersections. The study analyzed the following intersections in the area: 1) SW 72nd Avenue/Highway 99W, 2) SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W, 3) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue, and 4) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway. This traffic study was updated in December 1999 to consider a larger development (365,000 sf of retail vs. 307,419 sffor Option 1 and 330,312 sf for Option 2). Lancaster found that even with the larger development, the increase in traffic would yield the same results as what was found in the original study. The study assumed that 10% of the trips generated by this development would be pass-by trips, which are trips that were already on one (1) of the adjacent streets, like SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue, and were diverted into the shopping center. It was also assumed that 10% of the new trips would be diverted trips, which are trips that must leave their original direction of travel by an intermediate roadway (SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue) to visit the site. Diverted trips in this case would be trips that must leave their original direction on 99W to visit the site; once they leave the site, they would return to their original direction on 99W. Staff finds that both assumptions are reasonable. Based upon information used from TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, Lancaster found that total new trips generated by the site would be 11,778 trips per day, with 262 new trips generated during the AM Peak Hour and 1,118 new trips generated during the PM Peak Hour. Lancaster also used an average 4% growth rate in traffic per year to help determine what the impact would be in the Year 2003, with the new site in place an o )eratingg. Using this information, Lancaster found that signals are warranted at the SW Dartmouth 9treet/SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway intersections. The applicant's plans indicate they will construct these signals as a part of their project. A Level of Service (LOS) analysis, using ODOT's SIGCAP software program was included in the 4 study. SIGCAP defines LOS F as a saturation value of 1.02 or greater. The analysis found that in ~_l Year 2003, considering background traffic alone (no Tri-County), the intersections will function as follows: r Highway 99W/Dartmouth Street: LOS E with 93% saturation; Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-F_ with 87% saturation: ~q . Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 89% saturation; Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway: LOS E with 93% saturation. When the proposed site trips are added to the Year 2003 background traffic, the intersections will function as follows: 1'11:'11(1(1 OMymsi t,,: loo 0 1ll11111'dL11:;:'11O0 1 ...md 1'1)71111'1-000W/SI I;7l)I1O-(10O(1.1/AIIS?11(1(1-0(100a - i'AG 1.`101 Y J I I:I 1: )IIN11' SIIC11'1'IhJ . (:I N11 k 1',;i)(1111'I /1NhJ1(J1 0 )'.1(.11')'J11(J 1'l 11 %+I;IiJ! ITINALORDER NO. 2000.02 PC e Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street: LOS E-F with 98% saturation; e Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 87% saturation; e Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS F with 122% saturation; e Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway: LOS F with 115% saturation. If traffic signals are installed by the applicant at Dartmouth/72nd and Dartmouth/68th, these intersections will operate at LOS C and B respectively. ODOT submitted comments to the City, dated April 20, 2000, regardingg the latest options for this project. ODOT controls the intersection at SW Dartmouth Streef/SW 68 Parkway, since it is so close to the 1-5/Haines Road interchanqe.. They have reviewed the applicant's traffic impact report information and concur that a signal at this intersection is warranted and should be constructed by the applicant as a part of this project. The study also analyzed the new driveways into the site and found that warrants will be met for both driveways on SW Dartmouth Street. However, Lancaster proposed to hold off on installin these signals until the development is fully constructed and under operation for a time. They suggested that because of the close proximity of the driveways to the SW 7p2nd Avenue intersection, some queuingg may occur west of SW 72nd Avenue which would partially block the eastern driveway for part of eaN signal cycle. Lancaster recommended that traffic conditions could be monitored for a period of time by the City to determine if the signals should be installed. For SDR 98-0002, Staff found that concept acceptable and recommended the applicant provide financial assurance to cover the cost of design and construction of the two (2) additional traffic signals. This financial assurance would be held by the City for a period of five years (60 months) beyond the date of occupancy of the buildings. Then, the applicant would be required to provide folrow-up signal warrant analyses every 12 months over that five-year period. If, during that 5-year period, signal warrants are met based upon actual traffic generated by the development, and if in the City Engineers opinion signalization of one (1) or both of the driveways is within the public's best interest, then the applicant would be required to design and construct the required signal(s) within 12 months of the City Engineer's direction. At the applicant's request, the Conditions of Approval that were related to the timing of the installation were modified in the 1998 decision. The Planning Commission recommended thathe applicant wort: with the City Engineer to determine signal timing within six (6) months of project approval. Staff recommended that the City Council revise this to be six (6) months from the time of Building and/or Site Permit application. The condition was amended per Staff's recommendation. Since that time Costco Wholesale approached the City about installing a traffic signal at their south driveway. StafY' required both Costco and Tri-Count to coordinate a report to address signalization of the Costco driveway and the proposed Tri-County driveway signals. On February 24, 2000, Kittelson & Associates (under contract with Costco) submitted a traffic signal progression report to the City. They used data from Lancaster's December 1999 report to enable them to develop the progression report. The report shows queuing len the based upon year 2003 traffic, and indicates that all signalized intersections will function adequately, exce t for the eastbound through lane on SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72"`' Avenue. The eastbound trough lane queue will exceed the available storage length of 550 feet, and will therefore back up in front of Drivev x B. It should be noted that Kittelson's report assumed one eastbound through lane at SW 72" Avenue, due to the lack of roadway width of Dartmouth Street east of 72" Avenue. Staff asked Kittelson whether or not the situation would be better or worse if a siggnal were not installed at Driveway B. Kittelson responded that it would be better to have a signal allthat driveway because it will more efficiently manage all of the turning movements versus the unsignalized option. Staff supports installation of signals at both Driveways A and B, and does not recommend delayinq th~iS installation, as bras recommended in SDR 98-0002. These signals along with the signals at SW 72" Avenue, SW 68 ' Parkway and the Costco south driveway, shall all be interconnected. However, Staff is concerned about the inadequate storage length for the eastbound through lane. The applicant's )flan shows two eastbound through lanes on Dartmouth Street at 72"` Avenue, and continued double eastbound lanes east of the intersection. The application does not indicate whether or not the applicant is willing to install those improvements. Kittelson indicated that in order to address the Inadequate storiicle for the eastbound through movements at SW 72" Avenue two easthOUnd throu(}I) ones must x0 provided. And those eas bound lanes must be carried throug}l the intersection to a point whore they would ho s;ifely taperod clown te) iust ones I;lnr;. Strlff concurs with that finding. After ehscussion by the Planning Coll lnlission it was docldod that the ;ipplicainl shall Iii); 1)00 00001/sl R:1000 01100.'i r,11:i 1ll111 1101111: ;u1t1 I'1):11100 0000:1/;,l N ."WO 0011111-rv11.`,;'11110 0000:1, I AGI 16,01 111 C(M IN i Y ::11i 1I'11lrl, 4:1 rl i I I•, 1'i!: IlilU 1 '1 ! rJHl(l , Ir.1L11' I )rl i'i II'd it : i Ii Al,'IrIl,!l INAL OROFR NO 2000-02 PC Eli enter into a street improvementaZeement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72 Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one ((1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic control devices (IVIUTCD 1988 Edition). Rough Proportionality Anal sis The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Between July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2000 (fees are scheduled to go up after July 1, 2000) it is estimated that the applicant will be required to pay TIF's of aoproximately $715,870t (based on gross leasable space of 307,419 square feet for Option 1; and fr Option 2, it is estimaed that the applicant will be required to pay $793,030 abased on gross leasable space of 340,552). Specific future tenants could increase or decrease this total based on the tenant mixture. Option 1 Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $2,237,375 ($715,870 divided by 32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $1,521,505. Option 2 Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $2,478,218 ($793,030 divided by 32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $1,685,188. The applicant has committed to construct half-street improvements along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage and rebuild of the SW 72nd Avenue frontage with approximately a 3/4 street improvement. The applicant has committed to install traffic signals at the SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street intersection and at the SW 68th Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. Additionally, the applicant has committed to install traffic signals at both of the proposed SW Dartmouth Street driveways if warranted. The applicant valued the cost of all committed street improvements at $834,074 in the 1998 land use decision, though this figure may increase somewhat due to the recommendations in this report. Much of the proposed street improvement work allows for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit (TIF . For this reason, the total value of the proposed street improvements, TIF Credits and any non TIF creditable work is estimated at $1,000,000. Because the total transportation impact is $2,237,375 (Option 1) or $2,478,218 (Option 2) the proposed street improvements are easily proportional to the impact of the development. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. i Planned Development: Section 18.350 allows the option for an applicant to create a more i efficient, economical) viable development that preserves natural land features while i implementing the land use designation set forth for the property though the Comprehensive Plan. The Planned Development Review is a three (3) step process as follows: 1. Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. I II W000 0(1001/ill :?O()O-(10(1ll`.)!r,lli,:)ooO 00(1(1? :)nt1 1'11:-(100 O(IOnt? si-1\'1(Il)ll (101)0•,/r,iiSJUOI) 111)rlO:i I'nGr 11 OV Y) III l;crilrJll':SII<11'I'IrJ~:I tJII I~ 1' ':')u10 1'I nrJNIrJ , t: 'r.1r.11' to )H PI Ili) 1(: III '.I:IrJi .I INA1. ORDER N0.2000-02 PC Within 1-1/2 years after the date of Commission approval of the conceptual development plan, the owner shall prepare and file with the Director a detailed development plan. Action on the detailed development plan shall be ministerial 'and taken by the Director by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040. Exceptions to Underlying Development Standards are contained in Section 18.350.080. Approval Criteria are contained in Section 18.350.100. The applicable criteria for the Planned Development Conceptual Plan in this report are as follows: A. Relationship to site development review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, are not applicable to Planned Development Reviews. The detailed development plan review is intended to address the same type of issues as the Site Development Review. B. S ecific planned development aproval criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the following criteria are satisfied When approving or approving with conditions, the concept plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. 1. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430, shall be met; These are addressed under Chapter 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments, and 18.420, Land Partitions in this report. Chapter 18,430, Subdivisions is inapplicable as this is a commercial development. 2. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to Justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 below. The developer may choose to provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. Except where noted all criteria are applicable. a. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. This criteria is inapplicable as it applies only to residential development. b. Chapter 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; C. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; e. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements; f. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; and g. Chapter 18.780, Signs. Criteria b-g above are addressed under Section F. Specific Development Standards in N this report. Additional Planned Development criteria as listed in Section 18.350.100.13.3 area addressed in Section G. of this report. 18.350.110 Shared Open Space - Requirements -for _shared o{yen. space. Where the open space is designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: Open space is not designated On the plan as conuixrn open space, therefore, this criteria is inapplicable. 1'1);'1100 Ol)(1(I1/tit 1 711111) II Illl)!i'r,11:i; 0111) (ItIOll;' ;111 1 1'D;~000 OOOO, i;.I I .'011(1 01)1111(/MV;POw UI)lllla I'A(;I 171 OI 1(r'7UIIn PI '•r JrJlrJr Ir.1%1I'",I( )rJ I'I IIC ! III ~I;IrJI INl11.ORDFR NO 2000-02 PC nron~nnm~~RmA1i1 nnnnvre®nu~nr~wrwnimmnsrrnnnrd~iernamsnrwn iennnrrmm~mins®ii~n~se rn LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - APPROVAL STANDARDS: Section 18.410.040 contains the following standards for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment request: Section 18.410.040 - Approval Criteria states that the Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; No new lots will be created as part of this adjustment; thirteen (13) lots exist and thirteen (13) lots will remain after the proposed adjustment. There is no minimum lot size for the C-G zone. The lots will be between 14,653 and 638,400 square feet after the adjustment. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. By reducing the lot size the lot or structures(s) on the tot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; By reducing the size of the smaller lots and increasing the size of the larger lots, all existing structures in violation of zoning district regulations will be conditioned to be removed. The applicant has noted on the plans that all structures are to be removed. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation; Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. There is no minimum lot size for the C-G zone. The smaller of the thirteen (13) lots is 14,653 square feet and has 100 feet of frontage onto Hermoso Street. The largest of the lots is 638,400 square feet with 900 feet of frontage onto SW Dartmouth and 650 feet onto Hermoso Street. Setbacks will be addressed during building approvals. All existing structures have been conditioned to be removed. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an access way would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. Through the building permit review process, fire hydrants will be reviewed for consistency with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying this criterion. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. i~ This criterion will be met because a shared access agreement will be provided. N Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705: Access, Egress, and Circulation. This standard is met through the existing access provided to these lots via their street frontage. Exemptions from dedications: A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required. I hose lots are riot within the lloodploin, see Chapter 18.775, Sensitive Lnilds in this report. Therefore, this standard does riot ;)pply. I'U?UUU (10001IS111'1OI11) (111(IU`,'r,ll.`;:'1)1111 IIIIUU;' :1rn1 1'I (IOI)-II(If)O?/SI 1 711UI1 Ut1t1(L1!r.11S'll)(1(1 (II)Inl i I'l~Cil= 1'J (I-',`.) I1•11C(nINIYS111)1'1'it(A N I i i•; ','t` 10(1) (I ANNINt;,, t.'t.;!':',II,tJ )'l lit; V 111 rd;ltJ' - 1NAL ORDER NO 2000-02 PC Variances to development standards: An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The applicant has not requested a variance or an adjustment with this application. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment criteria have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the standards shall be met. CONDITIONS: All existing structures that will be in violation of required setbacks as a result of the Lot Line Adjustment shall be removed. The applicant shall record the Lot Line Adjustment with Washington County within 1/2 years from the date of approval. Extensions may be granted by the Director in certain cases, not to exceed one year in accordance with CDC Section 18.410.020.D. This approval shall lapse if the final recording is a departure from the approved plans. D. COMMUNITY PLAN AREA STANDARDS TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.620 Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: Section 18.620.020 All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.370.010 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. ( Performance Option ) A. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mile. a B. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. a C. Tile shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or 3 greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. a As the length of SW [1)rlrllOL01 Street is 4,100 lineal feet, p()roxiniately six to seven (nduA figure is 6.2) intersections would tie required to meet this stJ)n(iJ)r(i~ f3;)sed on the f;l(-,t th;)t there are five (G) existing intersections on SW I)arlnu)uth within 010 1 i(IM'd 1'ri.inglo, this st;md;)rd is not nu-It without the extension of a sfreel(s) through this; site. 111(! live; (f,) existin() iniersectu)ns include the SW I'IVOM) 00001i:~l 1%171000 11(IIIU' /x,11';711111) I1000;) run11,1 ):'111)0 111 )I)!1:'-' 1 1:71)1)1111O(Ill•1(A41S:'UI111 01)1)1):', I'lu;l 70 O1 Y) II,I (:OI1(JI'i 'JI! )II111f." (A fill Ill ' '1' ':'u1u! I'I /•rJ;JI;J ; 1 t.1t.1f",".I'. 41 l'I li(i Ii :III !•I I'J '.I INAI ORDI R NO 2000-02 PC Dartmouth Street at SW Pacific Highway, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 70th Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 69th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street at I- 5. After discussion before the Planning Commission, the "planned" Backage Road at SW Dartmouth and the " tanned" fly-over at SW Dartmouth to Hall Boulevard were eliminated from the intersection count as they were deemed unlikeI to be built in the near future. As there are only five (5) out of six 6) required intersections on SW Dartmouth, an extension of a street through the ri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way is required. As the length of SW 72nd Avenue through the Triangle is 4,400 lineal feet, approximately seven (actual figure is 6.6) intersections on SW 72nd Avenue are required through the Triangle. Including the intersections of SW 72nd Avenue at 217, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hampton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Gonzaga Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Beveland Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hermosa Way, SW 72nd Avenue at SW DartmoWh Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Clinton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Baylor Street, SW 72" Avenue at the planned extension of SW Atlanta Street, and SW 72nd Avenue at SW Pacific Highway; a total of 10 intersections are existing, or planned and likely to be built within the Tigard Triangle. For this reason, an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW 72nd Avenue is not required. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance standard, has been interpreted as the distance from a driveway entrance to a collector or larger classification street. In this case, the project meets this requirement because of frontage and proposed driveway access to two (2) Major Arterial streets, SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The shortest pedestrian trip standard has been interpreted to mean that a pedestrian should not have to travel more than one and One-half( 1 '/2) times the shortest straight line distance from the driveway entrance to the farthest proposed building entrance. The driveway is an apppropriate point of measure in this case because four (4) of the five (5) driveways (Driveways A-D) Intersect with streets designated as Major Arterials, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. For this reason, the driveway entrance would exceed the collector standard stated in the criteria. The fifth driveway is located on Hermosa Way, a local street, and, therefore, shall not be considered in this analysis. Option 1 The furthest main entrance of Major Anchor I to SW 72nd Avenue appears to be the most appropriate distance to use to measure compliance with the standard. This distance is the furthest point a edestrian would have to walk from the public street into the site. A pedestrian would have a straight Pne distance of 810 lineal feet if the applicant provided a walkway all the way to SW 72nd Avenue, as has been required. A distance of one and one-half (1'h) times the straight line path is 1,210 lineal feet. The actual distance as shown on the plans is 1,160 lineal feet, which meets this standard. Option 2 The furthest main entrance of Major Anchor I to SW 72nd Avenue appears to be the most appropriate distance to use to measure compliance with the standard. This distance is the furthest point a pedestrian would have to walk from the public street into the site. A pedestrian would have a straight line distance of 980 feet if the applicant provided a walkway all the way to SW 72nd Avenue, as has been required. A distance of one and one-half (11h) times the straight line path is 1,470 lineal feet. CCQ The actual distance provided is 1,115 lineal feet, which meets this standard. FINDING: This standard is not on SW Dartmouth and is met on 72"d Avenue. In order to meet the standards the applicant shall met the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street W connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term a aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. 111)2000-00001/SI 1:2000 (111(1OYMIS:1000 0000:1:11111'IV000 0000?/sl 1:20(10-000()4/Iv11S2000-00()0:i IIAGI 71 OF 59 1 NICOMA I Y SI (:I IJ 11 12 1Y,100() PI ArJNIN( L1L11':'.It f 1 I'I )HI P: I ll 'W111( WFIWU. ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Site Design Standards: Section 18.620.030 All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010.C2, governing criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials and the street - Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along Mayor and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. The site has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue; and 50% of this frontage equals 340 lineal feet. Option 1 The applicant has proposed two (2) ads equivalent to 340 feet of length which meets the standard for 50% of the site frontage on S9 72nd Avenue. The site has approximately 1,270 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street; and 50% of this frontage equals 635 lineal feet. The applicant has proposed three (3) pads with a total building length of 582 lineal feet which does not meet the 50% street frontage standard. For this reason, the application as proposed does not comply with this standard. Option 2 The applicant has proposed two (2) pads equivalent to 330 feet of length which does not meet the minimum 50% of the site frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The site has approximately 1,270 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street; and 50% of this frontagge equals 635 lineal feet. The applicant has pproposed four (4) pads with a total building length of 714.43 lineal feet which exceeds the minimurrd 50% street frontage standard. The proposed plan is slightly below the minimum 50% along 72 Avenue. FINDING: Option 1 meets this standard, while Option 2 does not meet the standard. In order for Option 2 to meet the standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: For Option 2 only, the applicant shall revise the plans along SW 72nd Avenue for building placement. The building pads shall cover at least 340 feet of frontage in accordance with Section 18.620.030. Building setback - The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or deed tcate-dwetlands/buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Pads A, B and C corn )ly with this standard as they abut the wetlands mitigation area which fronts SW Dartmouth Street, Qs C and D comply with this standard on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage because they are proposed to be built up to the street right-of-way. Pad E (Option 1 only) does not meet this criteria, as it is setback 45 feet from SW Hermosa Way. Slopes at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to Pad E are roughly 27 to 500/6, therefore, a substantial amount of grading would be required to site Pad E closer to Hermosa Way and comply with this criteria. ' Option 2 I Pads A, B, C and D corn ply with this standard as they abut the wetlands mitigation area which fronts SW Dartmouth Street. fads C and D comply with this standard on the SV~T 72nd Avenue frontage because they are proposed to be built up to the street right-of-way. Majors II-IV do not meet this criteria, as setbacks range from the southwest corner of Major II at roughly 50 feet, to the southeast + corner of Major 1V at roughly 70 feet from Hermosa Way. s a FINDING: As the Pad I--- (Option 1). anti Majors Il. IV (Option 2) do not meet the 0-foot buildinc solimck stmid;lyd of the intent Of the 1 lgard l riangle Design Standards, the applicant slmll rlw(t Ilse following conditions in ordi!r to satisfy this standard: I' X,000-00001!: ;I 1.1;1001 (1000)'111,;:1001) ibhuY.'.uu1111):'000 00007/Sl 1::'000 0000.1301ti"1000 00003 1IAGI (A 5d9 )IlrJIY';II(HVINI (A fill I•: 'i'1',: 111~1~1 I'l /t Jf llfN; ~i,1t,11';'I)rJ I'I 1• ' II! (0I It If ',TI NAt. ORDI R NO 2000-02 PC CONDITIONS: Option 1 e The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Option 2 e The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Major II-IV, or shall submit the alternative. desiggn proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Front yard setback design - Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedesfria' n path must be -provided between a structure and a publia street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) stpeet, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.0406 and Table 18.520.2. The applicant has proposed the L-1 landscape standard applies for all public frontages which include SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue, and Hermosa Way, and L-2 standard along driveways. The applicant has proposed to construct Pads C and D (Option 1) Pads E and D (Option 2) up to the SW 72nd Avenue frontage right-of-way. The parking area to the south of Driveway D will also have frontage on the SW 72nd Avenue right-of-way; and buffering and screening for this parking area is addressed under Chapter 18.745 in this reportTopography in this area dictates that he parking will be below the grade of the street. Along the SW Darrttmoufth Street frontage the applicant does not meet this standard due to the wetlands fill and mitigation proposed for this entire frontage, however, this wetland area does not preclude the applicant from meeting the standard. Street tree plantings shall comply with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards reviewed under Section 18.745.040 in this report. FINDING: This standard is riot met. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands[public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Trian le Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior-to detailed plan review submittal. Walkwav connection to_buildina entrances - A walkway connection is required between the buildings entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encoura ed. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 8.520.0406 and Table 18.520.2. Except for Pad C (in Option 1) and Pad D and Major II (in o )tion 2), a walkway system has been (provided to each main entrance of the proposed pads from W 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. However, it is recommended that Major I in each plan have a walkway copnection to Hermosa Way near the Hermosa Way access; as the proposed walkway distance to 72' Avenue is roughly 980 feet in length in Option 1 and 940 feet in Option 2. The applicant proposed 6 feet wide walkways paved with concrete. The standard requires that the walkway system be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using imitching nu'dular pavement materials. FINDING: The w.ilkway systeni does not meet this standard. In order to meet this standard, the ,~pplic<int sh" III 11wel the following condition: I'U2000 O( 0M.'sl 82000 O(HO"'F.1V1)(11111:1 I'I ):,0110 000O:'rJ;i I:2000 000U•)'r.11,;:,000 00(10.1 PALL 23 Of- Y) I:1 :r )I IN I Y ,;I P )I'I'Ir J' ' :I r J I I I' l :,i)!!!I 1'1 :,fitIllJ i.ir.li' tl' irJ I'! I!'.! ! I fl I•:Ir!' I INAL ORDER NO 2000.02 I'c CONDITION: The applicant shall revise the plans and provide a walkway system to meet the requirements of the Tigard Trran le Design Standards in the detailed plan. Specifically, the applicant shall revise Pad C Option 1) and Pad D and Major II (0 ion 2) walkways to connect with the public stree . It is also recommended that the MMajor I Anchor in each plan have a walkway connection near the Hermoso Way access. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. Parkina location and landsca a desi n - Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights=of-way must be locate to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. See Diagram 2. The applicant has proposed to develop parking to the side of buildins directly adjacent to SW 72nd Avenue at Driveway DD and at the southern en of the site to the east of Major 1 and west of Pad E (Option 1) or Major 11 (Option 2) along Hermoso Way. Building placement standards, and wetlands mitigation issues on the SW Dartmouth Street frontage preclude placement of parking areas immediately adjacent to the street. FINDING: The proposed plans in Option 1 and Option 2 do not meet this criteria as parking to the side of buildings exceeds 50% of the street frontage in some cases. This does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this criteria, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: When submitting the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate or redesign the parking areas that front the public street on SW 72 Avenue and SW Hermoso Way so that parking is limited to no more than 50% of the street frontage; and so that all parking on the street frontages is located behind a landscaped area constructed to L-1 standard with a minimum five (5)-foot depth, or equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 standard. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with standards in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards as contained in Section 18.620.030.A.5. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building Design Standards: Section 18.620.40 (18.620,040) All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if tlae criteria found in Section 18.370.010, criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. Ground floor windows - All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. The building setback in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2, is the area between 0-10 feet from the public street right-of-ways or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features. Therefore, this standard applies to the north elevations of all the buildings along SW Dartmouth Street, in <lddition to x311 bui1c11ngs required to be located between 0-10 feet along 72"' Avenue and SW Hernaoso Miy. As essentinlly <all of the buildings (in Option 1 and 2) are oriented with their front entries and prinmry windows to the interior of the site, rind vlrtWIlly no windows are shown to the street, this concept plmi does not meet lho crilerirl, Dulino the pre-application conference with the applicant, the applicant discussed possibly meeting this str.andard with the use of false windows. It is P02000 000111;;(1 ;'0ru)-{)O1)O! !AUS2tlt)) nrnm:' ;nut PD:-,0100 0000:1/SI RPM() 1)11(00-1/rAISM00 000003 PA('A 24 OF 59 II.I (:OIINIY:,IIr rl'1'1r1 (:I raI1 I% 1[.:'nnn I'I ,,rJrllrI, L1r,11'; ;I ir! I'I li'•I i 111 AI,'IN -TINA1 ORDER NO. 2000-02 r'C rec9mmended that that no false windows be allowed for purposes of the meeting this standards along 72" Avenue, and that no more than 50% of the required windows be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso, if the applicant is in fact intending to propose this as a solution to meet this standard. Option 1 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A and B (facing Dartmouth), the north and east levation of Pad C (corner of Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72n' Avenue), and the south elevation of Pad E (facing Hermoso Way). Pad A does not meet this criteria as no north elevation was provided in the plans, therefore, it is assumed that no windows are proposed for the north elevation. Further, Pad A's front entry and main elevation is oriented to the south. Pad B does not meet this criteria as there are no windows shown on the north elevations. Up to 50% of these windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building. Pad C does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the street facing elevations of this corner building, either on north or east elevations. On Pad C, 50% of the ground floor wall area of both the north and east elevations are required to have windows, display areas or doorway openings. Pad D does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the east elevation. Pad E does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the south elevation. Up to 50% of these street elevation windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building only. Option 2 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A, B and C (facing Dartmouth), the north and east elevation of Pad D (corner of Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72nd Avenue), and the south elevation of Majors II, III, and IV (facing Hermoso Way). Pad A does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the north elevation. Pad B does not meet this criteria as there are no windows shown on the north elevations. U to 50% of these windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners ofpthe building. Pad C does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the street facing elevations of this corner building, either on north or east elevations. On Pad C, there is one bay shown with windows covering approximately 74 square feet between three to nine feet above grade. As Pad C is 123 feet in length, the required window area is 3,321 square feet; and while up to 50% of the windows are allowed to come from the side elevations at the corner bays, the glazing shown is far below the standard. Further, Pad A, B and C's front entry and main elevations are oriented to the south, the main parking lot area at the interior of the site. 50% of the ground floor wall area of both the north and east elevations on Pad D are required to have windows, display areas or doorway openings. Pad D does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the north or east elevations (It appears as though Pad D east elevation is shown in error as Pad E east elevation, and that two Pad E east elevations are shown in error). Pad E does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the east elevation. Up to 50% of these street elevation windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building only. Majors II, III, and IV do not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the south elevation or the side elevations (east or west). FINDING: This standard is not met for the conceptual plan and does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall redesign the plans and elevations to include a minimum of 50% of windows, display areas or doorway openings on the street-facing elevations in accordance with Section 18.620.40.1, Ground floor windows or shall submit the alternative design proposed to the Design Evaluation Team who will then make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Tigard Triangle Ground floor window standard (Section 18.620.40) shall apply to all building elevations facing SW Dartmouth Street located between 0-10 feet frm the wetland area, all building elevations within the 0-10 foot setback facing 72;"1 Avenue and all building elevations within th(a 0-10 foot building setback, or re(Juired to be Ideated within the 0-10 foot buildinct setbcick (In cccordance with Section 18.(320.030./x.1). Up to 50%, of the ground 11001- windoV.1 reguirenlent may be met on an adjoining elevation cis long as all of PD2000-0000111Sl F.2000 00~JU.'n'M157111111-I)iii~~~? tuul 1'02000-0000; /SI 1-12000-0000.11rv11s2000-00003 1'AGC 25 OF 59 I R1GOIINI Y SI it ~l'1'IrJ(1 (:I w 11: 1'I ! rJtJIFJt', 1 7 r.1L11',til N 1 'I IN I it jP1N(',.FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC the requirement is located on a building corner (this means the first bay of the corner on the side elevations in this case). No false windows are allowed for purposes of the meeting the Tigard Design Jriangle Standard for Ground Floor Windows, Section 18.620.40 standard along 72 Avenue, and no more than 50 /a of the required ground floor windows shall be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building facades - Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. Option 1 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A and B (facing Dartmouth), the north and eas "d ~ elevation of Pad C (corner of Dartmouth and 72 Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72 Avenue), the south elevation of Pad E (facing Hermoso Way), and the east elevation of Major I. Pad A does not meet this criteria as no north elevation was any in the plans. Pad B's north elevation indicates a combination of split-face concrete and brick or false brick, therefore, this elevation meets the criteria in concept. Pad C's north and east elevations, and Pad D's east elevation indicate ba s, approximately 26 feet apart, separated by pilasters or columns. Though no information is provided regarding proposed depth of building off-set or change in materials, this criteria can be met conceptually. Pad E's south elevation shows two materials, split-face concrete block for the main facade and smooth concrete block for the accent bands, and therefore, can meet this standard conceptually. The east elevation of Major I indicates a combination of materials including glass block, and at least two different concrete surfaces, and therefore, can meet this standard conceptually. No building facade extends more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building except the west (service side) of Major 1. Option 2 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A, B, and C (facing Dartmouth), the north and east elevation of Pad D (corner of Dartmouth and 72"d Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72"` Avenue), and the south elevation of Majors II, III, and IV, (facing Hermoso Way). The east elevation of Major 1 shall also meet this standard. Pads A and B's north elevations meet this standard conceptually as three different materials are indicated including split-face concrete masonry units, smooth concrete block and ultra block on the retaining wall which adjoins the building's north facade. Pad's C's north elevation, and Pad D's north and east elevation do not specify different materials, however, it appears that different materials are intended or can be specified in the detailed plan. It is not clear what is intended for materials on the south elevation of Ma* rs II-IV, however, different materials can be specified in the detail plan. No elevations were provided by the applicant for Major I of Option 2, therefore, this criteria is not met. No pedestrian connections are provided to meet the 300 feet standard on the south sides of Major II-IV, or the west side (service side) of Major I. FINDING: Pad A of Option 1 and Major 1 of Option 2 do not meet this criteria conceptually, as street facing building elevations were riot provided by the applicant. Also, Majors II-IV of Option 2 do not meet this criteria. All other building elevations meet this standard conceptually. Majors II-IV (Option 2) does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: (10001/!,I I:'l(1(I(1 Ul)(III! 'Ltl:::'(IUU (IOtl(1:' nn l {'I ):'111)11 U(II)i17i ;l IJ?UOU OO(II)4/rv11S2OU(1-OUI)Oa- I'/~GI l(i OI !iE) 111V000 lfI (;O(1rJ11'! Ilcll'I'Ird ,(:I (111 I: !,!1!,!;(lit(1 I'I ltrliJllJ( ti.ll.tl'~'d~ ((11'1111,1 P: 111 APIN( TINA[ ORDER NO 2000-02 PC CONDITION:When the applicant submits the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall provide detailed plans, elevations, and specifications of all buildings indicating fagade building materials, dimensions of any building off-sets, fagade projections, and special design features that reflect the building's structural system to demonstrate compliance with Section 18.620.40.A.2, Building facades. No building fagade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building whether on a public street or within the interior of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Weather protection - Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The applicant's narrative states that a protected pedestrian pathway will be provided in front of and bordering the parking lot side of each structure, and that the pathway will be protected by extending building roofs, creating an arcade. The applicant has not shown on the plans and elevations how this standard will be met at building entrances, and the how the general intent of the criteria will be met along building frontages. FINDING: This criteria is not met, as the applicant has not demonstrated clearly, via the plans and elevations, weather protection for pedestrians at all building entrances, and how the applicant will meet the intent of this criteria along building frontages. CONDITION:The applicant shall submit revised plans and elevations with the detailed plan review submission, and clearly indicate the locations of weather protection for pedestrians in accordance with Section 18.620.40.A.3, Weather Protection. Building Materials - Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. Architectural elevations have been provided with a variety of finish design materials including smooth concrete block, split-face concrete masonry, ground face scored smooth block, synthetic stucco, ultra block for retaining walls, and standing seam metal roofs on building corner towers. The applicant's narrative states that foundation material will be plain concrete not revealed for more than two feet. FINDING: As no prohibited materials are proposed, this criteria is met in concept. To meet the criteria for the detailed review process, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall indicate all materials to be used as exterior finish materials on each elevation in the detailed plan submission, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design criteria in Section 18.620.40, Building Materials. Roofs and roof lines - Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not " permitted. The applicant has riot proposed to use false fronts or false roofs as part of the building elevations. FINDING: This criterion is (net conceptually. Roof-mounted e_quipment -Ail roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. 110:1000 00001/sl R:10(Y) 00) )!iIN41S2000 -01)001 and 11112000-00002/51 R2(ttJ0-OUOII.1/W11S2000 (1000 t PAGF 27 OI 541 1111 (:1 )l1rJ iY SI 101 1111N, 1 :1 .1111 N 1!('21111) 1'1 Ar11JIN1 1141 I'I Jlil 1!; I rl AN11J(, FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The applicant has not adequately addressed how it will screen roof mounted equipment as discussed under Section 18.350.100.3 in this report under the additional Buffering and Screening standards. FINDING: This criterion is not met. In order to meet this criterion, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION The applicant shall revise the plans and designate areas on the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings where rooftop mechanical equipment will be installed to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the south and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall on Pads A-E. Signs: Section 18.620.050 In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the standards as contained in Section 18.620.050 shall be met. FINDING: Signs have not been reviewed under this conceptual plan. In order to meet this standard, the applicant must meet the following condition: CONDITION: Tile applicant shall submit for review and approval with the detailed plan submission a sign program that complies with the standards for the shopping center in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs for the General Commercial zoning district, and the Mixed Use Employment zoning district with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in accordance with Section 18. 20.050. Landscapinn And Screening: Section 18.620.070 Two S2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The ocations where the landscaping or screening. is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening is defined within this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots an along collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscapping and Screening , shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on Major and Nlinor Arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a Major or Minor Arterial, trees shall be planted at 31/2-inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provided a 3-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Southwest 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street are both designated as Major Arterials. SW Hermoso Way is a local street, and therefore, this criteria does not apply on Hermoso Way. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parkin lot and a Major or Minor Arterial, trees sh be planted at 3Yz-inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feef-on center. The Parking lot fronting SW 72 Avenue to the south of Driveway D shall meet this standard. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet the standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall revise the plans in the detailed plan review 54ibmission and provide the L-1 landscaping standard to screen the parking lot facing 72"" Avenue to the south of Driveway D. L-2 General Landscaping - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets planting standards of Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall a gply. Trees sha(I be provided at a minimum of 2 and 1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing. of 2~ feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and qquality to achieve the required landscal?inp or screening effect within two years. Any tree plarite d in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be e igi )le for full mif_igation credit. 1,M)000-00(h)USI 1i'11100 000O!,'r.11'::'O00 (1000:' nnI I'!).'O()O 0O0071;11 87000 (1(100.1/r.11"VO(P) ()()$)I ):I PAGI l8 (A I RI-(;( )1 JrJ I Y: ~I i( :I T J I I P 1`..'7(n10I'I i.!JrJI!: i.l!.11'.',I )rJ I'i I!'.1 It III l.IJ !J 1 rINAL ORDER NO. 2000-021'c This standard is addressed under Section 18.745.040, Street Trees and portions of Chapter 18.745 in this report. Street and Accessway Standards: Section 18.620.080 Refers to Table 18.620.1 and accessway diagrams in this section. This section is incorporated and addressed under Section 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards in this report. E. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ACCESS EGRESS AND CIRCULATION: CHAPTER 18.705 Commercial an industrial uses w is require 0;99 parking spaces shall provide one (1) access with a minimum of 30 feet access width and minimum pavement width of 24 feet. Commercial and industrial uses which exceed 100 parking spaces shall provide two (2) parking spaces with a minimum of 30 feet access width and minimum pavement width of 24 feet, or a minimum of one 1) access with a minimum access width of 50 feet and minimum pavement width of 40 feet. ection 18.705.030.C provides for joint access. The proposed access points into this project have not significantly changed from the 1998 version (SDR 98-0002). The development will have two (2) points of access on W Dartmouth Street, with one (1) full access driveway opposite the existing entrance into the Winco Foods/Office Max site and one 1 full access driveway approximately 600 feet further to the west. There will also be two full access driveways onto SW 72nd Avenue. With this current option thered is also a proposed full access onto SW Hermoso Way at the main horizontal curve west of SSW 72` Avenue. The Hermoso Way access appears to have a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually, however, the following condition shall be met in order to meet this condition in the detailed plan review process. CONDITION: In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. Joint Access: Section 18.705.030.C Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Joint access standards are applicable as there are multiple buildings on multiple lots with multiple ownership on this site. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be resented in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Walkway Location: Section 18.705.030.F On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The City wider standard of four (4) feet of unobstructed walkway width does apply. The walkway overall width requirement is modified by the Tigard Triangle Design Standard that requires six (6) feet of total width, and the applicant has proposed to meet this standard. Walkway connections are addressed under Section 18.620.030.A.4, Walkway Connection tO building entrances in the Tigard l riangle Design Suinclard Chapter of this report. Pi)2000-00001/sl 1:2000 (1(105/1"11(;'l000_00002 ;uui 1'[):'000 0000."':"1 I::'000 0000.13,11"VOOn 00003 1 'AGL 29 OF 51! Ii~ic(mihJlYsiic)ivirv;t;l r4iI 1: P,'llu I'i ANIJIN ~ K.1f.11ti';Ic1rJ 1't)I,I I(: 111 JkI:IrN; FINAL ORDER NO 2000-02 PC Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; This criterion is not applicable as the property is in commercial use. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossinggs shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be pphysically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inc9~ vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if aropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; All crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant has provided a conceptual photometric plan. Lighting the for the parking lot is mounted pole luminaire. Located at the western portion of the site to the west of Major 1 are shield pole mounted luminaire, at the streets are City of Tigard Standard Streetlight, and on the buildings are building mounted luminaire. The lighting plan will be reviewed in detail during the detailed plan review process. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually, however, the following conditions shall be met in order to satisfy this condition in the detailed plan review process. CONDITIONS: In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. The applicant shall provide a detailed li hting plan for review during the detailed plan review process in accordance with CDC Section 18.705.030.F. In the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall provide evidence that all crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements Oi Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. Applicant to provide detectable warnings at each entrance to the crossing at all accessible crosswalks. Applicant to record with the County and place on permanent file with the City, a crossover easement for the crosswalk which connects separate parcels. All of the accesses on the site are considered to be joint accesses. Prior to issuM)co of building permits the applicant shall provide satisfactory legal evidence in the form of deeds, easenu;nts, leases, or contracts to establish the joint access use; r)nd copies of the (1eeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on pernr.Jnent file with the City. PU1.U0(1-0001)1/Sl-1:20(1(1-000USIPSIS2000 0000 2 rind PD2000 0000:)/St R2000-0000.1JM1S20(10 0000:1 PAGL 30 of 59 1 I:I )11rJ 11' :;I rr )i'I'IfJc ; t :I rJ I I I~ (1rn1I'I AIJfJINC; r.~r.tr; ;ir>rJ I'lllil 1(: 111 AI,IrJr.'[:INAl-ORDER NO.2000-02 PC 7~ Minimum Access requirements for commercial and industrial use: Section 18.705.030.1. Vehicle access egress and circulation for commercial and industrial use shall not be less than as provided in T able 18.705.3. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development. Option 1 The applicant proposes 1,475 parking spaces on the site, therefore, at least one access with a minimum 50-foot width and 40-Toot pavement width is required, or two accesses with a minimum 30-foot width and 24-foot pavement width is required under the City of Tigard CDC. The existing site has five accesses, and exceeds the minimum requirement for this standard. FINDING: This standard is met conceptually. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.725 Requires that a era an state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. This project is not currently in compliance with the Division of State Lands regarding the Wetland Mitigation/Wetland Rehabilitation, and may not be in compliance with U.S. Arm Corps of Engineers according to letters from those agencies as addressed under Chapter 18.755, Sensitive Lands in this report. Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits, the applicant shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this condition, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits the applicant shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.730 No exceptions were requested by the applicant or indicated in the plans at this time. Therefore, this standard is inapplicable. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING: CHAPTER 18.745 Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 Development projects with more than 100 feet of frontage along a street or private driveway plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Section 18.745.040.C provides specific requirements for tree spacing including: Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in ttie requirements stated in Subsection 2 which includes the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree, small, medium or large. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet H from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility policies to maintain visual clearance; a q Section 18.745.040.G, Granting of Adjustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements niay be granted by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.41) a 111 ).'001) 00001/1-11 10000-0000YI'.1ISPOM 0000:1 :fn 1 1'07111111 ()00()7/;-;I 1%7000-0000-1/111`;.)000 (10003 _ 13AGF 31 Of Y 11;1 )I If J I Y `;I 1( 11'1'11 J(; (:I N i If, N 'I( )IJ 1'111.11(: 111 Jd_:JIJ'''1 Il1L ORDER NO. 2000-Q1 I'f; 1' .'un 1!'1 !lJWIfJ ; NMI! Option 1 The property has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The maximum street tree spacing on a Major Arterial Street within the Tigard Triangle is 28 feet. The applicaffs plans show a total of 14, 3 1/2 caliper Little Linden street trees have been provided along SW 72 Based on the requirement to plant these trees at 28 feet on center, the site can accommodate an additional 3 trees along SW 72"d Avenue while continuing to stay outside of the vision clearance areas. The landscape plan shall be revised along the SW 72nd Avenue frontage to provide an additional three (3) Little Leaf Linden trees. The site has approximately 1,096 feet of frontage exclusive of driveway entrance areas on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed to Provide a total of 34, 3 and 1/2 inch Little Linden Street trees along this frontage at 28 feet on center. After consideration of the vision clearance areas, it appears that one (1) additional street tree can be added along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 35 Little Lgpf Linden trees. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards require street trees along Dartmouth and 72" Avenue to be broad spreading. Staff could not confirm that the species proposed met this criteria. As part of the detailed plan, the applicant shall submit evidence from a landscape architect, or standard accepted landscape resource manual that the species proposed is in fact broad spreading in nature or propose a variety of tree that meets the standard. Option 2 The property has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The maximum street tree spacing on a Major Arterial Street within the Tigard Triangle is 28 feet. The applicant's plans show a total of 20, 3 1/2 caliper Chancellor Linden street trees have been provided along SW 72 Based on the requirement to plant these trees at 28 feet on center, the proposed trees along SW 72nd meet the requirement. The site has approximately 1,096 feet of frontage exclusive of driveway entrance areas on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 34, 3 and 1/2 inch Chancellor Linden Street trees along this frontage at 28 feet on center. After consideration of the vision clearance areas, it appears that one (1) additional street tree can be added along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 35 Little leaf Linden trees. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards require street trees along Dartmouth and 72" Avenue to be broad spreading. Staff could not confirm that the species roposed met this criteria. As part of the detailed plan, the applicant shall submit evidence from a Pandscape architect or standard accepted landscape resource manual that the species proposed is in fact broad spreading in nature or propose a variety of tree that meets the standard. CONDITION: The detailed Van shall show the location of a minimum of 17 broad spreading street trees along SW 72 and 35 broad spreading street trees along SW Dartmouth. Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050.A.2 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). APPLICABLE SECTION OF BUFFER MATRIX TABLE 18.745.1 FOR C-G ZONE Commercial Zones EXISTING/ABUTTING USES (CC, CG, CP, CBD) Detached Single Units; Manufactured Units D co Attached Single Units and Multifamily, D 1-5 Units, Duplexes E I Attached Single Units and Multifamily, D 5+ Units Mobile Home Parks D Commercial Zones (CC, CG, CP, CBD) UI Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN) A PT; Mixed Use Employment Zone (MUE) A Light Industrial Zones (IP, IL) A Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) D Parking Lots Arterial Streets Nut:le~ lat~llt; bpi .ilh•ni.Ii:nn!un,ilum , tin irn•ginl tln••, •.rn .•nrot n•Juu•nn•nl•. I1I)7000-00001/SI I0(I(I) IIIIJfI.' Rv11:i7OU() 00110: '111d PU2000-000021SI 1000f) 1)000•1/rJll' 1(1(111 O(IIIO:i PAGI 3? Of- 59 I I:I-C;(A IN I Y SFV)I'1'IN(" (A N I I I•. 1')!;'0()() 1 '1 ArJiJIfJ1 , ir.-,m!' ,io )rj 1'111 t1 U' I If A[-!IIJt'./F INAI ORDER NO 2000-02 PC TABLE 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 1] Options Width (feet) Trees Shrubs or Groundcover Screening (per linear feet of buffer) - - - A 10 Lawn/living grourdcover 10 20' min/30' max spacing Lawn/living groundcover B 10 Shrubs 4' hedges c 2 8 15' min/30' max spacing Shrubs 5' fence - - 3- ------s- - Shrubs wall 1 20 Shrubs _ 6' hedge - - D 2 15 10' min/20' max spacing____ _ Shrubs 6' fence 3 10 Shrubs -_6' wall 1 30 10' min/20' max spacing Shrubs --6' hedge - or - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E 2 Shrubs_ 5' earthen berm F 40 10' min/20' max spacing Shrubs 6' hedge, fence, (1] Buffers are not required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street as specified in Section 18.745.050 A2. [2] Adjustments from these requirements can be obtained; see Section 18.370.020 C4. Buffering and Screening Requirements: Section 18.745.050.13 A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. This criterion is not found to be applicable to this site to the north and west because there are no existing residential uses. To the east the property is adjoined by residential uses but because SW 72nd Avenue intervenes, screening but not buffering would normally apply. However, because the Tigard Triangle Design Standards require that new building placement be within 10 feet of the public right-of-way this standard is found to be superceded by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in this case. Along the southern property line, the property is adjoined by residential uses across SW Hermoso Way and at the southeast and southwest corner of the property. Screening, not buffering is required to the south where the site is adjacent to SW Hermoso Way and screening and bufferingg is required at the southeastern and southwestern corners where the site adjoins detached single-family residential uses. The proposed buffer at the south side of the parking lot at the southeast corner of the site does not provide adequate buffering, in accordance with the standards. The applicant's narrative states that the proposed sound wall will adequately screen the project site from the adjacent residential uses, however staff could not determine from the landscape plan where the sound wall would be or how high it would be. In any event, buffering and screening are required, not just screening. The applicant must revise the plan to provide buffering and screening at the southeast corner of the site in accordance with the standards of 18.745. The applicant has provided adequate buffer at the southwestern portion of the property. The site will be reviewed for detailed compliance with the landscaping and screening along the entire southern property line as part of the detailed plan review. CONDITION: The detailed plan shall show the required buffer along the southern property line where the site is adjoining residential uses (southwestern and southeastern corners in accordance with CDC Section 18.745.050.13. The landscape plan shall show detailed landscaping that fully complies with the applicable screening and buffering standards. The applicant shall revise the buffer at the south side of the parkin lot, south of driveway D to provide buffering to meet the standards of Section 18.745.050.13. Screening: Section 18.745.050.B.5 Where screening is required, the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: 1) A hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs that will form a four (4) foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two (2) years of planting, or; 2) An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials that will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two (2) years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn, ground cover, or bark mulcts, or; 3) A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2, shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. I'D2000-000011SI 82000 001)W13,11tV000 0000'(;111d 1)1)'; 000-00002/SL12l000-O()()U•11r111S2000-OOOOa PAGI 33 OF 59 I RI-collrJ l Y sl J( )i vir1(~ i :I rJ I 1 It 1:.17000 I'I ! rJNIIJ(; V.1'.11r',t;I i J I'I II tl P : 111 Aldltl(';:'FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Screening is required along the southern property line. The applicant has stated that the proposed sound wall will effectively screen. the property. The plans do not clearly show that the sound wall will screen the entire southern property line. The plans will be reviewed for full compliance as part of the detailed plan review. The applicant has been conditioned to provide adequate buffer as discussed previously which will provide room for the required screening planting, wall or berm. FINDING: The Buffering and Screening standards are not met. However, the standards will be met if the following condition is met. CONDITION:The detailed plan shall include a landscape plan with specifications that provide sufficient detail to determine that the buffer to the southeast and southwest, meets the minimum requirements for Buffer Standard D. The detailed plan shall also show the location and final height of the proposed sound wall and additional screening mechanisms necessary to meet the screening requirements. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E Requires the screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three-feet-wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Option 1 Based on the proposed design of the site the majority of the parking lot and service areas will be screened by the buildings themselves. Portions of the parking lot along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage will not be screened by buildings, however, the proposed wetlands mitigation area along this frontage would provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth Street. The southeastern parking lot is adjacent to the SW 72" d Avenue. The landscape plan shows landscaping will be provided to screen the parking. The detailed plan review will insure that the landscaping proposed fully complies with the landscaping and screening requirement, however, the plan provided confirms that it conceptually can be met. The southern portion of the site will be screened as required by the buffering and screening requirements discussed previously in this report. A minimum of 211 parking lot trees will be required to serve the proposed 1,475 parking spaces. Option 1 has 309 parkin lot trees proposed. Because 1,475 parking spaces are proposed this provides an average of one (1 parking lot tree for every 4.7 parking s aces. The site will be reviewed to ensure the trees are evenly is persed at one (1) for every seven (7~ spaces as part of the detailed plan review. Landscape islands through out the development have a width dimension of at least five (5) feet in compliance with the three (3)-foot minimum width standard. Option 2 Based on the proposed design of the site the majority of the parking lot and service areas will be screened by the buildings themselves. Portions of the parking lot along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage will not be screened by buildings, however, the proposed wetlands mitigation area along this frontage would provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth Street. t, The southern portion of the site will be screened as required by the buffering and screening requirements discussed previously in this report. A minimum of 222 parking lot trees will be required to serve the proposed 1,551 parking spaces. Option 2 has 278 parkinc lot trees proposed. Because 1,551 parking spaces are proposed this provides an a average of one (1 parking lot tree for every 5.5 parking !spaces. The site will be reviewed to insure the trees are evenly Lpersed at one (1) for every seven (7) spaces as part of the detailed plan review. Landscape islands throucfh Out the development have a width dimension of at least five (5) feet in compliance with the three (3)-foot minimum width standard. 111)2000-00!H)1IQ0001)I)!)U'i/(;11';7f)!)t) 00r)():1,110I'I):,ono IYr) )7/`.I ic,o o OU0)U•1!mr;:)()o0 ) or)i)O:i - ['A(',[ 3•1 01 .`,1) II:I-C~)IINIJItW1'If14 (A N11 P 1',.'%1n)u I'I %41rJ!N( I:' )r,imr,:.1, )IJ I'i II;I I, . I fl !•I•'IN A-ANAL ORDER NO 2000-02 PC MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STORAGE: CHAPTER 18.755 This Chapter requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on- site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. Section 18.755.040 requires that the applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standards, Waste assessment, Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which endicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. Minimum standards method, Section 18.755.04 .C5.b (2) states t at non-residential buildings shall provide shall provide a minimum storage area of 1 square feet plus 10 square feet /1000 square feet of GFA. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. The applicant's narrative states that the developer has selected the waste assessment method, and will hold a pre-conference with the waste assessment provider and the City of Tigard in compliance with Section18.755.04O. The applicant's plans show that a 10-foot by 20-foot screened trash enclosure will be provided for each of the proposed "Pads". The applicant has not shown trash enclosures for Major I. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan showing placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. FINDING: This criteria has been met for purposes of conceptual pian review only. In order to meet the criteria in the detailed plan review, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall address all the criteria contained in Section 18.755.040.D, Waste Assessment Method and all other applicable criteria in Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall revise the plans and show trash enclosures for Major I, and placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: CHAPTER 18.765 This Chapter is applicable for development projects when there is new construction, expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. General Provisions: Section 18.765.040 Access Drives: Section 18.765.040.8. Requires access to public streets from off-street parking as follows: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; a Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, i fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; i Access drives shall Dave a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; These criteria are addressed under Chapter 18.705 in this report. a Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and The proposed access drive is proposed to I)e improved with asphalt surface. - - - 111)2000-OOOO1/SLR2000-0000.))/MIS7000-00002 an(I f )1)2000-00007/S1.lVOOO-0OO04/MIS200O-00003 PAGE :15 01- 59 lRI-CO(JNIYS1ioi)nw',C.1 NII -N ./I`n(:)0O() I'I ANNINC; (;c 11;11;11` til(>PJ I'(llil 1(: 111 AN'IIJ(,/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Excludingg single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. All parking spaces are served by a service drive, therefore, this standard is met. Pedestrian Access: Section 18.705.040.F Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehi e r driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. This standard is addressed primarily under Section 18.705.0305 in this report. However, the following condition shall be met: CONDITION: Where drop-off grade separations greater than 30" vertical or exceeding 2:1 occur, the applicant shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Parking Space Surfacing: Section 18.765.040.1-1 Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765 40 H3 and 4, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; The applicant's narrative indicates that the parking lot will be surfaced with an engineered asphalt and aggregate base. Parking Lot Striping: Section 18.765.040.1 Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off- street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. This is a commercial development, therefore, this standard is applicable and shall be met through striping of )arking spaces, directional signs, and painted signs in the access and drive aisles to show direction of flow as conditioned. Option 1 The site plan submitted shows parking lot striping will be provided. Because all aisles are two-way, directional markings are not necessary. Option 2 The site plan submitted shows parking lot striping and directional markings. In addition, the narrative indicates that parking spaces and drive aisles will be marked. Wheel Stops: Section 18.765.040.J Requires that parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant's narrz)live indicates that wheel slops will be provided where parking is adjacent to landsn{)inq ;md sidemilks, however, this is riot shown on the site plan. This will be conditioned as part of tl)e dotr)ilud phn review. I'I)?OOO-O(1U01/SI I :'UIIO (II IOO`,vr;l1!i: 111111 Onl) l m,l I'I)71ll)II (1()0O:1/:il (t: 000 0O11(11/r.11 i~11OI) OU()O:i PACA 313 Or !i'I rt:I cl,OrJrl :,1(1,1'1'1(1 :1 rill ill 1!,!; II(I(1 Ill l,r:Nlrjl; 1 . )i.!r.11''' 11 1(.1 I'111;1 11' 111 Al-T11 I INAI_ ORr)L:f2 NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show wheel stops where the parking is adjacent to landscaping or walkways. Lighting: Section 18.765.040.L Lights provided to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that shows lighting will be generally directed away from residential uses. This will be reviewed further and conditioned as necessary as part of the detailed plan review. Signs: Section 18.765.040.M Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. No signs have been specifically proposed, however, the a plicant's narrative indicates that all proposed signs will be in accordance with Chapter 18.780. This wilPbe reviewed as part of the detailed plan and permitted through a separate sign permit process. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; 7.5' x 16.5 for a compact spaces; and As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. Aisles accommodating two-way direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. From Figure 18.765.1 Stall width dimensions may be distrilwle(I as follows: 50%, standard spaces, 50'% compact spaces. All compact spaces shall be labeled as such. A A Parking Angle It Stall Width 6 C Stall Depth (no bumper overhang) /-/i T 1) Aisle Width Behs•een Stall Lines (5) F D E Stall Width Parallel to Aisle 1 F Module Width (no bumper overl►ang) i N, T G Bumper Overhang a C i i G i i The applicant's narrative indicates that the standard parking spaces will be 8.5 x 18.5 and all angled parking will be in accordance with Section 18.765.1. The site plan shows no labeled compact a spaces, however, some of the dimensions provided (9 x 15.5) Indicate that there will be some compact parking. In addition, upon scaling the plans, the spaces appear to be 9 feet wide. The drive aisles for the 90 degree parking is no less than 24 feet. The applicant has not provided enough detail a for staff to confirm that the angled parking, adjacent to Pad D meets the requirements of Section 18.765.1. Because the site may have up to 50% compact spaces and the applicant has provided spaces that are slightly larger than required, staff is comfortable that, upon detailed review, the parking can fully meet the dimensional standards. Parking will be reviewed and conditioned if necessary upon detailed review. 131)2000-00001/SI-R2000-0000`)/MIS2000-00002 and 111)2000-00002lsl-82000-0000.11MIS2000-0000:i - PAGE w OF 59 i I:I-Cc >l1N 1 Y Sf iOI'I'IIJ~~ (;E tJ 1 E I: :,/1.`i/"2000 f'I l~NNIN1 t:1G11:;ti1c )iJ I'I1L'! I : 1 it All it-J(;/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC CONDITION: The detailed plan shall show the location of all compact and standard spaces, as well as, the dimensions of each type of space (angled, standard, compact, ADA accessible) and the dimension of all interior drives and access aisles. Bicycle Parking Design Standards: Section 18.765.050 A minimum of two bicycle parking rack spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of the primary entrances to structures; Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. The development code requires .3 bicycle parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The applicant must meet the bicycle requirement for each building. Because this is a conceptual review only, the exact size and layout of each building may change from what is conceptually approved: Because of this, compliance with the bicycle parking standards shall be deferred to detailed plan review. The applicant's plan shows the location and number of bicycle parking spaces throughout the development which indicates that, upon detailed plan review, the bicycle parking standards can be met. CONDITION: The detailed plan review shall show the location and number of bicycle racks proposed. The detailed plan shall also show the type of bicycle rack proposed and the design of *the bicycle parking pad. The applicant shall provide an analysis for each building that shows the required bicycle parking spaces based on the square footage of the building. Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.0701 Option 1 The applicant has proposed to provide 1,475 parking spaces. The code requires 3.7 parking spaces per 1000 square feet minimum and 5.1 per 1000 square feet maximum. Based on a building square footage of 297,179, the minimum parking for Option 1 is 1,099 and the maximum is 1,515. The applicant's proposal of 1,475 parking spaces meets this standard. The applicant has not specifically indicated that they will provide compact parking spaces, however, they are permitted up to 737. Option 2 The applicant has proposed to provide 1,498 parking spaces. The Code requires 3.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet minimum and 5.1 per 1,000 square feet maximum. Based on a building square footage of 330,312, the minimum parking for Option 2 Is 1,222 and the maximum is 1,684. The applicant's proposal of 1,498 parking spaces meets this standard. The applicant has not specifically indicated that they will provide compact parking spaces, however, they are permitted up to 749. Off-Street Loading Requirements: Section 18.765.080 Requires that commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space. A minimum of one (1) loading space is required for buildings witf, 10,000 gross square feet but less than 40,000 gross square feet. A minimum of two loading spaces is required for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning. and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum the, the maneuvering length shall not be less that twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; screening for off- street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. a Option 1 This standard has been addressed on part of this site because Major I Anchor Tenant is provided with a grade separated loading dock. The applicant has stated that pads A-E are anticipated to load through a the front doors with parking restricted during business hours so that delivery of goods does not interfere with general parking. This plan is not acceptable. The plan must be revised to provide for separate loadin spaces for all pads over 10,000 square feel (Pad B, C, D, anti E). In addition, because Pad B Is over 4 ,000 square feet, 2 loading spaces are required. This standard is not npplicable where no tenant ocup c ies a- minimum of 10,000 . qua - squ are feet. - - - - - - r'D)000 0001)1!SI 1:21)00 (1OUO`.i/N11S21)00-00002 and 11!)2000-00002/SI ft:)0 )O-0000•1/rv11S2000-000O:i I'AC1E 38 OF .`i0 I I:I COI)rJl1' ` i io ~I'I'Iric, (.I riI I I: 1',!2(1(1(1 I'I ! rJ'JIfJ ( ).1r.11' >I( )N IIt llIf It: I If AI:IN(,!FINAI. ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Option 2 This standard has been addressed on part of this site because each of the Major Anchor Tenants is rovided with a grade separated loading dock. The applicant has stated that pads A-D are anticipated to Poad through the front doors with parking restricted during business hours so that delivery of goods does not interfere with general parking. The site plan shows 2 loading spaces will be provided for Pad B and one loading space will be provided for Pad D. These spaces are basically standard automobile parking spaces. Due to the size of a parking space and the size of delivery trucks that may service this site the designated loading spaces do not appear adequate. The plan does not provide a loading space for Pads A and D. The plan must be revised to provide for separate loading spaces for all pads over 10,000 square feet (Pad A, B, and D). This standard is not applicable where no tenant occupies a minimum of 1 C,000 square feet. CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show the location and dimensions of loading spaces adjacent to all buildings over 10,000 square feet. In compliance with Section 18.765.030.E parking lots that provide in excess of 20 preferential long term parking spaces shall provide at least 5% of these spaces as carpool/van pool parking spaces. Each of the proposed vanpool/carpool spaces are full size parking, spaces. Each space shall have signsge designated per Section 18.765.040N and shall be cleary designated for use only by vanpool/carpool users between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. Option 1 The applicant has not proposed long term parking spaces. The applicant shall designate 73 spaces as vanpool/carpool spaces. In terms of convenience, the applicant shall locate the 73 vanpool/carpool spaces as conveniently as possible to the main building entrance, after provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. Option 2 The applicant has not proposed long term parking spaces. The applicant shall designate 74 spaces as vanpool/carpool spaces. In terms of convenience, the applicant shall locate the 74 vanpool/carpool spaces as conveniently as possible to the main building entrance, after provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the conceptual plan does not meet all of the off-street parking and loading standards. Staff finds that it is possible for the applicant to meet all of the standards. Compliance with the standards will be fully reviewed as part of the detailed plan review CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show the location of the required number of van pool/carpool spaces based on the final number of parking spaces proposed. SENSITIVE LANDS: CHAPTER 18.775 Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: the 100-year floodplain, natural drainsgeways, wetland areas which are regulated by other agencies including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, and steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground. A land use application is required for ground disturbances in sensitive lands areas. The site is designated as within the 100 -year Floodplain on the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map Floodplain Map. However, the 1998 land use decision regarding this site under CPA 98-0002 included a Sensitive Lands Review, SLR 98-0002 which considered the site to be outside of the 100-year a floodplain. As the 1998 land use decision was approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council, this af)plication is considered to have incorporated the prior decision regarding the Comprehensive lzin Amendment and the dote rmination that the site is considered to be outside of the 100-year flood{{)lain, provided that the F11> )licmit obtain verific.itlon of this throtigh the US Army Corps of Lngineers, aw obtrlnl wiSSLIMIGe of tllcrely Corps perrnits prior to issu~lnce of a new (bailing hermit. 1'1)7000-00001/tit W0004)(YOYr IS:1000-0()I1l17:tn 1 111)7000-0110(17/SI (:701)0-0(111(-1/ra11S7000 0000:1 {'/1(if a') OF 59 I i•:1 ct )1 Jr4I 1' '>I i( )i''IIJ, / rJ I I I: I`.,.''; 000I'I At JrJ1rJt; ,t.1'.!I'.: I( )rJ I'I11'„ i,' III i,latJt 'r INAL ORUi.a2 NO 2000-0211C The eastern portion of the site has slopes of 10% approximately. The existing grading plan shows one small area in the northwest quadrant of the site (a hole of approximately 80 feet x 80 feet) which has a slope of approximately 25 °/a, and one small area at the southern end of the site just north of the bend at SW Hermoso Way which is approximately 28% sloped. The applicant has proposed to exchange fill on the steeper portion of the site to the flatter areas. The 1998 land use decision did not place any additional special conditions due to these sloped areas, however, the 1998 plans indicated a water quality pond and landscaping area just north of the bend at SW Hermoso Way rather than the parking area proposed in the current Option 2 plans. The parking area at this location in Option 1 appears to be outside of the area which exceeds 25% slopes, but this should be verified. FINDING: These standards are not fully met. In order to meet the standards, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall meet the following conditions for both Options 1 and 2: The applicant shall obtain verification that there is no floodplain on the development site through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and shall obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits as stated in the 1998 decision. The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project)) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%. CONDITION FOR OPTION 2 ONLY: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landforms alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive lands permits for areas with the 100 year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. As a result of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 98-0002, effective July 23, 1998, the wetlands designation was removed from the subject development site to allow the proposed fill and mitigation of 1.41. acres of wetlands of the total 1.96 wetlands that exist on this site. A remaining .55 acres of wetlands was not to be filled in the prior decision. This wetlands system is part of a larger system that 0 exists within drainage areas leading to the 217 Freeway. A mitigation plan was required to re-establish the wetlands along the site's Dartmouth Street frontage and to function as a wetland with approximately the same area as the wetlands to be filled. The current wetlands and wetland mitigation is under the urisdiction of the Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DSL has submitted a ~elter dated March 15, 2000 stating that the mitigation is not in compliance with conditions of Permit RF- 9256 (expiration date 6/14/98). Staff from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also raised issues of non-13 13 compliance with conditions of Nationwide Permit No. 98-666 (expiration date 3/28/99). Staff found a a discre{))ancy between the amount of fill approved under the City of Tigard a~~Proved decision (SLR 98-0002), and the amount of fill allowed under the DSL permit (loss of 1.55 wetland acres, and preservation of Al acres of wetlands for a total of 2.0 Original wetland acres and the U.S. Army Cor{is permit (loss of 1.16 acres wetland acres, and preservation of .57 acres of wetlands for a total 1.73 originril wetlmid zirrc;s). 1'07000 00001 r;?Urlu 0()()0Y%11! :'(1(111 0000:1. nd I'iY,000 01 011;>';;I R:)000 00004/A11ti7 )00-(10( )03 1W A, .10 01 s'( 1 I:I C( )l IrJ 1 ti' ',I r. ,1'I'Ir:~ . (:I tl I I I; 1';7iUU) I'I /,r:~:'r:' . d.ir,ll''.''J~,r: I'lllil I~ III !J•:IIJ~ rINl11. ORnE1~ NO 2000-02 PC FINDING: The criteria for Sensitive Lands Review in the current Community Development Code Zective 11/26/98) are inapp licable as the prior decision CPA 98-0002/SLR 98-0002 .cluding the SDR/PDR/MIS) will be adopted and incorporated into this report. However, in addition to the conditions related to the Sensitive Lands Review in the 1998 decision, the following conditions shall be met to ensure compliance with that decision: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall bring the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation into compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Division of State Lands and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers permits, and the applicant shall ensure that these permits are current or renewed. Due to the differences in the various permits regarding the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved, the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved will be .57 acres in conjunction with the U. S Army Corps Permit, which provides the greatest amount of wetland acreage to be preserved from the various permits. The applicant shall revise the plans to show location of biofltration separated from wetland area as required under the DSL and US Army Corps permits. + The site plan shall provide 15-foot setback buffers in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards (standards in place at the time of the 1998 land use application) to off-site wetlands areas to the west of this site. Construction fencing (4 foot high orange fencing) shall be installed and maintained during construction at the USA 15-foot setback buffer to off-site wetland areas to the west of the site. SIGNS: CHAPTER 18.780 This Chapter lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G Zoning District. The applicant provided potential locations for entrance monument signs on SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue but did not provide any other details or a sign program. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a sign program that complies with the standards for a shopping center in the General Commercial Zoning District with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. TREE REMOVAL: CHAPTER 18.790 A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. This criteria is addressed under the standards for Additional Planned Development Review standards, Section 18.350.100.3.a contained in Section 18.360.090.A.2 of this report. x VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS: CHAPTER 18.795 The Chapter requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private > driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight 8 feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight ~8~ feet are removed). For arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. For non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width, a visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points which are 30 feet distance from the intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along such lines. See Figure 18.797.1 111)':(10000001/sll.:'(IU(1-(1(1(1(I'.i/r:11:;2(i(hl())(10:1mid '1)2110000002/S11i20UI1-II00U•1/11152(1O(1(!ill)))a PAGI •11 UI 5'1 I t•;I-c;r ri 11J 11' SI 1) )1'1'111 ; 1111 I: ','1' "H01) I'I Awjit1 , )r.lr.w !;I( )N PI It 1,1 I, I II AkIt1(; FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC All of the access drives off of SW Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue shall have a visual clearance area of 35 feet on each side of the access drive intersection. The access drive off of Hermosa Way shall have a visual clearance area of 30 feet on each side of the access drive. Upon review of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, the Clear Vision standards is superceded by the Tigard Triangle Design standards such as building placement. The applicant has not indicated placement ofgbuildings, structures or trees in the area of visual clearance. Entrance monument signs shall not be located in the area of visual clearance. FINDING: This standard is met for purposes of conceptual plan review only. In order to the meet this criteria in the detailed plan review, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18.795 Visual clearance in the detailed plan review process, and shall revise the plans to indicate the visual clearance triangles on the plans. F. ADDITIONAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA FROM SECTION 18.350.100.3: a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: (1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; The applicant has demonstrated in the prior 1998 land use application for this site (CPA 98-0002/PDR 98-0001/SDR 98-0002/MIS 98-0004) that, based on the intensity and type of proposed land use, that maintenance of the existing topography, wetlands system and vegetation is impossible while developing a single shopping center. Natural drainage has been partially preserved through the site and upstream and downstream of the site but within the property, the applicant has demonstrated that drainage will need to be altered to accommodate the proposed improvements and to treat storm water runoff within proposed on-site facilities. (2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; A new geo-technical report is required as a condition of this report, as Staff has concerns about questionable fill placed on the site. The eo-technical engineer shall certify the grading work that has been done to date. In no case shall junk ~II be placed or used on this site. This s-tandard has not been met. (3) There shall be adeggate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off- site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; There is adequate distance between on-site buildings. There are no buildings located immediately to the west of the site which is designated wetlands on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The site fronts Major Arterials to the north and east, and a local street to the south with residential property zoned MUE to the south. There are residential properties located to the immediate southwest of the site, and this distance was previously approved through the 1998 land use decision for this site. i The development has been preliminarily reviewed for compliance with Fire and Life Safety Standards. a Fire flow calculations fire hydrant locations and related standards will be reviewed again during the Building Permit Plan Check Review. See comments contained in this report by the Building Division and { the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. a Solar accessibility standards are riot specifically applicable to commercial development elsewhere in the Development Code. Due to grading tree removal and the configuration of the pads on this site the a proposed commercial structures would have solar access. No building has been designed to shade 7 another building. This standard has been met. a (4) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and 1'0"1000 00001/Si 1:1000 OU(11).`i I+llt .;'I 11111 001111:1 .111l ('1):'1111(! 000I1:';';1 11:11)1)0 01)()(1.111`:11S':)000 01)0(11 •17 01-59 II;1 (:1 IIlIJII':;IJ ''1'11`1 1:1 1J11 I: 1' ;.'1111`) I'I i+11'1'11 u.1L11','.I )II I.1II1.I 11: 111 41.1!;1 FINAL C)I:nFr: NO 2000.02 PC Buildings are oriented around the perimeter of the site with the majority of the primary entrances to the interior of the site. Southwest winds may pose a problem on majority 1 in particular as a large expanse of the southern portion of the site is open. On the other hand, south sun exposure is maximized by this same building arrangement. In Option 2, Majors II-IV provide a shield from southerly winds. The location of Major 1,1he largest building on the site on the western portion of the site in both Options 1 and 2 provides partial protection from southwester)y and northwesterly winds. (5) Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The applicant has proposed to remove existing trees on the site in order to accommodate the massive grading and fill work necessary to develop a shopping ~center on this site given its topography. Almost all of the frees on the site, except for the trees on the SW Hermoso lots (MLJE parcels) have been removed under the 1998 land use decision (CPA 98-0002/ PDR 98-0001/ SDR98-0002/mis 8-0004). In addition a Type I Tree Removal Permit for the trees in the Sensitive Lands area numbered 88-96 (six-inch trees) in the arborist's tree identification plan were approved for removal on 9/27/99, and have subsequently been removed. A total of 53 trees with 992 caliper inches were identified in the 1998 decision as healthy non-exempt trees over 12 inches in diameter. Some 267 trees existed on the site, not including exempt Christmas trees, but many of the trees were also exempted under the Washington County Tax Assessor's "small woodlands" exemption. A total of 1.62 acres of the site was exempt from tree mitigation for this reason in 1998. Because all of the healthy. trees over 12 inches in diameter were proposed to be removed, the 1998 decision required that 100% of the caliper inches lost were required to be mitigated. Mitigation proposed in the 1998 decision included the upsizing of landscape trees on the site to 3 and '/2 inch from the minimum 2" required tree for 926 of the caliper inches. The remaining 66 caliper inches of mitigation were proposed to be planted off-site or a tree mitigation fee paid for the value of purchase and planting of trees. The applicant also proposed to plant some 1,500 caliper inches of existing Christmas trees of an off-site location, as a tree mitigation credit for a future development project. Also, the applicant and City agreed that they may locate the existing Christmas trees on the property at oft-site City open space sites. As no evidence has been provided to Staff that the trees to be mitigated in the 1998 land use decision (that have already been removed) have been planted or a mitigation fee paid, a mitigation deposit or bond will be required as part of this report for the full extent of the value of purchase and planting of the 992 caliper inches of trees, and the value of the transplanting or purchase and planting ofthe 1,500 inches of Christmas trees. In addition the applicant now requests tree removal of all the trees on the MUE lots adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. The applicant states that there are 1 666 inches of trees in good and fair condition on this new portion of the site required to be mitigated ('trees over 12 inches UBH . A tree removal and replacement plan by David Hunter, Consulting Arborist (ISA Certified Arborist #PN-1068) dated October 28, 1999 has been provided by the applicant as part of this land-use application. Further' the applicant requests a fee-in-lieu of planting for the required tree mitt ation; and that the fee be paid directly to the Oregon Trout Organization, a group that the applicant sta-tes has proposed the creation of riparian and wetland enhancement areas within the Tualatin watershed, working from a fund of deposited mitigation monies which were required of certain development projects within the City of Tigard's jurisdiction. FINDING: This standard has not been met. In order to meet the standard the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a mitigation deposit or bond with the City for the following trees 1) 992 caliper inches trees already removed 2) 1,666 caliper inches for trees proposed to be removed on the SVV Hermoso Way lots, 3) 1,500 caliper inches for the Christmas trees. It is estimated that the combined total of 1) and 2) above will cost $199,350 figured at 1,825 2-inch trees (or 2,658 caliper inches) x 5150 per tree, in addition to the cost of the Christmas tree mitigation. The applicant shall provide a bonified estimate for cost of the mitigation of all the trees including purchase price and value of labor to plant the trees for purposes of Staff making a final determination of the amount of the required mitigation deposit or bond. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a new geo-technical report is required as a condition of this report, as Staff has concerns about questionable fill placed on the site. The geo-technical engineer shall certify the grading work that has been done to dale. In no case shall junk fill be placed or used on this site. b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: H);)000-0000 1 /sl f22000-000O!)!MI`;:-,00 )-00002:111(1 111V000 00002151 1,!2()OO-0000-1/r'.1I51000-OO( 103 PA G& 4"i (A Y) 11•11 CO(JN I Y s! I( )I'PIrJ(" Cl 14 11 P 1',':'000 I'I ANNIN(1 rt,'.Ltl:;t;l )fJ I'I JIiI h : 11! Al-If J' ) -INAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC (1) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses e.g., between single- family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses; (2) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1) the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and exteni of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier, b The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; c The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; d The required density of the buffering; and lel Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. (3) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be .provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: What needs to be screened- b The direction from which it is needed; and ~c3 Whether the screening needs to be year- round. Buffering and screening standards are addressed in part under Chapter 18.745 in this report. The site only adioins resldenlial uses to the south. The proposed grading plan shows that the west and east ends of the Major I Anchor Tenant Building would be roughly at grade with the existing residences. The finished pad elevations of Major Anchors li-IV Option 2 would be roughly 30 to 45 feet below the grade of the adjoining residences, and for Pad E ((Option 1;. The finished elevation of the rooftop of the buildings would-be about 20-25 feet below the elevation at eve level from the residences. The applicant proposes a 6-foot-high sound barrier wall (along the SW 'Hermoso Way) to screen the view of the residence at the southwest corner of the site from the center. The applicant agreed not to place rooftop equipment within the first 20 to 40 feet of the southern edge of these buildings in the 1998 land use decision. Because the roof top equipment would be seen by adjoininq residences above, the applicant shall revise the plan to provide a building parapet height sutficien-t to screen the view of rooftop mechanical equipment from residences to the south. Service areas such as loading areas of Major I (Option 1 and 2) and Majors II-IV in (Option 2) would be screened from view of the residences based on the proposed finished grades. A partial retaining wall is shown on the site plan to the south of Major I to provide for the truck servicing area. The applicant shall screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. This may be accomplished through a matching split face concrete block wall or other method as approved by the Planning Division. Based on the site development constraints and the higher street elevation of SW 72nd Avenue, it does not appear possible to entire) screen rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings as seen from SW 72nd Avenue. For this reason all rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Mayor Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the 14 following conditions: x CONDITIONS: i-4 , v~ As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and. elevations to provide a sufficient screening of the rooftop mechanical equi ~ment from the view of the residences to the south. In addition, the rooftop mec~ianical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans a and elevations and screen the loadin area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of atypical servicing vehicle. C. Privacy and noise: Non-residential structures which abut existin residential dwellings moo" shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, tope maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; I'I)?000 ommist 1:2000 f)O!)1).'n'I:II:i:'ll(IU (l0U(I.':Ilul HV000 00011?1511.70(1(1 00004Ir:91 :1000-(11)1103 PAGI 44 OI YI 1I:1 (:(ri1rJ1ti' `;iI' II'I'IrJ rl NII I: rl' ':'(I(I(I I'I i rJrJIrJ( i' '.1r.11',`,I (iJ !'I1!1,1 1(' 111 ikItIN( "IFINAL ORDER NO. 2000.02130 A noise study was provided with the 1998 land use application for this site that indicated that site improvements can comply with both Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) noise standards and Municipal Code standards. However, the Noise Study assumes that the allowable noise levels pursuant to the Municipal Code standards are higher than were intended. The Municipal Code was revised in 1996 pursuant to Ordinance 96-06. The Ordinance is interpreted to have placed additional maximum noise standards. The applicant interpreted the table to mean that higgher maximum noise levels were permitted. The applicant submitted an update to the February 16, 19J8 noise study (submitted for the 1998 land-use decision). The updated noise study is dated March 15, 2000 and was prepared by Daly- Standlee & Associates, Inc. The noise study makes the following conclusion: he results of our analysis show that both the City of Tigard noise ordinance and the re on DEQ noise regulation would be met at all residences located on SW Hermoso Street if the top of The false building wall proposed along the north side of SW Hermoso Street was at least 6 feet above the sidewalk elevation and the retaining wall on the south property line west of the Major I building was constructed with a 6-foot-hi h extension above the top of wa property elevations shown in the drawing. o other mitigation measures would be required to address traffic on the development site." The shopping center grading plan partially addresses this issue because the majority of the site would be below grade of the adjoining residential structures. To comply with applicable noise standards, the consulting engineer recommended sound barriers along a portion of the southern property line. Because of screening and buffering standards, the applicant 1s required to construct a fence wall or berm with landscaping along the entire southern property line where the site adjoins single-family residences. The site plan should also be revised to restrict the location of roof top mechanical equipgent away from the southern portion of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. Additional screening and buffering measures are discussed elsewhere within this report. Because of the type of uses that are proposed and their orientation, maintenance of privacy within the rear yard of the adjoining homes is expected to be addressed through the construction of a continuous sound attenuation wall wrong the southern property line. FINDING: This criteria is not met. In order to meet the criteria, the applicant shall comply with the following condition: CONDITION: Upon submission of the detailed plans for the plan review process, the applicant shall revise plans and provide a minimum 6-foot wall above the sidewalk along the north side of SW Hermoso Street, and a retaining wall to the south and west of the Major I building with a minimum 6-foot-hi h extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawing' and/or provide a method for completely screenin the view of the residences to the south of the property from viewing the shopping center o the north. The applicant shall provide a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. d. Private outdoor area multi-family use: This criterion is inapplicable as no multi-family use is proposed on this site. e. Shared outdoor recreation areas multi-family use: This criterion is inapplicable as no multi-family use is proposed on this site. f. Access and circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; (1) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705. (2) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and (3) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The applicant is proposing five (5) access points which comply with the standards of Chapter 18.705. This plan has been reviewed by lire District staff and was generally found to comply with Uniform Fire Code standards. In the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall submit anyy necessary minor internal modifications. l-he City's adopted Park and Greenway Plan does not indicafe the existence of Bicycle or Pedestrian Accessway thr0u(1h the site. 111)2001) ()Ooo 1/sLR20or) 0000`,/A11s2000 00007;110 PIVO01) 00002/.`,)1 82000 0000.1/rJ1, *,:'()()0 11000, PAGI 4') UI Y) Il:I (,OI1WIYsii0 i)i)IPJ(rgII i~ I'1 hrJrJird( l : )r 1h41,is1 )f I I'I I! 1,1 it : I II Ai IrJ(,TINAI_ ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The trash and recycling enclosure shall provide a minimum of 24 feet of clear width. The design of the roposed street improvements has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Fire District. ~he Engineering Department reviewed street improvement requirements in detail elsewhere within this report. Conditions of Approval are recommended to ensure compliance with the applicable street improvements standards. Bicyclists would likely either share the five (5) proposed commercial driveway improvements into the site or share pedestrian sidewalk improvements. The City's adopted Park and Trail Master Plan also does not currently designate a bicycle and/or pedestrian trail through this site. FINDING: This criteria is found to be met conceptually. g- Landscaping and open space: (1) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (4 and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 2(Y percent of the site sha-11 be landscaped- (2) Commercial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscapes!'; and (3) Industrial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; Subsections 1 and 3 of this standard are not found to be applicable because the applicant has proposed a commercial development. Subsection 2 is found to be applicable and has been addressed in Section18.520.040.13 in this report. h. Public transit: (1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The regwired facilities shall be based on: a The location of other transit facilities in the area; and ~b; The size and type of the proposed development. (2) The regqwired facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: ~a~ A waiting shelter; b A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and c Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue are not presently transit served facilities. The applicants show a possible location for a future transit stop on the site's northwestern SW Dartmouth Street frontage should transit service be made available in this area. The City received no comments from Tri-met concerning this proposal. FINDING: This criteria is met conceptually. Any revisions to the plans shall be submitted in the detailed plan submission. i. Signs: (1) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.780, Signs: ~I (a) Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and b The signs shall not obscure vehicle drivers sight distance; As discussed in Chapter 18.780, Signs in this report, the applicant will need to develop a sign program for this center and shall be submitted with the detailed plan. a i j. Parking: a (1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; (2) Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. {1[7000-()0001/S1 10000 00005801S:1000-00002 and 11[2000 000021SI 10000 0000.1/MIS7000 00003 11AG 4G OI 59 I ItI (:O(RJ 11, SI I0I1I'IN(; (:I rJ r l j, lr 1:'I)n) 1'1 /,NrJIN( l'i )r,1f.11!;';R )(J 1'( 11 it h : 111 APINI TINAL ORDER NO. 2000.02 PC x Parking standards are addressed under Chapter 18.765 in this report. k. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Drainage standards are addressed under Section 18.810 in this report. 1. Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This standard is addressed in part under Sensitive Lands, Chapter 18.775, in this report. The City has park system development fees in place to fund planned park improvements. Park system impact fees will be assessed for this development prior to the issuance of building permits. Because the 100-year floodplain elevation does not likely exist on this property dedication, of a portion of the property for development of a trail does not appear possible. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually. G. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: STREETS: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E)) contains typical ROW requirements for public streets. However, this site lies within the Tigard Triangle, which is governed by TDC 18.620, the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS)) Section 18.620.080 requires SW 72nd Avenue (major arterial) to have a 92-foot right-of-way (R011V) width and a 66-foot paved width. SW Dartmouth Street (major arterial), west of SW 72"d Avenue, shall have a 94-foot ROW width and an overall paved width of 66 feet. East/West local streets shall have a ROW 1 width of 60 feet and a paved width of 34 feet. Other improvements required may include on- street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. The proposed development is bordered b SW 72nd Avenue on the east side, SW Dartmouth Street on the north side, and SW Hermoso Way ~an east/west local street) on the south side. The proposed access points into this project have not significantly changed from the 1998 version (SDR 98-0002). The development will have two (2) points of access on SW Dartmouth Street, with one 1 full access driveway opposite the existing entrance into the Winco Foods/Office Max site, and a one (1) full access driveway a >{{>roxiniately 600 feet further to the west. There will also be two (2) full access driveways onto SW 2nd Avenue. With this current option, lhery is also a proposedd full access onto SW Hermoso Way at the main horizontal curve west of SW 72"` Avenue. Proposed traffic signals an(] traffir, impact study findings will be discussed later in this report. I'U'l.000-00001/SLR2000-00U0:i/h91ti701)0 011UU2 ;tncl 1'U2000-00002/51-1N,2000-00004/h41s:)000-00003 PAGE 47 Or 5J I I:I-COUtJ1'{ SHOI'1'IfJG rl rm I: Ih/2011(11'1 ArJrJIFJc; c:Ot.1t.11 It NJ 111)Itl 1(: 111 A1,JH1 /FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The following section will be a discussion of the required and proposed transportation improvements for this project. It should be noted that the applicant has already submitted public improvement construction plans for the City Engineer I s approval, based upon the SDR 98-0002 approval. The City Engineer completed the review oT those plans and is currently waiting for the applicant to complete the required permit documents and pay a permit fee so the plans can be stamped and issued. These two new options will slightly change the public Improvement requirements due to the increased area of the site adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the City could allow an amendment to the current public improvement plan to account for the additional improvements. SW 72"d Avenue_I_m_provements he current W wl t~ aging the frontage of this site is approximately 20 feet from centerline. The applicant, as a part of SDR 98-0002, completed a dedication to provide additional ROW to provide 47 feet from centerline which meets the TTDS standard. The applicant also dedicated a ROW radius at the corner of SW 2nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street equal to 45 feet. No additional ROW dedication is required. At present, SW 72nd Avenue is paved but is not ylky improved to the Triangle Standards. The current City Engineer approved plan for the SW 72 l~venue improvements shows that a full-width improvement will be provided from SW Dartmouth Street to SW Elmhurst Street. The applicant showed this level of improvement on the plans for SDRnd98-0002. Additional ROW was dedicated from the property owners on the east side of SW 72 Avenue to accommodate the proposed improvement. The current plans also show that the full-width improvement will be provided. The two (2) full-access driveways into the site from SW 72nd Avenue are in the same location as was shown on the plan for SDR 98-0002 and the City Engineer approved plan. They also appear to be designed to function adequately. The level of service (LOS) at these driveways is expected to be B or better, which is acceptable. The southern driveway is shown to be aligned with the centerline of SW Elmhurst Street, which will alleviate any left turning movement conflicts. SW Dartmouth Street Improvements The applicant previously completed a dedication of additional ROW to provide 47 feet from centerline to meet the TTDS standard. No additional ROW dedications are necessary. SW Dartmouth Street was improved with five lanes along most of the site frontage as a part of a LID, but is not fully improved with sidewalk and street trees as per the TTDS. The portion of the street west of proposed Driveway A was not fully widened to five lanes. The applicant's plan and the City Engineer approved construction plans indicate they will complete the improvements of SW Dartmouth Street along the site frontage as a part of this project to provide the full 66-foot paved width across the fronta e of the site. During the construction plan review, Staff noted that when the applicant completes their frontage improvements there will be a gap between the applicant's sidewalk and the existing sidewalk in front of Costco. The City Engineers approved construction plans require the applicant to provide a temporary asphalt walkway connection between the two segments of sidewalk. The applicant's aRpproved construction plans show this temporary connection, and should be included with the new In order to revent unacceptable spillback in froQt of Driveway B, two eastbound through lanes are needed orl,J~W Dartmouth Street east of SW 72 Avenue, and these lanes will need to be widened east of 72 Avenue to provide two eastbound lanes for a limited distance beyond the intersection. This issue is discussed in more detail under the Impact Study, Chapter 18.390 in this decision. The applicant made a statement in the narrative regarding the potential for these new improvements to be included in a future LID. The City has not received an application for a new LID on SW Dartmouth Street. If such an LID were applied for and then approved b the City Council prior to construction of this project, it is quite possible that the improvements described above would be included. SW Hermoso Way Improvements There is presently a 50-foot ROW on SW Hermoso Way. The applicant's plan indicates that they will dedicate an additional 5 feet of ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline to meet the TTDS. The street was improved when the original Hermoso Park Subdivision was developed. The paved width is currently 28 feet CLJrb-tO-curb, which does riot meet the TTDS. Therefore, the applicant will be required to widen the street and install sidewalk and street trees to meet the TTDS. The existing paved section of the street was originally constructed to handle typical residential traffic. Now that the I riandle is being redeveloped to more commercial uses, the type of traffic will be more intense. The PD2000 00001/sl R20011 0000' MIS2000-0000:1 ,111(1 IID:11100 00002/SI R 2000-00004/mIS2000.00003 PAG1= 48 OF 59 1M-<()1JNIYS1R)I'I1IH(:(A IJII I: 1'.% nnn I'I ArJrJINc,('' r.1r.n ;n NJ 111110 IC III AI:II,J(1!fINAL-012nER NO. 2000-02 PC TTDS local street is to be designed to accommodate commercial traffic. The City's public improvement design standards include a rock and pavement section for local commercial industrial streets that will support commercial traffic. Therefore, the existing roadway section will need to be completely reconstructed with the heavier roadway section, from centerline to the curb. As an alternate, the applicant's engineer could propose another option, such as an overlay, that would yield the same structural strength as the typical City standard section. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. The applicant will be required to install concrete sidewalks adjacent to all three streets that will be improved as a part of this project. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizin.g: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sewer main that is located in SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to this site. The applicant proposes to extend one line into the site to serve Pads A and B. This development will be broken up into multiple parcels, which will require that all sanitary sewer lines that serve multiple parcels within the development be built as public lines. A new public sanitary sewer line was installed recently in SW Hermoso Way, as a part of Reimbursement District #15. All of the existing residential parcels abutting SW Hermoso Way were included in RD #15. This new site plan option includes six existing residential parcels on the north side of SW Hermoso Way: 2S1 01AB, #1300 2S1 01AB, #1401 2S1 01AB, #1403 2S1 01AB, #1404 2S1 01AB, #1400, and 2S1 01AB, #1402. None of these lots have connected to the sewer constructed through RD #15 or have paid the reimbursement fee. In addition, TMC 13.09.110.1.c requires the applicant for a permit related to the property to pay the fee if there is "any alteration, modification or change in the use of real property, which increases the number of parking spaces required". Since this land use approval will involve these six lots, and since the modification will result in an increase in the number of parking spaces required, the applicant shall pay the reimbursement fees of RD #15 for these parcels prior to issuance of the site permit. Option 1-------- - - The applicant's plan shows that a new public sanitary sewer line will be extended into the site from the public line in SW Hermoso Way. This line extension must be a public line and meet public standards. Option 2 1 I he applicant's plan shows lh 1l a n(,'W I)ublic sanitary sewer line will be extended into the site from the public Ilse in SW I lernloso Way to serve Majors ll, III and IV, and Pads D and E. This line extension roust be a public line and meet public standards. 1'1)2000-00001/SLR2000-(1()0()!)/MIS2000-(100(12 an(1 I'D2000-00002/SI R2000-00004/M S:)000-00003 I'AGF 49 OF 59 1 Itil-COUNTY SI i0 H)1rJ(, c;l N I ( I: 1.')/'2000 r'I ArirJIN(; c;r 1r;1r 11';'-;1( )rJ PI JI i1 1(: 111 AKIN( ;!FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The overall layout of the proposed public sewer lines appears to be acceptable, as all manholes will be located within paved parking or drive aisle areas. The final design of the public sewer lines shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to construction. The City's Master Sanitary Sewer Plan indicates that a public sewer line should be extended southerly in SW 72nd Avenue from the main line in SW Dartmouth Street in order to serve parcels along 72nd Avenue and SW Elmhurst Street. The City's policy for new developments is that public sewer lines are to be extended to property boundaries to serve adjacent uphill unsewered properties. Since the applicant will be constructing new street improvements in SW 7Nd Avenue, and since there are unsewered properties uphill of-this site on SW 72nd Avenue, the applicant should extend an 8-inch public sewer line in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. The City Engineer approved construction plans include the extension of this sewer line to the south boundary of this site. This new option will include the same condition. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The proposed site plan will effectively accommodate any upstream runoff that enters the site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing draina a facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed- Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to. the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide on-site detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. pfion 1- - - - - - - The topography of this site falls primarily to the west toward Red Rock Creek. This new option a, indicates that all storm water will be collected and discharged at two points: one discharge point will be into the new wetland mitigation area, which has been graded already, at the northwest corner of E, the site. In addition, the DSl_ and US Army Corps of Engineers permits require a biofiltration area to co be separated from the wetland area and located lust to the south of the wetland area in the northwest y, corner of the site. The other discharge point is located near the southwest corner of the site. Most of E the site drainage will be directed toward the northwest corner. It appears that the runoff from the Phase 11 Building and the parking area adjacent to the west side of that building will be directed to the southwest corner. Staff is concerned that the plan is unclear as to how the water will be conveyed x1 I from the site to the creek. It appears that the flow will be concentrated at both discharge points. Direct discharge onto the adjacent property without proper easements will not be permitted. a I111V000-0000IISI I::'Uttl) U111)l)f 'r.11ti?(till(-01ut07:+iui 1111111111 00()0"l/:;I I:%~1(l(1-0(1(1(1.1/tvtlti?000-00(103 1IAGI= 50 OF 59 1I:I-f:O1)tJIYStIrOPI(u,(:I NI11; Y1YPOH() I'I ! iJi:IfJ r%V.ll',''.I'• )1J I'l111,1 1C 111 AI.I(d~;'I INAI ORDER NO 2000.02 PC ii ption The topography of this site falls primarily to the west toward Red Rock Creek. This new option indicates haft alll storm water will be collected and discharged at two points: one discharge point will be into the new wetland mitigation area, which has been graded already, at the northwest corner of the site. In addition, the DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers permits require a biofltration area to be separated from the wetland area and located just to the south of the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The other discharge point is located near the southwest corner of the site. Most of the site drainage will be directed toward the northwest corner. It appears that the runoff from Majors II, III and IV, and parking areas adjacent to these buildings, will be conveyed to the southwest corner discharge point. Staff is concerned that the plan is unclear as to how the water will be conveyed from the site to the creek. It appears that the flow will be concentrated at both discharge points. Direct discharge onto the adjacent property without proper easements will not be permitted. The applicant will now be required to provide on-site detention of the additional stormwater, as was described above. The 1998 plan di not provide for detention. Therefore, the applicant's storm drainage plan will need to be revised to provide for the on-site detention. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. This is addressed under the Planned Development Section 18.350.100.3f, Access and Circulation. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: o The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-ciroundin costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a si;ort frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. I'1)'l(100-000O1/Sl 12000 OO(IU! ?,11:::000 0000:' ,un11' EEO 00007/SI IQ000 00()O•lit.11';'lllO0 O()( (H PAGL 51 OI 59 1'. ;'nl)O I'I ANNItJ( t.1L11' "d (tJ I'III (I I(' I II Al'ItJ(' i INAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC There are existing overhead utility lines along the east side of SW 72nd Avenue. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 680 lineal feet; therefore, the fee would be $18,700. There are also overhead utility lines adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. The site frontage along this street is approximately 670 lineal feet. If the applicant's site is, or will be, served from the utilities along SW Hermoso Way, they must also address those existing lines. If they choose to pay the fee in-lieu, it will be $18,425. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Fire and Life Safety: A more thorough review of fire and life safety issues will be conducted by the Building Division during the building permit plan review stage. Public Water System: This site falls within the service area of the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing public water lines in SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hermosa Way. The applicant's plan shows connections to all existing water lines in order to adequately serve the site. The plan also indicates the applicant will pay for an upgrade of the existing water line in SW Hermosa Way to a 10- inch. The City will expect the applicant to coordinate with TVWD with respect to water service and public main construction requirements. No permits for public improvements will be issued by the City until a permit from TVWD is obtained by the applicant. Storm Water Quality:. The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Option 1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicants plan indicates that one StormFilter unit will be placed near the northwest corner of the site to treat a large majority of the storm water runoff from the site. The narrative indicates that two such units will be placed on the site; the plan only shows one. The applicant's engineer submitted preliminary sizing calculations with the narrative to indicate the necessary size of both units. It appears that two StormFilter units would adequately treat the storm water runoff from this site. The applicant shall revise their plan to show the location of the other StormFilter unit, and ensure that 100% of the on-site storm water runoff will be treated by a water quality facility. Option 2 Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the appplicant shall submit a 4 maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the CIty prior to construction. The applicant s plan indicates that two StormFilter units will be used to treat the runoff from this site. One unit will be placed near the northwest corner of the site to treat primarily the northern portion of the storm water runoff from the site. The Other unit will be placed near tho southwest corner of the site where it will treat the remaining portion of the runoff. Preliminary sizing calculations for these units were submitted by the applicant's engineer. The calculations indicate that the two StormFilter units will ade(IuatOly treat the runoff front thl:; !;it(! 1'i)2000-00001/51.1:7000-000051N41:; 71100 00007 mid H):1000 0()00:'/111 127000-0000.1/b11S'1000 0000.3 I'n(;I 5:1 OF 59 i m-coi 1rJ i Y si ioi,i,irq(; ci rJ i i I•; fi/1: /:'U0n 1 '1 /1NNir4( L'.1l.tt:; ;I )rI I'(1!:I If : 111 AkIN.'rINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC The StormFilter unit is manufactured b Stormwater Management, who offer their clients a maintenance agreement to ensure that the facility is properly maintained by Stormwater Management each year. The City is highly concerned that these units be properly maintained, and is not confident that the applicant will have the means or desire to keep them maintained. Therefore, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management for maintenance of these facilities prior to final building inspection. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facilities to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facilities for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facilities are in compliance with he design and specifications. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The applicant submitted a letter from ADaPT Engineering, Inc., which addresses the additional properties included in this option, and speaks to the original geo-technical report in 1994. ADaPT states that they believe the soils in the additional pro pert y areas exhibit similar characteristics as what exist within the rest of the site. ADaPT also states that the conclusions and recommendations in the 1994 report can and should be applied to the additional properties. The applicant obtained limited site improvement permits for this proJ'ect (SIT 98-00043 and SIT 1999- 00057) to allow diversion of the wetland channel at the north end of the site and rough grading of the site in limited areas. Staff is aware of questionable fill material that has been placed on this site. To Staffs knowledge, ADaPT or any other geo-technical engineer, has not provided certification for the fills that have been completed. The applicant is interested in pulling another limited site permit later this summer to include grading within the newly added parcels. Staff would support such a request provided a geo-technical engineer certify the work that has already been accomplished. Therefore, prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall submit certification from the project geo-technical engineer that states that all grading work on the site has been inspected and complies with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. In addition, prior to final inspection of the buildings on this site, the applicant's geo-technical engineer shall submit a final report in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 that certifies all of the grading work for the site. That report shall be submitted to the Building Division (Hal) Watkins). The applicant previously obtained the NPDES permit, but will need to modify that permit to account for the site plan revision. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall he assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. PD2000-00001/st-R2000 000051MIS2000-00007 a11(1 PU7001)-00007/SI 1:7000 ODUO.1/~~ll~7000-000Oa - PAGE 53 01: 59 I I ;I-c;c )t IN I Y tit IOI'I'IIJC ; t :I IJ i I is 1' ' ~u(1!) I'I ANPJIrJt , r.( N,tf,11`>`;It 1IJ I'Ul it I(: III AP'11A ;/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The owner or property manager is responsible for assigning suite numbers for their tenants. This information must then be given to the City so that building permits for tenant im rovements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon t e h information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the building_ permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map showing the proposed suite numbers. I he addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1 second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc. -$ECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: 1) By code, 25 Accessible parking spaces are required. 2) The applicant needs to meet with Bob Poskin of the Building Division and the Fire Marshall on the hydrant locations. Those hydrants shown on both Options will not meet the required 250-f6ot distance to all portions of the buildings proposed. 3) The Building Division has recently sent a letter to the applicant, due to the concerns about junk fill on the site, requiring a new geo-technical report. The geo-technical report must provide recommendations for liquefaction. The Maintenance Services Department reviewed this application under the 1998 land use decision and commented concerning the proposed tree mitigation allowance for 1,500 caliper inches of Christmas trees that are to be relocated to City properties. The developer shall incur the cost of relocating and transplanting to be eligible for mitigation credit. City staff does not have proper equipment needed for this transplantation work, nor has the City budgeted resources for this work. The Police Department reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. The Long-Range Planning Division reviewed this application and has offered no comment or objections. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS Metro has reviewed this application and has the following comments: We understand that the City of Tigard is in compliance with USA and that USA is substantially compliant with Title 3. See attached Title 3 map. Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed this application and commented in their letter dated March 15, 2000 siting the project in non-compliance with wetland mitigation and rehabilitation as n follows: This letter is a follow-up to a site inspection on March 14, 2000 of the development site to determine compliance with the permit conditions of RF-9256, issued to Mr. Gordon Martin. My inspection found the mitigation site to not be in compliance with Special Condition 7 of Attachment A. More specifically, the following needs t0 be done to bring the permit into compliance: 1. Pad C needs to be moved 25 feet to the west from the existing location to facilitate the construction of the wetland rehabilitation area to the east. PD2000-00001/SI H2000-00005/M152000 00002 anti 1'D2000-00002/SLf22000-00004/N11S2000 00003 PAGE 54 OF 59 1 I:I-Mt IN I Y SI 1()('f 11N(, CI N I I N Y1Y2000 I'I nNNIN(; )!v1( 11':`;I )N H11 fl Ii : 111 APIN(VPINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 1111111111110 2. Figure 2 of the permit drawings shows a wetland area, much larger than what was observed at the time of my inspection, between driveway A and driveway B. We realize all the grading has not been completed to date, but the wetland areas needy considerably more excavation to comply with the permit conditions (see the attached Figure 2). 3. The area at the corner of 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth has been excavated beyond what was authorized. We recommend no further earthwork be done at this location and the north bank needs to be hydroseeded to prevent erosion and planted as specified in Condition 7 (c) of Attachment A, which should include a minimum of 20 evergreen trees. 4. Trees and shrubs should not be planted until excavation has been completed in the mitigation area between driveway A and B. However, trees and shrubs should be planted this spring as specified in Figure 2 and Condition 7 (c at the large Pond site north of Pad B, and on the north bank of the stream facing Pads E and US Army Corps of Engineers has submitted a letter dated March 13, 2000 from Gerald Black which does not grant full compliance as follows: This letter is to indicate compliance of the new wetland boundary. This letter does not grant full compliance. As shown on the plans presented to me, the project's wetland boundary does not appear to have further encroached the wetland areas (mitigated and natural). However, full compliance is subject to a visual inspection of the site to be conducted in the future. Staff Response: Other recent communications between Jan Stuart of the Corps and Staff has indicated likely non-compliance with wetland mitigation and rehabilitation. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this application and has the following comments: ODOT Facilities: The proposed Tri-County Center development is located within the Tigard Triangle, that is bounded by Interstate 5, OR 217, and OR 99W. According to the 1999 Ore on Hi hwa Plan. Interstate 5 has an Interstate level of importance. OR 217 and OR 99W are designated reight routes and Statewide highways. While the site does not have direct access to state facilities, projected traffic impacts from the proposed development show that mobility on the highways will be affected. ODOT has an interest in ensuring that land uses are compatible with the safe and efficient functioning of the highways. Background: A slightly different version of this development was proposed and approved in 1998. condition of approval required the applicant to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68 h Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. This intersection is part of the 1-5 southbound ramp terminals at the Hanes Street exit. The applicant's Engineer conducted a traffic signal study at this location that found a traffic signal would be warranted and would be necessary for maintaining acceptable operation of the intersection. ODOT supported this conclusion. ODOT previously indicated that additional analysis would be needed to determine if supplemental improvements would be necessary to address potential queuing deficiencies at the interchange ramps. Signali;~ation of 681h Parkway -x Dartmouth Street The revised traffic impact analysis assumed that the differences in traffic impacts between the previous and current proposals would be insignificant. Therefore, ODOT will rely on the conclusions of the 2/98 study prepared by Lancaster Engineering. 11 D?000 00001(SLf2200U-fN)00` lMIS2000-00002 and PD2000-0000261 IVO1)0-0000.7R~1152000-0000:i -PAGE 55 OF 59 I NI-000N I Y 51 tC~I'I'ItJ~ ; (:I N I I I !,/1!,/2000 I'I ANNIM, ~tAw11:tSI~)tJ Heil R, I If AI-,'IN(,/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Please enter into the record ODOT comments dated May 12, 1998 (copy enclosed) that were submitted to the City for SDR 98-00021PDR98-0001 review. Our review was based on the traffic study provided at that time, which is being referenced for the current proposal. Our previous comments are still valid. Therefore, ODOT recommends the following condition of approval: o The applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68th Parkway x Dartmouth Street. Constructions shall include any roadway improvements as required by ODOT to ensure adequate operation and vehicular storage. ODOT approval and permit are required for signal installation and any work in the state right-of-way. This improvement is necessary to provide mitigation for anticipated Tri-County Center site-generated traffic impacts to the 1-5 x Haines Road interchange ramps. This condition should be included for either Option 1 or Option 2. Without this mitigqation, the application would fail to meet the City of Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC), Conceptual Development Plan, Approval Criteria. TCDC 18.350.100.B.1. incorporates requirements of the land division provisions; 18.420.050.A.2, states: There are adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal. ODOT Permit: ODOT sigqnal review and permitting will be processed through our District 2A office. Contact: Joel McCarrolr Assistant to District Manager, ODOT District 2A, 229-5002 for information. ODOT comments from letter dated Ma 12 1998: pon careful review o tetra is report su muted by the applicant fora 330,895 square foot retail shopping center at 72nd and Dartmouth Street, we have determined that the applicant cannot meet he policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Hi hwa Objectives and Performance Criteria #4 and #5 Volume 1, Table 111-1, p. 1-2 an _"_a_n_sp_ ortation Policies ~ an e. o ume Section 11, p.55) are not met. Highway Objective ana Performance riteria is `to maintain a reasonable level of speed on principal and arterial routes during the peak hour" and Objective #5 is "to maintain a reasonable level of speed on rincipal and arterial routes durin the off-peak periods Transportation Policy 8.1.3 - The Ci y shall Require as a Precondition Yo Development that: d. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing street, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; and e. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. The traffic study shows that more than one-third (1/3) of the site generated trips are anticipated to access the site via the Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. According to the _Oregon Highway, Plan, the operating standard for 99W is a level of service (pLOS D for signalized intersections which equates to a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 90 /o. This intersection is currently operating at a LOS of D with a v/c of 83%. Without the proposed development the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS of E with a v/c of 93% in the year 2003. A v/c ratio of 99% is operating at capacity and anything greater is considered to be failing. With the roposed development the intersection (including background traffic) is expected to be at a LOS of Ep with v/c of 99 /o. ObOT considers the expected increase in the v/c ratio a significant degradation of traffic conditions as compared to what currently exists as well as what would be expected in the year 2003 without the proposed development. The 99W/Dartmouth Street intersection is expected to be operating at capacity with the proposed development. Under such circumstances, progression of traffic along the highway would be virtually impossible. Queuing and delays experienced on the highway and side streets would be expected to become severe. Motorists on the highway and side street would typically have to wait through a number of signal Cycles to be served, resulting in long delays and excessive queuing. These conditions are expected' to lead to erratic maneuvers by motorists (running red lights, drive on the shoulders, etc.), which could agrayate safety concerns <)t and near the intersection. It is ODOT's position that without the wi(yeninc3 of 99W to six (6) lru)cs between 1-5 and Hi hway 217, that the evelopment will intensify traffic ort 99W and in lmrtic;ulJ)r, the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street. PD2000-0UOOl1til 1~')O )0-0000 I`A1t;; f)()O-()000:, anti PD2000-00002/sl R2000-00004/MIS 2000 OOUO3 PAGi_ 5G Or Gr) 1 RI-l:f)l1N IN, :;I I( )I''Ir J :I N I I I•; f,/1 !,1:1000 PI ANNIN( ) ~f.1f.117 Ill )f J 1,1 if if I 1 11 A1,11 W;TINAL ORDER NO. 2000.02 PC If the CitT chooses to approve the proposed development, we recommend the following be included as Conci ions of Approval: 1. The applicant be required to install a traffic signal at the intersections of SW 68th Parkway and SW Dartmouth Street. The intersection is currently controlled by an all-way stop. The east leg of the intersection consists of the 1-5 southbound ramp connections at the SW Haines Road Interchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the State Highwayy System and under the jurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal at this infersection needs to be approved by the State Traffic Engineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen hour (6 a.m. to 8p m. weekdays) manual turn movement counts at the intersection will need to be provided to ODOT for the traffic signal warrant analysis. The format shown on the attached traffic signal warrant comparison worksheets should be used as part of the warrant analysis. 2. Queuing analyses should be performed for all approaches of the signalized intersections on Highway 99W to ensure that adequate stacking distance is provided for efficient traffic operations. Queuing on the east approach to the intersection of Dartmouth and 68 Parkway should be examined as well to ensure that there is adequate storage distance available on the 1-5 southbound off-ramp to Dartmouth. Without adequate storage distance on the 1-5 southbound off-ramp, the traffic queue would cause significant impact to the freeway operations. 3. There is discussion in the report regarding an extension of SW Dartmouth Street west over Highway 217 and additional ramp connections to the highway. ODOT has reviewed and analyzed similar proposals in the past and has no evidence that there would be any improvement in level of service for 99W between Highway 217 and 1-5. ODOT will not allow additional access to Highway 217. 4. The traffic study ipdicates that twenty-five percent of the site-generated trips are expected to travel on SW 72" Avenue north of SW Hampton Street. SW 72" Avenue at its intersection with SW Hampton St., the Highway 217 northbound and south ramp terminals should be included in the study area. k Note: Although the Comprehensive Plan Policies 8.1.3 d and e which ODOT cited are appropriate to address relative to this application, the applicant is unable by themselves, to provide street improvements that would add lanes to 99W. While this improvement may be needed, widening 99W is a difficult multi- million dollar project that will impact dozens of existing businesses. Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: Sanitaeewe~r: The~Ic evelopment should be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency's Design and Construction Standards. Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R & O. Storm Sewer: The eve opment should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating flow. Water Quality; Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. All Impervious area is to be treated. 1 O;)Ooaoriooiisi_i~2ofw-0000!)!mis2OOO-OOOO:.,f,(i 111): 000-00002isLrz200()-00001iMls200u0-00()Ua PAGE 57 or 59 I W-000N I Y S1 iOPPING CI N I I I: ,,/I `,/,1000 1 '1 ANNINC, r.c ,rJf.,W,!;ION I'I MI I(: 1 If A1.IN' ~r INAL ORDER NO, 2000-02 PC Sensitive Ar a: A`:`bensitlve rea" exists. Developer must preserve a corridor as described in the R&O separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. The creek wetland/sensitive area shall be identified on plans. Corridors are required on mite ated wetlands. A bSUCorps of Engineers permit is required for any work in the creek or wetlands. Compliance with approved DSL/Corps permits will be required. Erosion Control: joint 120 - erosion control permit is required. The plans for the above noted project have been reviewed for conformance with the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by Tualatin Valle Fire & Rescue and those portions of the Uniform Building Code Uniform Mechanical Code and' other codes and standards as specifically referenced in the Fire itode. The following conditions are attached to the above named project in order to achieve Fire District approval: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: ACCESS ROADS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS: Access roadways shall not be closer than 20 feet to a structure unless topographical restrictions dictate the location. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved auto atiiic by sprinkler system, the requirements -for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved y the Chief. IUFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC. Sec 902.2.2.1) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,0010pounds live load ( Toss vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the desiggn will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turnin radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, measured gfrom the same center point. (UFC Sec, 902.2.2.3) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for a building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) COMMERCIAL BUII. DINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS: Fire hydrants shall be located so that no portion of the exterior of a commercial building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along the approved route of travel accessible to fire apparatus. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) EXCEPTIONS: (1) When such buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic fire extinguishing systern, the chief may allow variations up to a maximum of 500 feet, provided adequate protection is maintained. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - MINIMUM NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS: The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to givin credit for fire protection systems divided by 1500. If the answer is equal to or greater than x.5ghe next whole number of hydrants shall be used. There shall not be less than 2 hydrants per building. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more then 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (Uf=C Sec. 903.4.2.4) PD2000-O0O0USI ft7000-00001)/MIS7000-00002 and f'02000-00002/SI_R2000-00004/MIS7000-00003 PAGE= 58 OF 59 1 f.1-000N I Y SI 10PPING 0f =N I I R !)/I!)/;)000 I'll ANNIM, t:OMMISSION 1111il It. I It ARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) FIRE HYDRANT / FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS: A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC locations shall be approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec 904.1.1) FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS: Fire department connections shall not be located on the building that is being protected with the exception o Group R, Division 1 Occupancies not over 4 stories in height. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire-fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 870 KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (UFC Sec. 902.4) Portland General Electric (PGE) was notified, however, no comments were provided. SECTION X. CONCLUSION It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 15th day of May, 2000 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. (Signature box below) Nick Wilson, Planning Commission Chair is\curp1n\pd\karen\pd00-1 &2.final.doc it i i i i 1 a P1)2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 raid (11)2000-00002/Sl_R2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 59 OF ,rig IRI-COIJNIYS11011PINGCI NFFR y1.`i12000 1 'I ANNING COMMISSION I'Ufl-i(: I11_ARITJ(~/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC i - - Irr.rw° srrr ATA at\ .tA+4CAA+fD rAW.4 TOTAL DI{ AKA I,Iga13 Sra.4 rrL 77y V 3o1rQ r Wa c W,ao.[ (MOR To WNOSO 01-10- OC7ICAO04) T - A#-q 9TC W+CA I,i17,711 So- a /rL 71-71 b• TOTAL I / ® Tet70t eat (✓TUt .(l1R010 ea-. omeAno.) / `R ~CJ00 /(0(SP4M n•4JAAT5 TOTAL SuIDeC AKA 717.171 5..... 1r1 ~e I / W,CMO 90(t.y)I3 plpSS l(/,y,R[ M(A 307,a1f f-.-- Irl / / ~ O Tf(!L AbNM-CE KOUwmWOSAnAKA tnof.r.%. 1fA Ct -TN O TW%Cjy TRAM anoasc ACTUAL 4MOSCAI'[ AKA 777.N1 Sv. frt. IlK ' 1 \ ® MWIC 9Wµ PAHS74C DATA SIUgAAO STALLS 1.437 Sian. KISYO AtelailOQOI A~ RAXO(AI STALLS 73 SIW L/ rr a~`A>\ TOTAL STALLS 1.473 Slw ~ t•AMONC IUTIO 1.80 2I.A./I000 Sf QA • b.4 R.a3 n 1Ar P"Dco CFF= MAX-~ I i I 1 I~ 11 I I~ ICI I iT-I i 6 aao 3`. f ~-+r 111! II7II I~ (~I ICI (Ql I I ~ ,1 .a7,.o..,~L.,, - tttt~~ Fhh 11~/=__-_ P B I-t 13, o sr. 1,-`_i , i I I I I I I I I I I III y l COr •ose.o ew7naxv Ate. I ' r IIII III IIII111111 1. PAD-C - I - 3 SowY. ' t i- 1 MAJOR I I I s 223,461 SF:__ W 1 - Mae I In (1t&759 Sr.) HIIITU 1 -151 I~ - R I I I li I ~ I~ I~ 1 i - ( 1^I II M PHASE II i (74.702 sc.) I I . I _ U I II111 i I II ~ 1111111 I , ~ ~ ~ i - ..-i r IIIIIIIII III 1!.-111 I I I IU _ i II,OaO Y. ( 1 CITT UF TIGARIJ TRI-COUNTY CENTER (OPTION 1) SITE PLAN ~ (Map is not to. scale) PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 - -a 1t :1)p c1rJ I \ M.1C11M /'AUK ,0111 IIr uCA I ) 101K 1R M A 1,111)8 yam. f. ,-e t>G tRlOr -M TT (YRA -C%K= 1.0- DWCAY1 ) ~.Yy~ ® 1'[~p+LUI ~4Re.~7 MUL tlrt?6 WA Jail! 1v. Iwl i J/ \ [VUw C7.vm RX at 0,00 VUA t NG JI-W I- rr m TI•K.1 utaa anwa I JJ QNm W06"r'C MCA 177.'A 1v. IK Ili K / O 1 tX >s DH D•40s1[ -"i 1MRTC-ft U14 iYl)0 Nw r..l 11a um iWTY fO1K ll?*'_4.". C1•l • 1)cx~Ip tlhlJ I,,n IW 1 - - I I / ~•~J„ r r ; pP •u.otAr ,iKll A sw .'IN 1141, ~ St.h 1 I ( I ' ~ s4 uJrf Cfc~Vll~t~bVw ~I11 .I11 IIM4~3. r J-~• 7 / ` t / ` t w.G -W- ~,NII1~ • 1 PAD-b -y 'Y. t' H' ~Y~iT I~ .It' ~ I .1luiut • 11 ~ PA~ I+~+rn `I`I 1 I, ~JJJJJ J J` J J71\ 1 1- 1 1 1 y II 11 j t t t..~T.•. ytt ~ 1 II rJlJJ AJ ~~~~J~JI{JJ~J. u.~ JL; 6: 1 r'l ~i'fi:ntr,i•fiii- ?;'i ~T _ ` i W11 ' ~t t 1 ) 1 1 rrFrr-F'II ~ I tit 111-15 I }J~JJiJJ ,1 I~ y~ 1 1 ` y jrj A ~ A.1TOR I "J dJ{~~J~.~.1i{J J~J~J{J~ 11 2ti1 1 I~~t t~rl 1 1 v ~ ~ tl ~ Y E ~ 140,082 SF. Gy: 10 7~ 1JTJ J IJ A I LI 11 1•I AI . .1•I i•ii.v{.W 11J {•I•I l I Mitt I tifit^ti,i ii 1 I$ MAM II MAM III MAXM EV ti►t 1 34 ,500 51', 3J,3I2 Sr. J5.400 Sr. 1 1 ,.LI1 1110'L JJ J J J JJ JI 1 } } Ir.lns n.)rr n-rRm ~ v, 5., ^tr t.9 t Vill. 11 • V 1D14Y _ 1 ~T i f TRI-COUNTY CENTER CITY F TIGARD" SI'T'E- PLAN ~ =OPTION 2) (Map is not to scale) PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 oe-ootetr+e .rrouarw• ererer i, VICINITY MAP i t ~ ~~G~F f ~ i I i A~T M7A iRl-GOUtdTY GEN(~R ~1 ! j PD2000-00001 ] I 1 1 ! ; f sT SLR2000-00005 ] OP~10~1 9g~ I ~ I ; i { MIS2000-00002 ] 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ PQ2000-00002 ] 1 I 000-00004 ] OPTION 2 Ij ~ ( ; ! j f___ ; -------f SLR2 00-00003 1 , l~liS20 13 SUBJECT 4 i r-- ~V I ~ j~ I 11 i I,~ sT TAX LDTS ! j LINT 4 1 0 1 I ~ 1 DARTMOUTH ST 1 r-- 1 I I ST HE 30 A i i a:^ e2 re<' I Q 1 I FRANKLIN t•• a72 4et i 1 Ij i BEVELgND 1 , - sT ~I 1 1 l i~ ~ f i 4 /j/ ' i EYE D ST _ l~lY~ II ,ri Cin' of Tignd i I~ ' 1 ~ i I 1 ~ ~ 'i trtom+ai;on on tms me0 a +v pe^en' ~«n~on Dory + O` 1 _ I j 1 SnoWC De venLeC wtn toe Deval9pmem, $erv+ps P~^rb^ 1 Z 11 !312: SW Hell e'.vC . '~l N I I I i 1 l 1 -y a'C. 00. 57::. 1' j 11'J r _G-ONNZLGGA--ST i r11 E~a,a t`+r 1 I i J _ I !~-I _L,_ i~"~ .....lo...w: 6er_r a. I 1~ I 1 • EXfi)B!T E APPEAL FILING FORM F®R LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE II /M CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.- (503) 664-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR: STAFF USE ONLY' Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being 4-CI- Case No.(s): TO 2W6 -0goOL Appealed: Tri-County Center Options , & 2; 5vR ~koclo- adJ f+tt6 - Case Name(s): MI - m rru ~F,s a ~ „i,v 3 SW 72nd & Dartmouth Receipt No.: How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Applicant Christensen Engineering Application Accepted By:. S o Date: Approved As To Form By: Appellant's Address: 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Date. City/State: Tigard, OR Zip: 97223 Denied As To Form By: Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(503 598-1866 Date: Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: 6-06-2000 Rev. 1G/3/96 i3curpnknas{erslaPpeal.doc Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: 5-19-2000 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS See Attached. ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Appeal Filing Form (completed) Q Filing Fee (based on criteria below) D Director's Decision to Hearings Officer S 250.00 ➢ Expedited Review (deposit) S 300.00 D Hearing Referee S 500.00 RECEIVED PLANNING D Planning Commission/Hearing'sOffiicerto City Council $1,745.00 Transcript) JUN 0 5 2000 Signature(s) of A el nt(s): CITY OF TIGARD C 10, fix APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS 1:lcurplnVnasterslappeal (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) PAGE 1 OF 1 RECEIVED PLANNING PERKINS COIE LLP JUN 14 2000 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFCH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 - PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 CITY MARK D. WHITLOW TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 • FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 OF TIGARD (503) 727-2073 wWtm@perkinscoie.wm June 13, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND MILL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC - Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-00041MIS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. ~I Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call the with your questions or comments. V ly yours, s I I Mark D. iitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff Clients Ed Christensen ANCHORAGE. BELLEVIII: ROISIi UI:NVI:R HONG KONG I.OS ANGELES MCNI.O PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN 1'RANCISCO SEAiTI.I: SI'OKANh: TAII'lil IVASHINGTON, DX. 133181-0001Q'A003689.695J SIRAILGIC ALLIANCL: RUSSIA.I. F IMMOULIN, VANCOUVI:R, CANADA PERKINS COIE LLP i 121 1 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 • FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 ROGER A. ALFRED (503) 727-2094 alfrr@pcrkinscoie.com DUPLICATION OF JUNE 5, 2000 LETTER June 13, 2000 SENT VIA MESSENGER Tigard City Council c/o Richard Bewersdorff Plaiudng Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. We submit this notice of appeal of the planning commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000. The applicant has standing to appeal this decision to the city council pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.390.040.G. La. In its final order, the planning commission approved with conditions the applications for a conceptual plan review of two alternative designs for construction of the Tri-County Center shopping center in the Tigard Triangle. The planning commission also approved, with conditions, a sensitive lands review and a lot line adjustment for both alternative designs The city file numbers for the Option 1 applications are PD 2000-001, SLR 2000-005 and MIS 2000-002; the numbers for the Option 2 applications are PD 2000-002, SLR 2000-004 and MIS 2000-003. As addressed in detail below, the applicant appeals the planning commission's imposition of the following conditions: 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58, and 73. 1. Condition 1 ii "OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions a listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant q submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified." 13 3 1 81-000 1 /1'A003G87.99G 1 ANCIIORAGE III![I.f.V1II- BONN: ULNVI.R HONG KONG LOS ANGIA.LS MCNLO PARK OINNIVIA PORII ANTI SAN I RANCISCO SEA111.1. SPOKANL IAIPLI WASHINGION, U.C. SIRAIC(AC ALLIANCE: RIISSI.I.I. & UuAtOI11.IN, VANCOIIVI.R, IANAUA Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 2 This condition was rewritten by the planning commission during the May 15, 2000 public hearing in order to make DET review optional, rather than a mandatory condition. To the extent the condition requires the applicant to either comply with the applicable criteria or go through DET review, this condition merely restates the basic code requirement. However, as worded, the condition allows the applicant the option to submit the entire proposal to the DET for review prior to detailed plan submittal "in addition to the conditions listed below." Thus, if the applicant elects to undergo DET review, the condition also would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. However, the individual conditions that address the planning commissions concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET. Accordingly, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. Moreover, it is unclear whether the planning commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, thus making it impossible for applicant to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. During the proceedings before the planning commission, applicant and his attorney described interpretations of the code that would result in findings that the proposed plan was in compliance with the criteria at issue. However, the planning commission's final order neither expressly accepts nor rejects the applicant's reading of the code. For example, it is unclear whether or not the planning commission determined that the zero to ten foot building setback is satisfied by the proposed sound wall along Hermoso Street. At the hearing, applicant argued that the proposed wall is a "building" within the code definition, and therefore the setback standard is met. The planning commission's final order does not accept or reject this assertion, but contains two conditions, numbered 56 and 58, that would require the applicant to revise the plans "to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards," or submit alternative plans to the DET for review. As described in more detail below regarding conditions 56 and 58, the code is clear that the definition of a "building" includes a wall, and therefore there is no need to either revise the plans or submit alternative plans to the DET, because the building setback standards are satisfied. Condition number one would require the applicant to fulfill all conditions, regardless of whether or not DET review is elected. Conditions 56 and 58 would require submittal of revised plans or DET review. Under the clear 33181.0001 /YA003687.9961 6113100 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 3 language of the applicable setback standards and the definition of "building," neither should be required. Because the individual conditions that address the planning commission's concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. 2. Condition 7 "The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72"d Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition)." This condition requires applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. 3. Conditions 22 and 25 "The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%" "Option 2 - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%." These two conditions do not recognize the fact that many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the city. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it 133181-0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13/00 Tigard City Council . June 13, 2000 Page 4 applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25%. This condition should be modified accordingly. 4. Condition 26 "The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal." This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria. The proposed structures along SW Dartmouth Street have a zero-foot setback from the wetlands that separate the structures from the right-of-way, as allowed by Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.620.030.A.2. Condition 26 would require the applicant to revise the plans to provide landscaping or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path "between the structures and the wetlands/public street." First, because of the zero-foot setback, all that lies between the structures and the pedestrian path are the wetlands; therefore, code section 18.620.030.A.3 does not apply to this area. Further, Section 18.620.030.A.3 requires that "landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway." This code section does not require landscaping or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria, and should be removed. 5. Condition 56 (option 1 only) c "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design q Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design a Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." (33181-0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13/00 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 5 The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of "building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 1 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Pad E, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 6. Condition 58 (option 2 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Majors II-IV, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of "building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 2 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Majors II-IV, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hernnoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 7. Condition 73. "The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, [33181-0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13/00 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 6 as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb." This condition addresses the street connectivity standards set forth in Section 18.620.020. The May 8, 2000 staff report prepared by city planning staff applied the street connectivity standards and concluded that "an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street is not required." Staff Report at 20. This is because, in making the requisite eight-intersections-per-mile calculation, staff correctly included planned intersections at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road and at SW Dartmouth Street at the planned fly over to SW Hall Blvd. The staff report submitted to the planning commission concluded that the street connectivity standards were satisfied, and the issue of noncompliance with Section 18.620.020 was raised for the first time by the planning commission at the May 15, 2000 hearing, after the public hearing was closed. Accordingly, applicant was precluded from commenting or objecting on the new public street requirement. Condition 73 requires applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when planned connecting streets to Dartmouth Street are completed. As recognized in the staff report, six intersections along the length of Dartmouth Street are required to meet the connectivity standard of Section 18.620.020. There are currently five intersections along Dartmouth Street. Thus, even if only one of the two planned streets are constructed, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of condition 73. Further, condition 73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. Dartmouth Street is currently not compliant with the street connectivity standards, regardless of the proposed Tri-County Center. Imposition of this condition requires the applicant to pay for more than its proportional share of required improvements for street connectivity. The condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Further, requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Drivers would be likely to use the road to cut through the parking area at unsafe speeds, jeopardizing the pedestrians moving from Lon their cars to individual stores. [33181-0001 /PA003G87.99G 1 6/13/00 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 7 This standard should be removed. However, as an alternative, applicant would not object to a condition requiring a reasonably direct connection between Dartmouth Street and Hermoso, in the form of a drive aisle or other internal vehicular path. Conclusion The applicant requests that the city council revise the conditions imposed by the planning commission as set forth above. Ve% truly yours, Roger A. Alfred RAA:raa cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen [33181-0001 /PA003687.9961 6/13/00 EXHIBIT F June 9, 2000 To: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 OREGON Attn: Karen Fox RE VED PLANNING From: Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering JUN 14 2000 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 CITY OFTIG Tigard, Oregon 97223 AAD Re: 60 Day Waiver of 120 Day Rule Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC - Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/ SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-00004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Karen: This is a waiver providing an additional 60 day extension to the 120 day rule period for a total of 180 days. This would extend the period for appeal and final decision to September 10, 2000. This supercedes any previous waivers. Yours truly, Ed Christensen C: Roger Alfred/Mark Whitlow, Perkins, Coie, LLP n N -1 rq 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 SEP 05 2000 16:35 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 9684?297 P. 02,102 PERKINS COIE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 1500 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 • FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARK D. WHrrLOW (503) 727-2073 whi(jr.@perkinscoie.com September 5, 2000 BENT VIA FACSIMILE' Tigard City Council c/o Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW HaU Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tri-County Appeal Dear Mr. Monahan: This office represents Gordon Martin Sr., regarding the above appeal. Mr. Martin-hereby requests that the appeal hearing be continued for two weeks until September 26, 2000. The additional time is needed to resolve a pending dispute with Christensen Engineering or to obtain a substitute firm of consulting engineers. Christensen Engineering has been the named applicant and lead consultant for the land use permitting work which has occurred for the Tri-County Center over the years. It will be difficult for Mr. Martin to proceed with the appeal without the aid and assistance of Mr. Christensen or a substitute consultant with respect to the issues raised by the appeal, especially the challenged conditions of approval requiring the imposition of a public or private street through the center and the widening of Dartmouth east of 72"d Avenue. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. spectfully miffed, Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Tim Ramis, Esq. Gordon Martin Sr. 133181-0001/PA003693.843) ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONC LO5 ANCEL@S MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SFArTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. TOTAL PAGE.02 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: September 12, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Street Renaming of SW izuth and 132nd PUBLIC HEARING FOR RENAMING OF SW 129TH AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW-WEST SUBDIVISION Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit On Testimony I:WDM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTMNY UPDATED 6-13.00C AGENDA ITEM No. 8 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - S eakin In Favor O onent - (Speaking A ainst Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. I AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Renaming of SW 129th Avenue, North of SW Bull Mountain Road, within the Woodford Estates Subdivision, and Renaming a Portion of SW 132nd Avenue from SW Benchview Terrace to a New Street Intersection Adjacent to the Quail Hollow-West Subdivision. PREPARED BY: Brian Ra er 4- DEPT HEAD OK~ CITY MGR OK k/e1*V- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Whether or not these street segments be renamed to "SW Greenfield Drive". STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached ordinance, which would rename the street segments in question to "SW Greenfield Drive". INFORMATION SUMMARY The recent upgrading of a minor collector roadway has necessitated the renaming of two existing roadway segments. These two segments of roadway are now a part of the planned minor collector road that will eventually provide a connection between SW Bull Mountain Road and the newest extension of SW Gaarde Street. Because the collector alignment is not contained within one addressing grid, it is not appropriate to give it a number designation. An existing portion of the minor collector is named, "SW Greenfield Drive". Staff recommends this name be used consistently for the entire minor collector. On July 17, 2000, the Tigard Planning Commission voted in support of the proposed name change. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The only other option would be to give the street a number designation. But due to the non-linear alignment of the roadway, this was not appropriate. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES The only cost to the City will be for new street signs at the intersection at SW Bull Mountain Road, and at the intersection at SW Rockingham Drive. Ocirncidc`sum.dot Milli 7~ AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of Long Term Water Supply Options PREPARED BY: Ed We Jner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Public Works staff will update the City Council on the progress of the Portland Water Contract negotiations, the Clackamas (South Fork) option and the Joint Water Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends continuing to work on these three water options, until such time as sufficient data is available to make a decision by Tigard and it's integrated Water Board partners. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Public Works staff has been studying various long-term water supply sources, due to the widespread concern of using the Willamette River as a drinking water source. We are continuing to work on three alternatives, the Portland wholesale contract, the Clackamas (South Fork) and the Joint Water Commission. The following outline and attached documents will be reviewed in detail. Portland Wholesale Contract ■ Portland met with the wholesale contractors on July 26, 2000 to present a "straw man" contract ■ Presentation was in concept only ■ Wholesale contractors are meeting regularly to prepare our thoughts and concerns ■ Attached documents include a white paper on pricing and draft of the model contract with its discussion paper South Fork/Clackamas Rimer Water.Supply ■ Staff of Tigard, South Fork, Lake Oswego and the North Clackamas County Water Commission have met to a review a "fatal flaw" findings of regulatory agencies ■ Drafting a Memorandum of Understanding for an elected officials workshop ■ Attached documents include the regulatory agency review and draft 42 of the Memorandum of q Understanding, draft 43 will be delivered to you on September 5°i or 6`h when we receive the latest revisions a .loint Water Commission ■ The Joint Water Commission met on July 14, 2000 as part of it's agenda, a discussion was held about Tigard's consideration ■ The Joint Water Commission staff made the following recommendation and after discussions the recommendation was approved by the Commissioner Emil (1) Authorize the JWC General Manager to provide a water sales agreement for the remainder of the 2000 calendar year. (2) Direct staff to develop an IGA for Tigard to become a participant, with a built in termination if additional source water can not be developed (3) Direct staff to move forward on research and planning for the development of additional raw water source OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Willamette River water supply option VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Securing a long-term water supply is both a Council and Vision taskforce goal FISCAL NOTES Each water supply option has it's own financial impact on the ratepayer of the water service area. We are not far enough along on any of these three options to develop projected costs. Kathylwuncilwvater.%tipply update 9-12 PORTLAND WATER BUREAU DRAFT WHOLESALE AGREEMENT BACKGROUND DISCUSSION PAPER July 26, 2000 Background For more than 20 years, the Portland Water Bureau and its wholesale customers have maintained their business relationships within the context of a 25-year agreement. This agreement will expire in the next few years. The existing agreement was negotiated between individuals who are, with few exceptions, no longer actively involved in the process. Many features of the contract have worked well and the ratepayers of the Portland Metropolitan Area have been well served by the Water Bureau and its wholesale partners. However, certain aspects of the agreement, which was negotiated some twenty years ago, have proven to be onerous, overly complex, and difficult to administer. Now, the parties to the existing agreement have agreed that it is time to develop a new contract to govern relationships among them, and potentially among new members of their group, for the next generation. After a series of discussions and workshops, the Water Bureau has developed a Draft Agreement for purposes of discussion and negotiation. This Background Discussion Paper is intended to offer some insight into the thinking and philosophy underlying the specific elements of this Draft Agreement. It is important to understand that the Initial Draft Agreement as presented by the Bureau is intended to apply to a customer with ongoing, year-round "full supply" purchases of Portland's water. It is envisioned that other contract vehicles might be developed, as a variation to the Initial Draft Agreement, to address other needs, such as interruptible or seasonal supplies. The Portland Water Bureau is committed to the continuing development of positive, cooperative partnerships among the region's water utilities. In this spirit, we hope all parties will recognize that this Draft Agreement does not represent anything resembling a "take it or leave it" proposition. It is, rather, a starting point for helping all the parties come as close as possible to meeting their overall contractual objectives. We hope that this new agreement, however it may develop in the negotiating process, will be an improvement on its predecessor. We have all learned from our experience with the existing contract; the Water Bureau sincerely believes that we can move forward together as partners under an improved agreement. s The balance of this Background Discussion Paper consists of a brief, section-by-section summary of the basic underlying ideas involved and the thought process that was used to develop it. It is not intended to be an exhaustive or complete analysis of any of the aspects of the draft. It is simply intended to help us all discuss possibilities with a foundation of better mutual understanding. 1 Draft Agreement Introduction and Recitals The introduction of this draft is primarily a vehicle for the necessary legal language associated with an agreement of this kind. It closely follows the "boilerplate" approach of the existing contract. There are probably two points worth noting in this section for present purposes: 1. Omission of any reference to "surplus water" sales, consistent with recent Portland City Attorney's opinions on this subject. In our interviews and discussions over recent months, some Purchasers have expressed concern about the dependability of supply under the "surplus" concept. Based upon our internal discussions of this issue, the current Administration of the Bureau believes that this possible interpretation of "surplus water" does not reflect their current viewpoint or intent under the proposed agreement. Therefore, the omission of the tern "surplus water" is specifically designed to address and eliminate these concerns. 2. Reference in Subsection E to "enhancing the efficient use of the region's water resources" is an added justification for Portland's interest in wholesaling water. This addition reflects the Portland City Council's concern to provide stewardship of its water rights in a manner consistent with today's environmental values and concerns. Section 1: Nature of the Service This section is designed to provide a basic description of the service to be provided by Portland under this agreement. Points of interest may include: 1. The City would only reduce or terminate supply in accordance with a Curtailment of Service approach outlined later in the agreement. This is another element added to address expressed concerns about dependability of supply. 2. The final paragraph of this Section attempts to make clear that Portland is the owner of the system as it stands today and that purchase of water does not in and of itself constitute buying a share of the system. This section was designed to clarify the confusion created by language in the current agreement that led some wholesale customers to feel that they had purchased something more than water under the agreement. We feel that the language of the old contract and some of its provisions inadvertently contributed to this misconception and created ill feeling whare none was intended by any party. We think it is important to lay this foundation clearly and unambiguously as a philosophical underpinning of the proposed agreement. Section 2: Pricing Because of the complexity of this key issue, a "Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal" is included as an integral part of the Draft 2 Agreement. The background philosophy and approach involved is extensively discussed in that document. Section 3: Communication Between City and Purchaser In our recent discussions, some Purchasers have expressed the desire to have a more meaningful and timely role in the Bureau's capital planning process as it affects them. The Bureau understands and recognizes this desire on the wholesale customer's part. As a part of the development of this draft agreement, alternative approaches to meeting this request were considered. Subsections A through D of this Section outline a series of steps that could accomplish the customer's objectives and goals. The intent is that the wholesale customers would be welcome to be involved, at their discretion, in the development of the Water Bureau CIP as it affects them. In effect, they would have input into the process of prioritizing and scheduling capital projects affecting them, would have opportunities to understand and comment on the Bureau's proposed budgets and financial plans, and would be assured of an opportunity to address the Portland City Council on these issues. The goal was to provide for as much meaningful involvement for wholesalers as could be made consistent with timeliness, efficiency, and the basic rights and responsibilities of the Water Bureau. The balance of this Section addresses a reconstituted Water Managers' Advisory Board to give all parties a better mechanism for planning and working together. The Draft Agreement envisions a Board made up of all wholesalers who wish to participate and be represented in that forum. This Board would remain advisory in nature but would be assured of access to the Portland City Council if desired. The Draft sees the basic roles of the Board, in addition to simply providing an ongoing forum for discussion and conflict resolution, to be these: 1. Establishing, maintaining, and encouraging "best management practices" to encourage regional cooperation, and to maximize the efficient use of the water resources., 2. Establishing, maintaining, and encouraging "best management practices" for the operations of the utilities sharing the Portland water resource. The Draft proposes that much of the work of the Board should be done through committees established by the Board. Two committees are proposed initially: 1. A committee to develop, oversee, and encourage appropriate water conservation practices among the members 2. An Operations Group with two broad purposes: a. Identify standard operating practices among the members designed to optimize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the system's operation b. Identify information and data that must be shared between the parties in order to optimize the standard operating practices 3 The broad purpose of this whole Section is to provide a collegial framework in which the members can work together to meet common goals for water resource and system operations. There is no desire or intent to use this mechanism to establish any directive role for Portland beyond that needed to ensure sharing of required information and operational details as agreed. Section 4: Payment In our discussions, the Bureau did not feel a need to significantly change the terns and conditions of payment or hear any significant concerns from Purchasers regarding this issue. Therefore, this section essentially establishes the basic commit to pay on a timely basis. In cases of dispute, payments would be placed in an escrow account pending resolution. Section 5: Connections & Metering In discussing this section, the Bureau had no major issues or concerns. Therefore this section of the draft agreement establishes the basic working arrangement for metering service between the members. Portland proposes that the Purchaser would pay for the initial meter when service is established and would pay for any replacement meters when and if they were requested by the Purchaser to increase capacity. Otherwise, Portland would maintain and bear the cost of these facilities. Section 6: Nomination of Supply One of the challenges of developing the draft agreement was the desire of the parties for a long-term agreement. At the same time, the Bureau and its wholesale customers recognize that potable water supplies are a limited resource. Given that, the Bureau was concerned about the financial and policy implications of guaranteeing unlimited supply into the future. At the same time, the wholesale customers desire assurance of supplies now and into the future. One method to balance the needs of both parties is through the use of a nomination of supply process. The nomination process is intended to provide Purchasers with greater certainty of long-term supply, while balancing the Bureau's planning needs and helping minimize financial risks. The Nomination Process is somewhat complicated on the surface until fully understood. It is outlined in the Draft Agreement in some detail. The Water Bureau will provide detailed discussion, explanation, and examples of this concept as needed. a i For purposes of this background document, it should be recognized that the intent of this new arrangement is to find a better balance between Portland's needs and those of a Purchasers in terms of supply assurance. Purchasers want something as close as possible 3 to a firm water right. Portland needs protection against wide fluctuations in demand and future growth beyond its current supply resources. The Bureau needs dependable commitments (projections of future needs) in order to make prudent decisions about the planning of the system, any potential expansions and system operations. We feel that the 4 nomination approach will best balance the needs of both parties, in comparison to other mechanisms we have been able to identify. In effect, the nomination process allows Purchasers to be assured of a minimum supply from Portland, barring unforeseeable events beyond control, for a specified period of time. It provides a mechanism that would prevent Portland from unilaterally reducing the minimum supply commitment in future years. It requires all parties to plan supply needs carefully, to manage resources prudently, and to reassess needs periodically (every five years). We recognize that this proposed change of approach involves a way of thinking about supply commitments new to most of us. We hope that it can provide the foundation for a smooth, mutually beneficial way of providing all parties with the degree of certainty they seek, consistent with limitations of total available supply. Section 7: Curtailment of Supply Some Purchasers have expressed concern about how their supply would be addressed in case of curtailment. To address this concern, the Water Bureau's intent is that curtailment situations should be met in a way that is clearly understood and agreed to by the parties in advance of the need. Section 7 is designed to provide an orderly process for curtailment in cases of unavoidable shortage on the system as a whole. It requires the Water Bureau to develop a Curtailment Plan with input from the Purchasers. If the parties cannot reach consensus on the implementation of this Curtailment Plan in a given situation, the Water Bureau would reduce supply proportionately among all users of the system. If a Purchaser's service area were reduced, the Bureau would have the right to reduce the amount of water, which it was committed to deliver to the Purchaser involved. Section 8: Purchaser Supplied dater to City Residents Throughout the life of the existing agreement, some Purchasers have felt that their compensation for serving Portland customers in their area was inadequate. This section is essentially the same as the current agreement, except that Portland proposes to increase the credit involved from the existing 7% to 15%. Section 9: Financing Capital Beneficial to Purchaser Many Purchasers have discussed their desire to own assets or capacity in the supply system they depend upon. Apart from outside agreements such as that for the Washington County Supply Line, this has not been the practice under the old agreement. This new Draft Agreement is designed primarily to address the relationships involved in buying and selling water from the existing system. However, the Water Bureau is sympathetic to the desire for more ownership in the future and has developed this Section to make it clear that this approach is possible for the future. This section has two feature of note that represent departures from the current agreement: 5 1. It is explicitly accepted that separate agreements can be made between and among the parties to jointly fund, operate, and benefit from new projects as they choose. Water derived from such a project would be separately priced and the financing, management, and arrangement associated with such projects would not necessarily be related to the provisions of this proposed agreement. 2. The Draft Agreement explicitly states that there is nothing to prevent joint ownership agreements pertaining to the assets or capacity of such new projects. This Section is intended to make it clear that, while Portland is not willing to enter into sale of any portion of the existing system, future expansions and improvements are open for discussion as to the potential for joint ownership, joint operation; joint financing, joint benefit, or any other partnering strategy that might be developed. The Water Bureau has no bias against entering into such agreements in the future and expects that this may become a common practice in the region. Section 10: Water Resource Conservation Portland has a need to assure its City Council and ratepayers that the water to which it holds rights is not being used wastefully or inefficiently. The Purchasers have been clear that they have a need to be freed from a directive, "Big Brother" approach to regional conservation on Portland's part. This Section is designed to meet both of those needs. Within this concept, the Water Managers' Board would establish a Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC). The role of this committee of the Board would be to foster and promote efficient use of water and best management practices to that end. Each signatory to the agreement, including Portland, would need to submit a Water Conservation Plan every 5 years for review and comment by the CAC. The Section provides that the 5 Year Plan requirement could be met by submitting plans already being prepared for other purposes. The Water Managers' Board would establish a two-tiered list of best management practices (BMPs) for this purpose. The first list would be mandatory to be included in members' conservation plans. The second would be voluntary. Each member would have the responsibility to administer its Conservation Plan, once submitted in accordance with mandatory BMPs, as it saw fit. Partnerships to manage these plans jointly would be possible and encouraged by the Water Bureau but would not be mandatory. Section 11: Other Water Supplies This Section simply establishes the principle that water from other sources can't be allowed to enter the system without approval from the Water Bureau. The intent is not to make such blending in the system prohibitive in and of itself, but to ensure that no blending takes place without appropriate analysis and planning to preserve water quality 6 and system integrity. As more supplies are developed in the region, it is likely that more sharing of supplies will become the norm. The Water Bureau simply wants to be assured that such activities cannot take place without adequate planning and precautions and that it does not lose control of the water quality and system conditions. Section 12: Dispute Resolution Section 12 simply suggests that disputes among the parties to the Agreement that cannot be resolved among the parties should first be brought to a group of the Water Managers' Advisory Board for an opinion and possible resolution, in an open manner. Obviously this would not preclude any party from exercising its legal rights but it would provide a reconciliation process that is more than simply conversation but short of legal proceedings. Section 13: Duration of Agreement Related to the concern of many Purchasers about certainty of supply is the question of the duration of that certainty. Portland agrees that Purchasers need long term security and has sought to find a mechanism that would offer it without being overly complicated or inflexible. Portland is prepared to enter into an Agreement of this nature in perpetuity. The Section provides for "off ramps," where either party could serve 5-year notice of intent to end their participation in the Agreement. The thinking here is that a fixed expiration date tends to create a deadline that encourages issue to be deferred and delayed of resolution instead of being addressed and resolved in a timely manner. The Agreement could be amended and modified as agreed, as times and circumstances change. A perpetual agreement with exit opportunities would offer all parties a greater degree of stability for future planning purposes and encourage ongoing partnership in the management of the system. Summary This is a first approach to a new Agreement. The Water Bureau believes that this approach offers promise for improvement and better relationships in the future. We look forward to discussing it and considering alternatives ideas that may be presented. 7 DRAFT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between herein called "Purchaser," and the CITY OF PORTLAND BUREAU OF WATER WORKS, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, herein called "City." The parties recite: A. Purchaser is a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon and is authorized by its charter or by state law, or both, to operate a municipal water system. B. City is a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon and is authorized by Chapter XI of the Charter of the City of Portland to maintain water works for the furnishing of water to the city, its property, its inhabitants, and the places and people along or in the vicinity of the pipes, corlduits, or aqueducts constructed or used for that purpose. The Council of the City is further authorized to enter into contracts for the supply of water by the City, and to sell water to persons, public and private, outside the city, on terms and conditions the Council finds appropriate. C. City is further authorized by Section 2-105(a)4 of its Charter to enter into agreements, without limitation as to term, as the Council finds appropriate for cooperation, consolidation and maintenance of services with any other public corporation or unit of government. D. ORS 190.003 to 190.110 authorizes units of local government to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the performance of their duties or for the exercise of powers conferred upon them. E. City has determined that it is in the best interest of its ratepayers for the City to enter into contracts for the -sale of water. Benefits are derived for Portland water consumers by spreading the fixed overhead cost of the system over a wider rate base and by enhancing the efficient use of the region's water resources. F. Parties agree that execution of a long term agreement for the sale of water from City will provide greater likelihood of water supply at less cost and of a higher quality than would otherwise be possible. G. The service and commodity provided by City are a special contract service and are not provided by City as a common utility service. SECTION 1 NATURE OF THE SERVICE Subject to the terms and conditions outlined herein, City agrees to furnish and sell, and Purchaser agrees to purchase, a firm supply of potable water on an annual basis for the life of this agreement, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 1 During the life of this agreement, City agrees to exercise reasonable diligence and foresight to: • Repair, replace, and maintain its supply, treatment and distribution system so as to assure the delivery of water as agreed herein. • Deliver water at the point of the Purchaser's connection that meets applicable legal and regulatory requirements. • Strive to provide water to Purchaser of equivalent quality to that delivered by City to its inhabitants. City also agrees that Purchaser's supply of water shall be reduced or terminated only in accordance with the procedures and priorities addressed in this agreement under Section 7, Curtailment of Supply. Purchaser recognizes and agrees that no liability for damages shall attach to City hereunder on account of any failure to accurately anticipate availability of water supply, any failure of supply due to occurrences beyond the reasonable control of the City, or any reduction in water quality due to occurrences beyond the reasonable control of the City. Purchaser agrees to sell or convey no water obtained pursuant to this agreement to any other distributing agency without the prior written approval of the Administrator of the City Bureau of Water Works. Such sales or conveyances shall be subject to such conditions as the Administrator of the City Bureau of Water Works may impose. In the event Purchaser makes such sales or conveyances without such approval, the City may make corresponding reductions in the amount of water supplied to Purchaser or may impose rate penalties as deemed appropriate by the Administrator of the City Bureau of Water Works and the Commissioner-in-Charge. The parties agree and acknowledge that the City of Portland Bureau of Water Works is the owner and operator of the water supply, storage, transmission, and. treatment system, and all of the facilities and infrastructure associated with the storage, treatment, transmission and distribution systems used in its utility operations. The purchase of water or any other commodity or service under this agreement shall not constitute purchase of ownership rights to water or any portion of the water utility system owned and operated by the Portland Bureau of Water Works except as may be specified herein or may be established by separate agreement. Nothing in this agreement shall preclude the parties from separate agreements involving joint ownership or joint operation of system elements by separate agreement. i SECTION 2 PRICING 3 a SEE APPENDIX A, "CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION OF THE PORTLAND WATER BUREAU WHOLESALE PRICING PROPOSAL. " Portland Wholesale Water Contract -Rev 7-20-00 Draft 2 SECTION 3 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CITY AND PURCIIASER In order to ensure that Purchaser is notified in a timely manner of proposed changes in rates, charges, and rate design and provided an opportunity to evaluate such proposals and be heard before the City Council, City agrees that the following steps shall be taken annually: A. On an annual basis, Purchaser shall participate in development of City's Capital Improvement Plan insofar as this plan addresses capital improvements involved in service to purchasers outside the City. City shall share with Purchaser the criteria it applies in consideration of alternative capital improvement projects. City shall also share its ranking of projects for funding and completion and its proposed schedule for such capital improvements. Purchaser shall have reasonable opportunity to present suggestions and recommendations for specific capital projects and for improvements in the capital planning and financing process. A Capital Planning Workshop shall take place in a manner sufficiently timely to ensure Purchaser effective participation in the City's capital budget deliberations each year. B. In February, or as soon thereafter as practical, the City Bureau of Water Works shall invite Purchaser to attend a presentation of its budget request and financial plans for the following fiscal year. C. In April, or as soon thereafter as practical, the City Bureau of Water Works shall advise Purchaser in writing of significant changes in the proposed City budget having a potential impact on Purchaser. D. When the City Bureau of Water Works files its annual rate ordinance with the City Council Clerk, a copy of said ordinance shall be forwarded to Purchaser, accompanied by a letter giving the dates on which the City Council is scheduled to consider rates. The hearing dates shall also be published in one or more local newspapers of general circulation. Purchaser shall be provided an opportunity to offer testimony relative to the annual rate ordinance in writing or in personal testimony. E. A Water Managers Advisory Board shall be established no later than thirty (30) days of the date this agreement shall take effect and will continue during the term of this contract. Purchaser is eligible for participation in the Water Managers Advisory Board. This Board shall meet at least monthly to communicate with and make recommendations to the City Bureau of Water Works regarding matters relating to the City's sale of water pursuant to the terms of this contract. The Water Managers Advisory Board shall consist of two representatives of the City Bureau of Water Works, to be named by the Administrator, and one representative of each participating Purchaser. The Water Managers Advisory Board shall adopt such bylaws concerning its organization and governance, as a majority of the membership shall see fit. However, the role of this Board is advisory in nature and no rule, bylaw, or action of the Water Managers Advisory Committee may alter any aspect of this agreement except as specified herein. The Administrator of the City Bureau of Water Works shall ensure that any, communication that a majority of the Advisory Board's members Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 3 address to the Commissioner-in-Charge shall be conveyed to the Commissioner-in- Charge in full. The Water Managers Advisory Board shall establish and maintain practices and procedures designed to further regional cooperation in order to maximize efficient, cost-effective methods for managing the supply, transmission, and storage of water. The Water Managers Advisory Board shall establish and maintain standards of best management practice for maintaining and operating the water utility systems utilizing water from the Portland supply and shall encourage all of its members to employ such best management practices. The Water Managers Advisory Board may carry out its duties through the establishment of committees of its membership as the members shall see fit. At a minimum, two committees shall be established. One committee shall be established for the purpose of developing and overseeing the administration of appropriate water conservation activities as identified in Section 10 below. A second committee shall be known as the Portland Regional Water Operations Group ("Operations Group"). The parties recognize that cooperation, coordination, and sharing of pertinent information will contribute to the efficient, cost-effective management of the region's water utilities, to the common benefit. Therefore, the parties agree that certain information shall be shared and joint operational planning carried out by City and Purchaser(s). The Operations Group shall be established as a committee of the Water Managers Advisory Board. The Operations Group shall meet on a quarterly basis or more often if desired by the membership. The membership of the Operations Group shall consist of two representatives of the Portland Bureau of Water Works, to be named by the Administrator, and a representative of each Purchaser. The Portland Regional Water Operations Group shall carry out two broad purposes: A. Identify standard operating practices which shall be followed, whenever practicable, by City and Purchaser(s) in order to optimize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the water system's operations for mutual benefit. These standard operating practices will address issues such as forecasting seasonal demands, forecasting peak demands, managing the system to minimize the impact of peak demand periods; use of storage, and timing of deliveries of water. B. Identify information and data that must be shared between City and Purchaser(s) in order to optimize the standard operating practices. Information and data sharing shall address issues such as: 1. System maps with mains, pump stations, tanks, and supply connections; 2. Capital Improvements Plans and Master Plans 3. Connections and usage from other supply sources 4. Growth, population, and demand forecasts 5. Conservations programs and savings 6. Total existing and new service connections by category Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 4 7. Key benchmarks to be identified by the Operations Group 8. Water quality data 9. Facilities' standards for operation to minimize peak and emergency events C. Having established standard operating practices, the Operations Group shall encourage City and all Purchasers to manage in accordance with these practices. When any Purchaser deviates from the established standard operating practices, it shall be Purchaser(s) responsibility to inform City's Operations Control Center. D. Whenever the Operations Group shall determine that any Purchaser has knowingly failed to provide pertinent information as requested or has departed from standard operating procedures without notice to the City's Operations Control Center, a penalty shall be assessed as a surcharge to that Purchaser's statement for water supplied by the City. The amount and duration of said penalty shall be determined by the Operations Group. SECTION 4 PAYMENT Purchaser agrees to pay monthly to City for all water supplied by City to Purchaser at the rates and charges which may be established by the City Council from time to time, pursuant to Section 2. Statements for water used by Purchaser shall be computed and rendered monthly to Purchaser by City. Should any meter fail to measure accurately the water passing through said meter, the charge for water used during the time the meter is out of service shall be based on the estimated volume of water supplied as the City may determine by usage averages and statistics for prior periods. Purchaser shall make payment to City on or before the thirtieth day after issuance of the statement. In the case of disputes over billings for water, Purchaser shall make monthly payments as agreed but City shall place such receipts for payment of disputes amounts into a special trust account, to be established for that purpose, pending resolution of disputes and reconciliation of accounts. a { a SECTION 5 { CONNECTIONS AND METERING i { a City will obtain its basic operational and billing data, including but not limited to volumetric use, y flow rates, and pressures from service connection meters to be installed at each point where • water is transferred from City's water system to that of Purchaser. City will be owner and responsible for selection, installation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of all such service connection meters as well as any isolation and bypass valves, telemetry, and vaults associated with such meter installation. The initial meter installed at any given point of water transfer shall be purchased and installed by City and City shall be reimbursed by Purchaser. Ongoing Portland Wholesale lVater Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft maintenance, repair, and service to such meters shall be at City expense except when a new meter is installed at an established location in order to increase meter capacity at Purchaser's request. Whenever a new meter is installed at Purchaser's request, it shall be treated as an initial meter. City may install telemetry as City may deem necessary for the control and operation of the system and such telemetry shall be installed, maintained, and repaired at City expense unless a mutual agreement to the contrary is signed by City and Purchaser(s). Purchaser shall be responsible for the installation, maintenance, and repair, at its own expense, of any equipment or facilities such as backflow devices, regulators, or control valves that Purchaser may choose to install on Purchaser's side of the service connection meter. City agrees to the continuance of the connections or to a new connection between City's water system and Purchaser's system located and sized as indicated in Appendix to this agreement. SECTION 6 NOMINATION OF SUPPLY In order that City and Purchaser may plan, budget, and operate in an orderly and efficient manner, the parties shall agree on an appropriate supply of water to be delivered through a Nomination of Supply Process as follows: A. Within 90 days following signature of this agreement, each Purchaser wishing to purchase water from City shall provide City with a Nomination Request, which shall specify on a monthly basis, for a period ending December 31, 2005, the anticipated average day, peak day, and peak season requirements for water by Purchaser. Where appropriate, the City Bureau of Water Works may Specify planning criteria for average day to peak day and peak season needs, such as maximum delivery ratios. B. City shall aggregate all Nomination Requests received from Purchasers and compare the aggregate request to the projected available resources under expected conditions. City shall be responsible for determining available resources and defining "expected conditions." C. If City's projected resources are sufficient to meet all Nomination Requests for each month in the five-year period, all Nomination Requests shall be granted. If the Administrator of the City Bureau of Water Works finds that resource projections indicate a potential deficiency of supply or transmission, taking into consideration the needs of both City and Purveyor customers, it shall be City's responsibility to so advise all Purchasers and to determine an acceptable nomination level for each customer. The reconciliation of requested nominations and available supplies may be accomplished by 1. Reviewing nominations with all Purchasers for possible revisions 2. Reviewing availability of alternative sources of supply 3. Adjusting all requested nominations to balance supply availability 4. Alternative solutions by mutual agreement Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 6 _0 1110 D. When the Administrator of the City Bureau of Water Works has accepted and confirmed a nominated amount of water for Purchaser for the ensuing five year period. Purchaser shall be assured that this nominated amount is the minimum amount of supply available to Purchaser for this life of this contract, subject to the conditions and limitations herein. The nominated amount of supply confirmed in the first five-year period under this agreement shall constitute the Base Nominated Supply. City is under no obligation to supply water in excess of the nominated amount, however nothing in this agreement shall preclude City from supplying such water in excess of the nominated amount at the discretion of the Administrator. E. By January 1, 2006 and thereafter by January 1 every 5 years, Purchaser shall submit a new Nomination Request for the ensuing five-year period. The City's Bureau of Water Works shall again consider and reconcile all nomination requests with available supplies as noted above. In no case shall the City unilaterally reduce the nominated supply for any period to less than the Base, Nominated Supply, except when circumstances beyond City's reasonable control may reduce the entire supply available to all Purchasers. If Purchaser nominates, for any subsequent five-year period, an amount less than the previously established Base Nominated Supply, this lower amount shall establish a new Base Nominated Supply. However, Purchaser is not limited to the Base Nominated Supply as the minimum nomination in any future nomination process. F. A Guaranteed Purchase Amount shall be determined as 85% of the Base Nominated Supply. If in any year, Purchaser has purchased less than the Guaranteed Purchase Amount from City, Purchaser shall pay to City at existing rates an amount sufficient to represent the Guaranteed Purchase Amount. Such payment shall be made before the last day of July. G. Whenever City may make capital improvements that lead to significant increase in system capacity, Purchasers shall have reasonable opportunity to adjust Base Nominated Supply amounts upward to take advantage of additional supplies available. SECTION 7 CURTAILMENT OF SUPPLY A. By signing this agreement, Purchaser and City acknowledge that unforeseen circumstances may limit the amount o: water available to City for sale and distribution, whether temporarily or permanently. The parties assert that the intent of this agreement is to manage available water supplies in such a manner as to maximize fulfillment of all nominated service. Should the available supply fall below the aggregate of all initial nominated amounts, City shall seek to develop mutually acceptable alternatives or to reduce all nominated amounts proportionally. B. City shall be responsible for developing a Curtailment Plan to be initiated whenever available water supplies are insufficient, for whatever reason, to meet nominated demand. The Curtailment Plan shall endeavor to effect reductions in supply by mutual agreement between City acid all Purchasers. The Water Managers Advisory Board shall have reasonable b.pportunity to participate in the development of this Curtailment Plan. Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 7 Purchaser agrees to fulfill its role in the Curtailment Plan whenever the Administrator of the Bureau of Water Works shall declare that a Curtailment Plan is in effect. C. If mutual agreement cannot be reached between City and Purchasers as to reductions under the Curtailment Plan, the Administrator of the Bureau of Water Works shall direct a proportional reduction among all users of the system. D. If Purchaser's service area is reduced for any reason, City shall have the right to reduce the nominated supply proportionately at the discretion of the Administrator of the Bureau of Water Works. SECTION 8 PURCHASER SUPPLIED WATER TO CITY RESIDENTS To the extent permitted by law, Purchaser agrees, when requested by the City Bureau of Water Works, to provide water supply to City residents in areas adjacent to Purchaser's water mains, said water to be metered by the City. The total volume of such metered water, plus 15 percent of the revenue from City customers served by Purchaser's water system, will be credited to Purchaser by City, this percentage subject to alteration by mutual agreement of the parties. Such water will not be included in the calculation of total water purchases made by Purchaser from city. SECTION 9 FINANCING CAPITAL BENEFICIAL TO PURCHASER Financing of assets for benefit to specific Purchaser(s) shall be Purchaser(s) exclusive responsibility, except to the extent the Administrator of the Bureau of Water Works finds that such assets benefit the City. Where the Administrator finds that such assets benefit the City, the City may share costs and financial responsibilities in proportion appropriate to its benefit. City may bond such facilities if any or all such Purchaser(s) guarantee payment of the portion of annual debt service not related to the benefit to the City for the duration of such City bonds. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent City and any Purchaser or group of Purchasers from entering into separate agreements for the purpose of mutually funding capital improvements where such improvements are determined to be in their mutual interest, nor shall anything in this agreement prevent City and Purchasers or others involved in mutually funding capital improvements from reaching separate agreements for the conditions and pricing of sale for water supplies derived from such mutually funded improvements. Such separate agreements may include provisions for acquisition of ownership of assets and/or capacity by Purchaser. Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 8 SECTION 10 WATER RESOURCE CONSERVATION The City intends that water to which it holds water rights shall be used beneficially, efficiently, and with the minimum practicable waste. Purchaser and the City agree to support this objective through the Water Managers Advisory Board which will establish a Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) of its own members, or staff assigned by the members, which will continue to function through the life of this contract. This group will meet on a frequency to be determined by the Water Managers, but in any case shall meet at least twice per year. The purpose of the CAC shall be to foster and promote efficient use of water and best management practices as outlined further in this section. It will also be the role of the CAC to advise the Water Managers Advisory Board in implementing the provisions of this section. Each contract customer will need to support the implementation of conservation programs by providing a Water Conservation Plan every 5 years for review and comment by the Water Managers Advisory Board. The first Conservation Plan will need to be submitted within one year after the Water Managers Advisory Board adopts the list of Best Management Practices. Standards for Submission of a Water Conservation Plan: A. If a Water Management Plan has been submitted to the Oregon Water Resources Department to meet the requirements of OAR 690-86, it and any updates will suffice to meet this requirement. B. Those members who are participants in the Regional Water Providers Consortium will also be able to submit the regional conservation programs as part of their Conservation Plan. C. All wholesale customers are expected to be fully metered at the customer level or have an implementation program to install such meters. D. Each Conservation Plan will need to consider and include Best Management Practices as defined by the Water Managers Advisory Board, which will also update these Practices periodically as needed, at least every five years, coincident with renomination for water supply. The initial determination of Best Management Practices by the Water Managers Advisory Board shall include consideration of the following, but is not limited to these alone: I. Leak detect;on and repair programs, with the objective of meeting the standard set up by the Water Resources Department's Division 609-86-140 (2)(d)(A) rules. 2. Education and outreach programs both at the regional and entity specific level. 3. Peak season reduction programs including but not limited to such programs as water audits, incentive landscape programs, workshops, mandatory landscape programs or ordinances, and irrigation controller programs (new and retrofit). 4. Large water user programs for the industrial, commercial, and institutional customer classes for both internal and external water use. 5. Rate structures that encour4ge efficient water use, and no declining block pricing. 6. Operational procedures that reduce peak day loads Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 9 7. Monitoring and tracking methods including the ability to jointly monitor and track program savings if desired. The Water Managers Advisory Board will establish the list of Best Management Practices (BMP) within three months after new wholesale contracts are signed, or the list contained in the this section will take effect for the purposes of preparing the Conservation Plans for the first time. The list of BMP's may include two tiers, one for mandatory practices, and one for voluntary practices. In addition the Water Managers Advisory Board shall adopt guidelines for the submission of Water Conservation Plans to implement the above standards. Each wholesale customer has the responsibility to implement conservation programs under their Conservation Plans in any manner they see fit. The City of Portland is willing to enter into partnerships with wholesale customers to implement joint conservation programs where such partnerships are of mutual benefit and produce increased efficiencies in program costs or water savings. SECTION I I OTHER WATER SUPPLIES Water supplies from any source other than those of the City Bureau of Water Works shall not be introduced or caused to be introduced into any part of the City's water system without the express, written consent of the Administrator of the Bureau of Water Works, pursuant to City policy. The Administrator may establish conditions and limitations on such introduction of other waters as he or she finds appropriate. SECTION 12 DISPUTE RESOLUTION In the case of any dispute arising under the terms and conditions of this agreement, the parties agree to the following dispute resolution process: A. The parties to the dispute will first meet in person to review the issues in dispute and seek a mutually-agreeable resolution; B. Should the parties fail to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution under Step A, the following process will be invoked: 1. Each party to the dispute shall identify one member of the Water Managers Advisory Board to serve on a Dispute Resolution Committee. Neither of the identified Dispute -Resolution Committee members shall be employed by or associated with either party at dispute. Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 10 1111111 1151 imillillillilillill ===WJ 2. The parties to the dispute shall jointly agree upon a third person, not a member of the Water Managers Advisory Board, to serve as Chair of the Dispute Resolution Committee. 3. The Dispute Resolution Committee shall undertake a review of the issues at dispute. This review may, at the discretion of the Dispute Resolution Committee, include personal interviews, review of data, and any other fact-finding effort the majority of the Dispute Resolution Committee may find appropriate. The parties to the dispute shall cooperate in providing information, data, and personal interviews as the Dispute Resolution Committee may see fit. 4. After completing its review, the Dispute Resolution Committee shall provide an opinion as to the appropriate and proper resolution of the dispute. 5. All proceedings, reports, and findings of the Dispute Resolution Committee shall be a matter of public record and shall be open to any member of the Water Managers Advisory Board. Nothing in this dispute resolution process shall preclude any party to this agreement from seeking recourse to legal proceedings to seek enforcement of this agreement and to resolve disputes. However, the parties agree that recourse to legal proceedings shall not be undertaken before the dispute resolution process outlined herein has been completed. SECTION 13 DURATION OF AGREEMENT The parties agree herein that this agreement shall remain in force and effect in perpetuity, unless one or both parties shall take steps as indicated in this Section to terminate the agreement. Should either party to this agreement wish to terminate said agreement, that party shall serve written notice upon the other of said intention. Such notice having been served, this agreement shall be terminated five (5) years from date of notice. However, nothing shall prevent this agreement from being terminated in less than five years from notice, except that earlier termination shall be by mutual agreement only. City shall not serve notice of intent to terminate this agreement before January 1, 2020 except by H mutual agreement with Purchaser. ca H The parties hereby acknowledge that there may be circumstances which require supplemental agreements between City and Purchaser. To the extent that any such supplemental agreements are not inconsistent with the terms of this contract, then City and Purchaser may enter into such agreements to implement the provisions of this contract. W a Portland Wholesale Water Contract - Rev 7-20-00 Draft 11 Third Draft - 6/30100 Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal Introduction The purpose of this conceptual discussion paper is to outline two alternative proposals to discuss and consider in pricing Portland's water supply resources to their wholesale customers. As Portland moves to a new contract with their wholesale customers, consideration must be given to the issues and concerns that have been raised by all parties to this process, and balanced accordingly. In developing this conceptual discussion paper, a great deal of work and thought has preceded it. In particular, a white paper was, jointly developed between the Bureau and the wholesale customers discussing various scenarios and their implications upon pricing. In addition, the Bureau has reviewed a wide variety of conceptual pricing perspectives and analyzed them for their viability. This discussion paper is the culmination of those efforts. Portland and their wholesale customers are in a period of transition in terms of pricing. The approach used in the past will likely be modified to meet the long-term needs of both parties and to consider the overall goals and objectives desired from this process. Therefore, consideration must be given to both the short-tern and long-term perspectives of these conceptual discussions. A balance must be found between the short-term and long-term goals of the parties. As a part of this process, Portland considered their goals and objectives for the pricing element of the wholesale contract. These were as follows: ® No significant and immediate negative impacts to Portland's retail customers ® Develop a fair and equitable approach to growth ® Predictability and stability for Portland and the wholesale customers ® Ease of rate administration In developing this conceptual discussion paper, Portland attempted to meet the above objectives and reviewed various options to meet them in different ways. Pricing Issues in Developing the Current Discussion As noted above, one of the challenges of this process is understanding that there will be a transition between the current pricing approach of the existing contract and the new contract. Within the existing contract, certain pricing concepts were used that were not "traditional" but rather variations of the traditional pricing concepts. The use of these non-traditional pricing concepts within the overall pricing approach appeared to be necessary for purposes of concluding the contract process (i.e. striking the deal). In particular, the use of replacement cost depreciation and the method for determining return on investment were variations of traditional wholesale pricing methods. From Portland's perspective, the wholesale customer's concerns Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) surrounding these issues should be addressed. If possible, movement towards a more traditional pricing approach should be considered. In summary form, the current major pricing issues as viewed by Portland include the following: • 'T'ransition from a "Non-Traditional" Pricing Approach ✓ Use of Replacement Cost Depreciation ✓ Calculation of Return On Investment • Lack of a Provision Addressing Growth • Useful Lives of Supply and Transmission Assets • Value of the Resource - Long -Term Perspective - • Participation in Financing of Future Projects The issue of the transition from the current pricing approach to a new alternative pricing approach has been discussed above. This change in pricing methodology may imply the need for a short transition period within the contract to minimize immediate impacts to Portland's retail. customers. One of the major issues associated with the contract is the issue of growth and how growth related costs are shared. Although the initial version of the existing contract attempted to address growth, it ultimately was determined by Portland and their wholesale customers to be unworkable. As a result, the section addressing growth was subsequently removed from the contract by amendment. The new contract should have a pricing mechanism to address this issue. Another key issue from Portland's perspective is the useful lives of the supply and transmission assets, which ties directly in to the long-term value (pricing) of the resource. Consideration must be given to the fact that the supply and transmission assets have useful lives that far exceed their accounting lives. Therefore, these assets will have significant value long after their current assumed accounting life. Therefore, one of the alternatives that Portland would like to explore is revising the useful lives of these specific assets for rate/pricing purposes to better match the their actual useful lives. Finally, the pricing mechanism must consider the aspect of future participation of joint partners and how that will be addressed in any pricing decisions. Given the above issues, the focus shifts to discussing the conceptual development of a pricing proposal. Review of the Alternatives Two alternatives have been developed and are discussed in detail below. Both of these alternatives are similar in their analytical framework, but deal with the issue of the valuation of the source of supply in a different manner. Portland is still in the process of analyzing both of these alternatives, and is working towards a fully developed pricing concept. As noted previously, the existing contract, in terms of pricing, utilized a "non-traditional" approach. While it can be argued, from a traditional utility rate making perspective, the use of 2 Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) replacement cost depreciation may over-collect for capital replacement, at the same time, it can also be argued that the method within the existing contract of calculating return on investment may have under-collected. From Portland's perspective, the new pricing proposal should be forward looking, and not attempt to go backwards and "true-up" for past pricing concepts that were non-traditional in nature. Provided below is a detailed discussion of the key elements of Portland's conceptual pricing proposal at this time. "Alternative A" Pricing Proposal Provided below is a conceptual discussion of the first pricing alternative. Propose. the Use of a Traditional Pricing Model Portland would propose the use of a traditional pricing model, assuming that certain elements of the pricing proposal meet the goals and objectives of both Portland and the wholesale customers. Specifically, the following concepts for pricing are proposed: ✓ Utility Basis Approach - The pricing will be based upon the traditional utility basis approach to rate making. The basic elements included in the utility basis approach are shown below in Table 1. 3 Elm Conceptual Discussion of the ' Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) Table I Summary of the Traditional Utility/Accrual Methodology + Operation and Maintenance Expenses + Taxes/Transfer Payments + Depreciation Expense (Annual Original Cost) + Return on Rate Base (Investment) = Total Revenue Requirement Where: Rate Base Equals + Original Cost of Plant in Service Accumulated Depreciation Net Plant in Service Contributions in Aid + Working Capital = Rate Base (Investment) ✓ Use of Original Cost Depreciation Expense - The conceptual pricing proposal for this alternative will consider the use of original cost depreciation expense. This will be considered in the context of the need to re-evaluate the useful life assignments of the supply and transmission facilities. This aspect of the conceptual pricing proposal is discussed in more detail below. ✓ Re-evaluate the Useful Life Assignments of the Supply and Transmission System - Portland is concerned that the "value" of the resource will not be reflected in the price of the resource over the long-term. This is primarily a function of the assumed accounting lives of these assets, in comparison to their useful lives. Therefore, for this particular alternative, Portland would propose that this issue be further explored and discussed between the parties. This will lead to a better understanding of the long-term pricing implications of re-evaluating the useful life assignments of the supply system and the transmission system. Out of this process would be updated useful lives to appropriately reflect the remaining service life of those assets, as it affects depreciation expense, accumulated depreciation and rate base. As discussed above, in performing this re-evaluation Portland is looking forward in the pricing process, and not intertwining old contract methodologies and issues. ✓ Rate of Return - Under traditional pricing approaches, as the owner of the system, Portland is entitled to a "fair" return on their investment. The traditional method of establishing a rate of return for purposes of the utility basis approach is the weighted cost of capital approach. While this certainly is a viable approach, it contains elements of complexity that may be open for disagreement between the parties. One of the overall objectives of Portland is to establish a methodology that can be easily updated and not open to interpretation. Portland will consider a weighted cost of capital approach, if a method of establishing the cost of equity 4 ' Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) can be mutually established, and easily updated on an annual basis. Absent that, Portland would propose a simplified approach that would utilize Portland Water Bureau's cost of debt, plus an agreed upon fixed premium for other appropriate factors. ✓ Allocation of Capital Costs (Cost of Service Allocation Factors) - By moving towards an overall contractual approach that uses nominated capacity, consideration must be given to the cost allocation process and the allocation factors that will be used. By using a nomination process, Portland is committing to certain volumes, under normal water conditions. Given that, the capacity allocation factors for capital facilities should be based upon the greater of the wholesale customer's actual use or the nominated capacity. When a customer exceeds their nominated capacity in any particular year, the customer's actual usage will be used,for the following year's allocation of capital. This method should provide proper pricing incentives for the customers to control their usage around nominated amounts, yet at the same time, not be excessively punitive. ✓ Allocation of O&M Costs (Cost of Service Allocation Factors) - While capital costs will be allocated on the basis of nominated capacities, O&M will be allocated on the basis of actual use. ✓ Growth Related Facilities - An objective of Portland's conceptual pricing proposal is to protect retail customers from the cost of suburban growth. As a result of that objective, the focus will be on future facilities. Under the proposed contractual arrangement, new facilities may be developed on a joint financing process and/or nomination process. We currently believe this approach will provide for a generally equitable allocation of growth costs. The issue of the carrying costs of excess capacity on future projects remains to be discussed and resolved. ✓ Wholesale Customer's Participation in Future Projects - From a rate making perspective, those wholesale customers that participate in directly funding a share of a future project will have their share of the asset excluded from Portland's depreciation expense and rate base. for rate making purposes. For example, a customer may participate via a direct cash contribution to the project, issue their own debt for their share of the project, or "piggy-back" on Portland's issuance of debt for a project. In summary, Portland is open to wholesale customer participation in projects that may be funded via a wide variety of approaches. ✓ O&M True-up - Portland will provide a true-up of annual O&M expenses in relation to the rates paid. The true up will compare the projected expenses to the actual expenses and a percentage ratio will be developed (e.g. 98%). The true-up will work for both an under and over-expenditure condition. The ratio developed will be applied against each customer's bill. before penalties for excess use. Still 5 Conceptual Discussion'of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) to be determined is whether the true-up will be provided to the customer in the form of an annual rebate/bill, or a carry-forward into the following year's rate calculation. ✓ Capital True-Up - No capital true-up is proposed or needed. ✓ Penalties for Excess Use Beyond the Nominated Amount - In providing a nomination to Portland, the wholesale customer is attempting to provide their best estimate of their future usage. Understanding that it is not in the best interests of either party to have customers over or under nominate, it is proposed that a graduated penalty system be developed for use beyond the nominated amount. In addition, the penalties for exceeding peak day, peak season and annual use nominations may vary. From Portland's perspective, peak season is the most critical operating parameter and would likely carry the highest penalty. In contrast, annual usage is the least critical of the three nominated values and may carry little penalty for excess use. It is proposed that the penalties, levied on a graduated basis, would be a multiple of the actual rate. As an example, for a customer that exceeds their peak season nomination by 5%, the penalty may be a rate of 110% applied to their total seasonal usage. In contrast, a customer that exceeded their nominated peak season usage by 25% may have a 150% penalty. The penalties are intended to be "one-time" (e.g. a speeding ticket), with the exception that the customer's actual usage will be used for capital allocation in the following year. ✓ Conservation- Portland believes that providing pricing incentives for conservation is appropriate. Portland should work with their wholesale customers to develop appropriate incentives, based upon the level of conservation activities undertaken by each utility. ✓ Individual Rates For Individual Customers - Given the proposed use of nominated amounts, along with the desire to provide pricing incentives and penalties associated with consumption, it appears that each individual customer will need to have an individual rate based upon their specific usage characteristics and portion of the system used. The above discussion summarizes the Alternative A pricing proposal. Provided below is a discussion of the other pricing alternative. "Alternative B" Pricing Proposal Provided below is a conceptual discussion of the second pricing alternative. It is similar to the first alternative, but deals with the issue of the pricing of source of supply in a slightly different manner. Therefore, in those specific areas of the pricing proposal where the approach or concept 6 Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) is identical under either alternative, a brief reference to the discussion under Alternative A will be made. Propose the Use of a Traditional Pricing Model Under this alternative, the pricing framework is similar to Alternative A, with a variation on the way in which source of supply and transmission assets are dealt with. Specifically, the following concepts for pricing are proposed under Alternative B: ✓ Utility Basis Approach - The pricing will be based upon the traditional utility basis approach to rate snaking. The basic elements included in the utility basis approach are shown below in Table 2. 7 Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) Table 2 Summary of the Alternative B Methodology + Operation and ;Maintenance Expenses + Taxes/Transfer Payments + Depreciation Expense (Annual) [Excluding Bull Run/Conduits] + Return on Rate Base (Investment) = Total Revenue Requirement Where: Rate Base Equals + Bull Run/Conduits (Original Cost) + All Other Plant in Service (OC - AD) = Net Plant in Service - Contributions in Aid + Working Capital = Rate Base (Investment) Given that Portland is considering a long-term contract for wholesale water supply (potentially into perpetuity), one of the major pricing issues that Portland is concerned about is the long-term pricing of the Bull Run resource. This alternative creates price and revenue stability in long-term pricing as it specifically relates to the water provided by Bull Run. This is accomplished by utilizing within the rate base calculation, the original cost of source of supply/transmission facilities (roughly described as Bull Run to Powell Butte), but exclude accumulated depreciation for these specific facilities. All other rate base assets would be handled using the traditional original cost, less accumulated depreciation. This methodology is not a replacement cost approach since the original cost of source of supply/conduit plant is utilized. At the same time, this is also not a "marginal" methodology, which could be utilized to value the resource over the long term. Under this alternative, Portland would receive some value for the resource, regardless of the accounting value of assets. j ✓ Use of Original Cost Depreciation Expense - Under this alternative, original cost depreciation expense would be utilized for all assets, excluding the Bull Run and conduits to Powell Butte. No depreciation expense would be taken for the existing Bull Run facilities and conduits to Powell Butte. ✓ Re-evaluate the Useful Life Assignments of the Supply and Transmission System - Under this particular alternative, all other assets serving wholesale customers, 1 excluding the Bull Run and conduits, will be re-evaluated for their useful life a assignments. ✓ Rate of Return - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. 8 Conceptual Discussion of the Portland Water Bureau Wholesale Pricing Proposal (continued) ✓ Allocation of Capital Costs (Cost of Service Allocation Factors) - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. ✓ Allocation of O&M Costs (Cost of Service Allocation Factors) - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. ✓ Growth Related Facilities - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. ✓ Wholesale Customer's Participation in Future Projects - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. ✓ O&M True-up - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. ✓ Capital True-Up - No capital true-up is proposed or needed. ✓ Penalties for Excess Use Beyond the Nominated Amount - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. ✓ Conservation- Identical to proposal under Alternative A. ✓ Individual Rates For Individual Customers - Identical to proposal under Alternative A. Summary The above conceptual discussion of each pricing alternative provides a better understanding of Portland's current thinking in the area of pricing, while at the same time, acknowledging the wholesale customer's areas of concern. This conceptual discussion paper is intended to promote discussion and clarification of the concepts and begin the process of developing a final pricing/rate proposal. I I 9 Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1670 Portland, OR. 972043620 (503) 223-3033 FAX (503) 274-6248 Memorandum To: Joe Thompson Date: June 19, 2000 Gary Pippin Rob Foster Dave Winship From: Randy Goff Project: 400105.2 Subject: City of Tigard Buy-In Options cc: Attached please find a discussion paper with regards to options for the City of Tigard to buy-in to the Joint Water Commission (JWC). This paper will be used as a discussion document at our Thursday, June 22nd meeting. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. /400105.2/JWCDisto61900 Joint Water Commission, City of Tigard Buy-in Options 1.0 introduction The City of Tigard (City) has requested to purchase water and eventually become a partner in the Joint Water Commission (JWC). Based on initial discussions between the City and JWC, the lack of a raw water source at this time precludes the JWC from allowing the City to become a participant. However, the City and the JWC along with the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) are also pursuing opportunities for increasing the raw water impoundment within the Tualatin River Basin. In the interim, the City has requested the ability to buy water from the JWC. The JWC is reviewing this issue. Allowing the City to buy water from the JWC can be accomplished in a number different ways. These include the following: ❑ Sell no water to the City ❑ Sell at wholesale rates ❑ Allow the City to buy-in for a percentage of current capacity ❑ Have the City buy existing assets for raw water and transmission and buy new assets for treatment and storage It should be noted that the last two options provide for the City to have an ownership interest in the JWC. This ownership interest would be predicated on the future ability of the City and other JWC members to obtain additional raw water storage. To the extent that obtaining additional raw water storage cannot be accomplished within a reasonable timeframe, then the JWC would repurchase the assets from the City. Presented in this paper is a discussion of each of these options. The basic concept behind the option is outlined and advantages and disadvantages associated with each option are provided. The purpose of this paper is meant to facilitate discussion and consensus building among the JWC members. I Joint Water-Commission, Cityof Tigard Buy-in Options 1 14001052/JWCDist061900 1.1 Purchase Option 1.1.1 No Sell Option Description.: This option would provide that the JWC would not sell water to the City. While the JWC could sell some surplus water to the City as available, no provisions would be made for the City to ultimately be able to become an owner in the JWC if raw water could be procured. Advantages The main advantage of this option is that it would provide for preservation of the current owners rights to water. Furthermore, it would allow the current JWC members to take as much water as they could possibly use. Disadvantages The main disadvantage to this option is that it would not help to facilitate development of a new raw water source. To the extent that as many participants as possible can seek to increase raw water storage within the basin, then this will enhance the ability to accomplish this goal. This enhancement will come, not only through the Regional Water Supply Consortium, but also the environmental review process. 1.1.2 Sell At Wholesale Rates Description: This option would provide for sales to the City at standard wholesale rates. These rates would be comprised of operation and maintenance, depreciation plus a return on investment. Advantages The advantage of this option is that it would allow the JWC to recoup a portion of their fixed investment cost through the sale of surplus water. Joint Water Commission, City of Tigard Buy-in Qpbons 2 r /400105.2/JW®1st061900 Disadvantages The main disadvantage to this option is that it would not send a clear message to the b that the JWC would. ultimately want the to bean m owner in the system. To the extent that the' C provides for the City to pay for utility infrastructure, this sends a very strong message of the JWC's desire to have the City become an ultimate partner. The other disadvantage to this option is that the JWC might have to invest in facilities to provide water service and not obtain up front cash payments for those infrastructure improvements. 1.1.3 Allow The City To Buy-in For A Percentage Of Current Capacity Description: This option would provide that the City would buy-in to the JWC as a percentage owner. It is assumed that the ownership percentages would be purchased from the other JWC participants. The pricing for this option would be approximately the same as current buy-in provisions for the JWC members. The ultimate decision to allow the City to continue to be a participant would be dependent on the ability to obtain additional raw water. To the extent that the JWC and City were unable to obtain additional raw water, then a buy-back provision would have to be included as part of the percentage sale to the City. Advantages The advantages of this option are that it provides the City with an indication of the JWC's desire to have them ultimately participating member. Secondly, this is the common methodology utilized by the JWC participants for buying and selling of capacity rights within the system. Disadvantages The main disadvantage to this option is that it does not recognize incremental costs associated with serving the City. To the extent that the a-~ serve the City, the payment price may not compensate the JWC members for their individual investment. Joint Water Commission, City of Tigard Buy-!n Options 3 r /400105.25DJMA061900 1.1.4 Have The City Buy Existing Assets For Raw Water And Transmission And Buy New Assets For Treatment And Storage Description: This option would provide that the City would pay for existing assets to the extent that excess capacity exists. This would be in the transmission system and raw water. To obtain water service, the City would also be required to invest in new facilities to provide them service. This would include expansion of finished storage facilities as well as the treatment facilities. The City and JWC members would be required to facilitate increasing raw water storage in order to serve the ultimate demands of the JWC members and City. To the extent that additional raw water storage could not be obtained, then the JWC members would have to repurchase the assets from the City in the future. Advantages The advantage of this option is that it sends a very clear message to the City of the JWC's desire to have the City be a participant. This method also provides cash funding to the JWC members for new facilities. The method also recognizes the purchase of existing assets where excess capacity is available and at the same time requires the City to build new infrastructure to provide the additional service. This allows the current JWC members to continue their capacity allocations and at the same time provide the City with water Disadvantages The only disadvantage to this option is that, to the extent that the current JWC members are not utilizing their existing capacity in the treatment plant and storage, then they would continue to have to pay for this while the City i invested in new facilities. i i 1.2 Conclusion { Presented in this paper has been a discussion of various options to allow the City of Tigard to become an ultimate participant in the JWC. This would require that additional raw water would need to be obtained. The City would insist on the ability to obtain short term water with a requirement that the JWC and other participants in the Tualatin River Basin move forward at an accelerated pace to expand raw water storage capabilities within the basin. Joint Water Commission, City of Tigard Buyln Options 4 RE: Regulatory Agency Review and Preliminary Findings - Clackamas River Water Supply 1. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) • The big issue will be TMDL as it relates to the Clean Water Act/Temperature Issues • Clackamas River key priority - drinking water and fish habitat • No fatal flaws - may need to do mitigation for temperature impacts - this would be covered in the Habitat and Conservation Plan ii. Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) • Like approach of expanded service area • By changing points of diversion - cannot show harm to existing users • Have no problem within this Clackamas Service Area • It is a long process, but not real tough III. National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) • Most fluid process, with the greatest impact • Future additional listings may have impact • 4(d) rule is going to impact screens with compliance certificate • Stay in touch with staff throughout process • Habitat and Conservation Plan will be required - after approval, we will have to do implementation plan • We will need Biological assessments These reports will be a multi-year project and may cost upwards of $500,000. Bottom line - no fatal flaws, a lot of processes and studies. JUL-21-2000 04:02PM FROM-MURRAY SMITH ASSOC ¢6032268022 T-062 P 002/006 F-213 DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) South Fork Water Board City of Tigard City of Lake Oswego North Clackamas County Water Commission July 21, 2000 PARTICIPANTS: The parties to this agreement are as follows: • South Fork Water Board (SFWB), which is the jointly owned water supply agency for the Cities of Oregon City and West Linn • City of Tigard, also representing the Cities of King City and Durham and adjacent unincorporated areas of Washington County • North Clackamas County Water Commission (NCCWC), which is the jointly water supply agency for the Oak Lodge Water District (OLWD), the Mt. Scott Water District (MSWD), and the Damascus Water District (DWD) • City of Lake Oswego PURPOSE: The purpose of this agreement is to secure commitments from each participant for cooperative water system planning, improvements, operations and management. WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS: 1. The Participants (the South Fork Water Board, the City of Tigard, the City of Lake Oswego and the North Clackamas County Water Commission) and the City of Gladstone commissioned a study entitled "Concept Overview and Decision Guidance Document for Water Supply Options" which was completed and dated February 17, 2000. 2. That study concluded that collective actions by the Participants and others could achieve many benefits including improved economy of water supply, improved water supply reliability, and more effective joint response to regulatory challenges. 3. The Participants concur with the findings of that study and agree that it is to their individual and mutual benefit to undertake joint water supply system planning, improvements, operations and management activities. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 5 7/21/2000 JUL-11-2000 04:02PM FROM-MURRAY SMITH ASSOC +3032258022 T-062 P 003/006 F-213 4. The Participants agreed to continue with Cooperative water supply planning and commissioned a multi-phased joint water supply system planning effort in May 2000. 5. Under Phase 1 of this joint planning effort the Participants have authorized the preparation of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the goal of forming a partnership for accomplishing their individual and conmon goals. 6. All of the Participants except the City of Tigard have water rights on the Clackamas River. The City of Tigard desires to obtain a permanent water supply from the Clackamas River. 7. The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) is presently evaluating and considering changes to the historical consideration of municipal water rights as perpetual and is developing new municipal water right permit extension rules. These permit extension rules, when developed, have the potential to limit or reduce the ultimate ability to withdraw water from the Clackamas River as authorized in the Participants' permits. The Participants agree that protecting and managing their existing water rights is best achieved through a joint and cooperative approach. The OWRD strongly desires cooperation and collaboration regarding municipal water rights and for existing and future municipal water supply systems on the Clackamas River. 8. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed a number of salmon and steelhead species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With the listing of these endangered species on the Clackamas River, and the potential for additional listings, the Participants agree that a coordinated approach to water supply operations and facility improvements on the Clackamas River will provide greater opportunities for the successful implementation of improvements. Actions currently under consideration by NMFS may result in the need for additional regulatory compliance efforts to support existing operations and may require the development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and implementation agreement (IA). Any expansion of water supply withdrawals on the Clackamas River will trigger a consultation process with NMFS with the anticipated issuance of a biological opinion (BO) by that Agency. An HCP will be required to be completed as part of that consultation process. The HCP is best accomplished cooperatively by all of the Participants and other water supply agencies on the Lower Clackamas River. 9. The protection of fish species on the Clackamas River has the potential to adversely impact the ability to withdraw water from the Clackamas River as authorized in the Participants' permits. The Participants agree that cooperative efforts have the potential to reduce the impact of potential limitations or reductions in withdrawals. 10. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently establishing total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards for Oregon rivers under the Clean Water Act. The development and implementation of these standards may impact existing and future Murray, Smith & Associ ttcs, Inc. Page 2 of 5 7n 1 /2000 JUL-21-2000 04:03PM FROM-MURRAY SMITH ASSOC +5032250022 T-062 P 004/006 F-213 water supply development activities on the Clackamas River. The Participants agree that coordinated participation with DEQ in the development of the TMDL standards will benefit the Participants and other water supply agencies on the Lower Clackamas River. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Participants, either individually or collectively, agree to consider the inclusion of the City of Tigard water service area under their current water rights or otherwise assign and commit sufficient water rights to Tigard's use. 2. The Participants agree to proceed with the formation of an interlocal agency to be created through an intergovernmental agreement under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 190. The ORS 190 agreement should include the following principles: • Capability For Central Financing - The agreement should provide for centrally issued debt even though initially capital improvements may be funded directly by participants. • Cost Allocation Principles - Capital costs of new facilities should be allocated in proportion to capacity. Cost allocation in accordance with incremental capacity increases should not be considered. • Purchase Of Existing Facilities Purchase of existing facilities should be on an equitable basis that recognizes the owning agency's investment and value and is also fair to the purchasing agency. • Operation and Maintenance Costs - The agreement should provide for equitable recovery of system O&M costs. The system should be operated on an "at cost" basis and no participant should be advantaged or be allowed to profit from participation in the system. • Authority to impose Rates - The agency should have the authority to impose rates and charges in order to recover its costs. The costs to be recovered include capital costs, O&M costs, administrative costs, debt service, and "must lease" capacity payments. • Deftnition of Ownership and Capacity Interests - The ownership rights to participant agencies should be sufficiently robust to facilitate local debt issuance in support of proposed projects. Participant agencies should be provided explicit capacity rights that define a supply resource that they may rely on for their own water system planning. • Provisions for Additional Participants - A mechanism should be provided for adding new participants in the future. These provisions could include buy-in provisions to existing facilities as well as additional charges to reflect the expenditures of the original participants as well as the risks taken by the original participants in the system. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 5 7/21/2000 4UL-21-2000 04:03PM FROM-MURRAY SMITH ASSOC +5032259022 T-062 P 006/006 F-213 • Participation in System Expansions - A process should be provided for expanding the system. The process would identify rational expansion projects and the procedures for subscribing to the projects by the participants. • "Must Lease" Provisions - With the understanding that the participants in the joint agency would want to promote efficient use of available capacity, the agreement should include provisions that the joint agency would act as the broker for unused capacity in the system under a defined pricing structure. Participants with excess capacity must make it available and the participant requiring capacity must lease that capacity through the joint agency. • Sale of Wholesale Water or System Capacity - The joint agency should have the ability to sell capacity or water unused by the participants. • Wholesale System Development Charges (SDC's) - Where central financing is utilized, a wholesale SDC should be established for the joint agency. With local funding, each participant can impose their own SDC under their own methodology. • Decision-Making - A decision-making structure must be established which provides for equitable representation and efficient execution of the joint agency's duties. Many models can be considered that provide a balance between proportional representation and the interests of each participant, regardless of size. Alternatives that could be considered include one agency/onc vote, voting or representation weighted by capacity, voting or representation weighted by financial commitment, and a dual majority system. 3. The Participants agree that the agreement forming the ORS 190 agency will be executed in a timely manner with a target date for completion of March 31, 2001. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 5 7121/2000 JUL-21-2000 04:04PM FROM-MURRAY SMITH ASSOC +6032269022 T-062 P 006/006 F-213 AGREEMENT: This Memorandum of Understanding is accepted by all participants. SOUTH FORK WATER BOARD CITY OF TIGARD By: By: Date: Date: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO NORTH CLACKAMAS COUNTY WATER COMMISSION By: By: Date: Date: N >a >a Murray, Smith & AssociareS. Inc. Page 5 of 5 7/21 r?000 AGENDA ITEM # J FOR AGENDA OF September 12, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Survey and Discussion of Home Occupation Regulations, PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff i DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK e; t N I(WN 1 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Community Development Code be changed to allow an "educational exemption" or no limit to clients for piano instruction? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Continue to apply the existing regulations. INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff researched the home occupation practices of other cities and counties. A comparison is shown, along with the City of Tigard's standards, in the attached matrix. The survey is the result of a request by Sherrene Walker concerning restrictions on home occupations that would affect her piano instruction business. Ms. Walker provides piano instruction to approximately 60 students out of her home at 14973 SW Rosario Lane in the Washington County Urban Planning Area. Instruction has been provided without a home occupation permit from either Washington County or the City of Tigard. Ms. Walker asked the City Council for an "educational exemption" from the City's home occupation requirements. In lieu of the exemption, she requested changes to the development code including: (1) requiring only a business license, (2) change the time limit to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and (3) have no limit on the number of clients. It should be noted that the City does not charge for business licenses outside the City. As might be expected, standards and approaches vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some have both Type I and Type 11 permits for home occupations; others have only Type I permits, and still others have no I such permits. (Type I permits are those non discretionary reviews that can be done over the counter. Type II permits are discretionary and require notice.) The jurisdictions also vary as to what is permitted for the number of customers, fees, deliveries, repair and the like. Many have prohibitions against noise, heat, glare, etc. outside the home or property line as well as storage restrictions. The City of Tigard amended its development code in 1991 to adopt its present home occupation regulations. This was the result of several months of study of the Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPOs), the Planning Commission and staff as well as study of other cities. a The greatest issue relating to Ms. Walker's request is traffic and impact on residential neighborhoods. There is also an issue of whether all instruction, if treated as Ms. Walker requests for piano instruction, would be appropriate or have potential detrimental effects on adjacent property owners. There are a number of other types of instruction that could fall under the "educational exemption". These would include the teaching of drums, horns, violins, dance, karate, judo and school-type instruction. As a note, the City was called by a number of residents on Bull Mountain regarding a neighbor's intent to run a dance studio out of his garage. This was prior to his making application. The neighborhood was vehemently opposed and concerned to the number of potential customers. The City's six customer limit per day alleviated some of that concern. Unlimited clients would have raised neighborhood ire but would have made the applicant very happy. In regard to traffic, the City hears more complaints about traffic than any other issue. It comes in opinion surveys, development complaints, from neighborhoods, code enforcement calls, etc. The average number of vehicle trips for a single family house is ten per day. With six customers, it could be expected to reach 22. A teacher accepting 60 customers, would equate to up to 120 additional trips. This is an average of 24 extra trips per day in a 5 day week. The City of Tigard's fees were established to cover the cost of reviewing an application after study in 1996. Most of the other cities require renewals. Tigard requires only a one time permit for home occupations. A business tax is paid by in-City residents. It is suggested that if the Council decides to make changes, they be limited. Because of traffic concerns and equity with other types of instruction, staff cannot suggest unlimited clients. Staff believes the existing code provides a fair balance of limited home business and neighborhood protection. Changing the City development code will affect only the City limits. Washington County would have to amend its adoption of the City's code for the urban growth area for any new regulations to be effective outside the City limits. Washington County staff indicated that to allow such a use that was different than their home occupation would require a plan amendment. A plan amendment to change a single family to allow commercial use would be difficult if not impossible. The County staff indicated that their home occupation standards have been established after much difficulty and that they would not want to change them. All code amendments in the County are initiated by the Commission. To change the City development code requires a 45 day notice to DLCD prior to the first hearing. Two z hearings are required, one by the Planning Commission and one by the City Council. The time period involved is between 3 and 4 months once the code amendments are drafted. The fee for a City code amendment initiated by a property owner is $1415. As a result of Ballot Measure 56, notice would be required to be made to an estimated 12,578 property owners in City residential zones alone. The cost of the mailing for this notice is estimated at $4,830. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Amend the development code for unlimited clients. 2. Amend the development code to exempt pupils from the customer limit. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth & Growth Management: Goal #1, Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas and Goal #2, Urban services are provided to all citizens with Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. FISCAL NOTES Fees and cost of service; Ballot Measure 56 notice requirements for a code amendment to the home occupation standards is estimated at $4,830 which is paid by the applicant for property initiated applications and by the City for City initiated applications. 1:burpln\dick\,hopsurvey.sumdoc 5-Sep-OO/2:50 PM 1 i -I HOME OCCUPATION SURVEY (Page 1 of 3) Business . ^.Ciw . Types Fee - Expiration Deliveries ;Customers,- Employees, Size Urnit Licenseflax Hours Signs Use Prohibitions Notes - Tigard Type I Principal $30 None No more None None 528 sq.ft. $55 8a-10p 1.5 No auto repair, More than 1 Occupants ($172 URB) than 3 per sq.ft. meth repair, junk allowed per Only week salvage, fireworks dwelling Type Principal $545 None - No more than One $55 - Il Occupants ($883 URB) 6 per day Only Beaverton No Permanent N/A N/A NIA 5 or less None N/A $50 N/A 2 sq.ft. No retail sales, No permit is - Type Residents display graphics or required if HOP Only banners doesn't reach Type 11 limits Type Permanent $100 5 years N/A 6 or more One N/A $50 NIA Staff indicates if II Residents more traffic, may Only not approve take Type I Family Only Business Yearly None N/A None 25% floor area $75 N/A None Can not alter Staff says under Oswego License neighborhood broad character parameters of neighborhood charter would deny or prohibit if too much traffic and neighbor complaints 1(ing Type I Tenants Only Business Yearly None None None N/A $100 first N/A None N/A Code says home city License year office generating no traffic to site S50 each and no outward additional appearance of year business Portland Type I Residents Business 2 years 8a-5p None None None 2.2% of net 7a-9p 10 feet No repair, Only Tax income over engines, vehicles $25,000 No Dispatch services No HOP if have necessary dwelling unit Type Residents Business 2 years 8a-5p No more than One None 2.2% of net 7a-9p 10 feet - II Only Tax 8 per day income over $25.000 TT~T T r. T r TfTT(TT--- HOME OCCUPATION SURVEY (Page 2 of 3) Business Use u City Types Who Fee :'Expiration Deliveries Customers Employees : Size Limit Hours Signs Notes . LicenseITax Provisions Wesb'- Type I Habitants $100 None No more No more than Up to 3 20% floor area $30 if NIA None NIA Linn than 5 per 5 per day or 300 sq.ft. employees day including including delivery, customers excluding pupils Type II Habitants $875 None No more No more than Up to 3 30% floor area $30 N/A None N/A than 10 per 10 per day or 500 sq.ft. day including including delivery, customers excluding _ pupils Clackamas Type II Residents $177 Annual N/A No more than No more NIA N/A N/A 30 sq.ft. Type 11, no Only Type 11's County Only 5 vehicle trips than 5 vehicles over are reviewed, No more 11,000 lbs. rest are than 5 accessory uses 2 vehicles for repairs Forest Type I Family $59/10 years 10 years N/A Traffic not to NIA 20% of main N/A N/A None N/A Grove , Members (to ee increased) exceed building normal single family Gresham Type I Permanent $25 Annual None None None 50% floor area $36 7a-10p None Vehicle repair New code Residents (except and postal, maintenance, FedEx, dismantling, UPS) crew staging, industrial Type II Permanent $250/2 years 2 years None No Limit One 50% floor area S36 7a-10p None Vehicle repair New code Residents (except and postal, maintenance, FedEx, dismantling, UPS) crew staging, industrial Tualatin Type I Permanent See Notes See Notes Not over 2 Only by None N/A $50 N/A 1 sq. ft. C-6, CC, MC No display Residents ton trucks telephone or inside and M6 users mail, except window While Tualatin counselors or has code tutoring provisions, they do not process permits and are looking at developing new requirements Ngtes,:. use Business. Hourssigns Provisfoirs to ees Ste L3mitr,'. Ucenserr2% NIA 2 sq• ft. No retail sales , JRVEY Customers:. Smp Y. NIA HOMEOCCUPACION Elrpirationi .Dehyeries None 25%floor area, FeeLess than 6 400 sq.ft. Mal No retail sales CdY TYPeS, ° Annual NIA per day NIA 2 sq.f1. accessibilit NIA I Permanent $175 1 25% floor on-, area, in TYPe esidents ( $82 renewal) NIA 10 per day 400 sqft. may. 20 sq.ft. in Wash gt commercial Annual accessibility Type II Permanent $883 zone NIA Has regulations NIA but doesn't s , , , Residents ($257 renew NIA al) NIA follow a ennit 1 NIA process N/A NIA NIA No direct retail Home - $0 - None occupation Type 1 N/A 7a - g P sales, auto NeWlf9; Fee not junk, ordinance }ust None 25% floor area, established repairs, j adopted week 10 customer or 528 sq. ft- ected salvage, etc. 8115100 None as 3 per vehicle trips (which ever is but exp to be WO Principal Business long as the with no more annually less) Bed & Type I License :Kill stioro - " Residents business than 2 Breakfasts and two license is customer require persons maintained vehicles on conditional use y closely site at any approval Y.r related to time principal Residents i:\curptn\dick\home occupation survey.doc 17-Aug-00 STV T ~ X T T'T7ATll'.~7`T August 10, 2000 W OF TIGAM OREGON Ms. Sherrene Walker 14973 SW Rosario Lane Tigard, OR 97224 RE: HOME OCCUPATION CONSIDERATION Sherrene: I want to let you know that it was necessary to reschedule the discussion on Home Occupation Permits with the Tigard City Council until September 12, 2000. This was necessary to allow sufficient time to fully investigate what other jurisdictions do to regulate Home Occupation Permits. Furthermore, staff needs time to evaluate and prepare any recommendations on whether to change the current standards and procedures. Feel free to contact Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, or myself at 639-4171 if you have any questions or concerns. Enforcement actions with regard to your situation will be delayed until the City Council has evaluated this issue and gives direction on how to proceed. Sincerely, r /JAMES N. P. HENDRYX Director of Community Development c: Bill Monahan, City Manager Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Additional written communication regarding home occupation permits Agenda Item No. 10 Cathy Wheatley - Re: Agenda Item # 10: Survey and discussion regarding Home-Occupations Page 1 ill," From: <JCorban297@aol.com> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 9/12/00 12:02PM Subject: Re: Agenda Item # 10: Survey and discussion regarding Home-Occupations To the Honorable Mayor James C. Griffith and City Council Members of Tigard: Brian J. Moore, Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt, and Joyce Patton: Thank-you for the opportunity to make known to each one of you a great burden on my heart for all music teachers who are currently teaching in their homes in the Tigard jurisdiction. I am a music teacher living in Gresham. For the past year after many hours of listening to pros and cons on the Home Occupation committee the final result was as follows. Traffic is the issue,--not the number of students in a day. And so the Council here voted to have only off-street parking for any home-based business, and no more than two cars at a time in the driveway. The hours of instruction are allowed from 7:a.m. in the morning until 10:00 p.m. in the evening. This allows students who have after school jobs or after school sports activities to have an early morning lesson, or a later evening lesson. The Committee realized that restricting numbers of students was rot able to be enforced anyway. Music teachers want to be in compliance with the law. Now we are able to do our work for young people in the Gresham community knowing we are keeping the law as well as serving our fellowman. What a deliverance not to have to tell parents we must turn away their children because we are only allowed a certain number of students a day! We have been trying the new Gresham code since June and find it is very workable for our active music studio. Why not try for one year the more relaxed approach to your situation for music teachers? For example, many large cities in Canada have granted a total exemption for home-based music teaching, viewing it as a satellite of the school system. Loss of private music instruction will potentially impact school programs in a negative way. If music teachers who are home-based are restricted to numbers, or hours in which they may legally teach, then there will be loss of music instruction to those seeking it. Thank-you for doing all within your power to make Tigard a place for full artistic opportunity for its young people providing them with POSITIVE educational and cultural endeavors. Thank you for considering making your fees for permits and licenses to be more in keeping with the surrounding areas. I understand your fees at the present time are very high compared to other communities. If I can be on any further help for clarification purposes, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Myrn Corban General Syllabus Chairperson, Oregon Music Teachers' Assn. Portland Dist. Phone number: (503) 661-4395 e-mail: JCorban297@aol.com CC: Sherrene Walker, OMTA past President Tualitin Valley Dist. Cathy Wheatley - Re: Agenda Item # 10: Survey and discussion regarding Home-Occupations Page 2 CC: <Lacie@transport. com> Cathy Wheatley - Fw: The Importance of Private Teaching Page 1 ! From: "Sherrene Walker" <lacie@transport. corn> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 9/11/00 7:43PM Subject: Fw: The Importance of Private Teaching > "MY NAME IS DR. KENNETH WILLSON, I AM AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MUSIC AT > GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY. MY TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE MUSIC THEORY, > MUSIC HISTORY, PIANO PEDAGOGY, AND PRIVATE PIANO LESSONS. I ALSO > COORDINATE THE SCHOLARSHIP AUDITION PROCESS EVERY SPRING FOR THE > DEPARTMENT. I WAS ASKED TO PREPARE AND SEND MY THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS TO > THIS TIGARD COUNCIL MEETING. > I HAVE HAD THE PRIVELEGE OF WORKING DIRECTLY WITH ALL THE TEACHERS OF THE > TIGARD/TUALATIN DISTRICT OF OMTA. I'VE SERVED AS ADJUDICATOR ON TWO > SEPARATE OCCASIONS-ONCE FOR THE BACH FESTIVAL AND ONCE FOR THEIR "BLUE > RIBBON" FESTIVAL. THE FIRST IS A STATEWIDE COMPETITION. THE "BLUE > RIBBON" FESTIVAL IS A LOCAL CONTEST WHERE THE TEACHERS WANTED SOMEONE TO > ADJUDICATE THEIR STUDENTS IN A FAIR MANNER BUT WITH ENCOURAGEMENT AND > SUGGESTIONS FOR THE KIDS WHERE APPROPRIATE. I THOUROUGHLY ENJOYED THIS > EXPERIENCE BECAUSE IT FOSTERED THE LOVE OF THE ARTS IN GENERAL AND THE > LOVE FOR MUSIC AND THE PIANO SPECIFICALLY. EACH TEACHER AND PARENT THAT > SPOKE WITH ME AFTER THESE EVENTS REALLY WANTED THE VERY BEST FOR THEIR > STUDENTS (KIDS) AND LIKED MY SUPPORT FOR THEIR WORK. > I AM ALSO A MEMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL PIANO DUET TEAM CALLED, d.u.o., WE > WILL BE PERFORMING FOR THE TIGARD/TUALATIN DISTRICT IN OCTOBER. THEY, AS > A GROUP OF TEACHERS, HAVE RAISED THE MONEY FOR THE ENTIRE EVENT. THEY DID > THIS OUT OF THEIR COMMITTMENT TO OFFER THIS CONCERT TO EACH STUDENT AND > THEIR FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO COME AND ENJOY THE CONCERT FREE OF CHARGE. I > BELIEVE THIS AGAIN SPEAKS HIGHLY TO THEIR LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL > COMMITTMENT TO THEIR STUDENTS AND THE PARENTS/GUARDIANS. > I HAVE BEEN TEACHING AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL FOR 12 YEARS. THE STUDENTS > THAT COME TO ME FROM ALL OVER THE NATION AND THE WORLD HAVE BEEN TAUGHT > PRIMARILY FROM A TEACHER'S PRIVATE STUDIO, WITH THE STUDIOS BEING SET UP > AS A HOME BUSINESS IN PROBABLY 90-95% OF THE STUDENTS WITH WHICH I WORK. > THE PRIVATE STUDIO, AS PART OF A HOME BUSINESS, IS WITHOUT DOUBT A VITAL > LINK BETWEEN THE MUSIC STUDENT AND THE UNIVERSITIES WHICH ACCEPT AND > MENTOR THESE STUDENTS THROUGH THEIR UNIVERSITY MUSIC CAREER. I HAVE LOCAL > PRIVATE PIANO TEACHERS CALL ME REGULARLY TO FIND OUT ABOUT OUR PROGRAM IN > MUSIC AND ABOUT MY INTEREST IN WORKING WITH THEIR STUDENTS. THERE IS > OFTEN TIMES A LIFELONG BOND WHICH IS CREATED BETWEEN THESE STUDENTS AND > THEIR INSTRUCTORS. THE TEACHERS ARE ROLE MODELS, NOT ONLY FOR PIANO " > PREPARATION AND MUSICIANSHIP, THEY ALSO HELP GUIDE STUDENTS THROUGH > ETHICAL AND EVEN MORAL DILEMMAS THEY MIGHT FACE. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR > THESE INSTRUCTORS TO BE ADMIRED BY THEIR STUDENTS FOR HELP WITH LIFE IN > GENERAL. THIS, OF COURSE, ADDS TO THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN THE LIVES OF > THEIR STUDENTS AND THE PARENTS/GUARDIANS REPRESENTED. > > THE CONNECTION AMONG STUDENT/PARENT/AND PRIVATE TEACHER IS POWERFUL. I > WOULD BE VERY AFRAID TO THINK ABOUT STUDENTS SHOWING UP FOR COLLEGE LEVEL > ENTRANCE EXAMS AND AUDITIONS WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF A PRIVATE TEACHER. > IT GIVES THE STUDENT THE NECESSARY BACKGROUND AND FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS > DURING THEIR COLLEGE MUSIC CAREER. Cathy Wheatley - Fw• The Importance of Private Teaching Page 2 > I ALSO PREPARE PIANO STUDENTS TO TEACH IN THEIR OWN STUDIOS AFTER > GRADUATION. BY PLACING AN UNNECESSARY FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THEM-IT WOULD > REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS TEACHING IN HOME STUDIOS AND THE NET RESULT > WOULD BE FEWER STUDENTS PREPARING FOR COLLEGE ENTRANCE IN THE FIELD OF > MUSIC. IT IS DRASTIC ENOUGH TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENTERING THE > UNIVERSITY IN THE MUSIC FIELD, BUT STRANDING SOME STUDENTS WITHOUT A CLOSE > MENTOR AND FRIEND TO WHOM THEY CAN BRING THEIR FRUSTRATIONS AND QUESTIONS > WOULD BE EVEN MORE CATOSTROPHIC. I WILL LEAVE IT TO ANOTHER EXPERT TO > TALK ABOUT GANGS AND HOW MANY OF THOSE YOUTH DO NOT FEEL CONNECTED OR > EMPOWERED BY ANYTHING ELSE IN THEIR LIVES! > THE ARTS HAVE BEEN BRUISED AND CUT IN OREGON ALREADY. PLEASE DO NOT > CONTINUE THE PROCESS AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL BY MAKING IT > PROHIBITIVE TO OPEN AND MAINTAIN A PRIVATE MUSIC STUDIO IN LOCAL > COMMUNITIES. > RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, > DR. KENNETH WILLSON > ASSOC. PROFESSOR OF MUSIC > GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY" I I To.the City Council: My name is Linli and I'm 15 years old. It's unfortunate that I couldn't attend this meeting today due to prior commitments. Had I had a choice I would have been here. I believe that all of Mrs. Walker's students would like to stay her students, just as I would like to. I know from experience that it is not easy to find a piano teacher who you like and can learn from. Mrs. Walker gives her students ample opportunities to test their piano playing skills. She has well-developed methods of teaching that allow the students to go at their own pace and not feel pressured to give instant results. Mrs. Walker's home is also like a sanctuary to her students. You always know you have a safe place to go to. Not all teachers will share a bond like that with their students. In short, I mean a teacher like that is irreplaceable. It takes a good teacher to bring out the best in their students. I have a really busy schedule because I'm involved in International Baccalaureate, dance team, horseback riding, and FBLA. I really appreciate the fact that Mrs. Walker teaches me according to students needs. This means that she has to teach really early in the day and to late at night. Everyone has an activity they love. For me and many other students, piano playing is something we love. There's just about a song for every emotion. When I get stressed or mad, banging out a song on the piano helps me more than you could know. Now, I'm not a violent person by nature, but when I get mad, I see red. What was that one saying about "music can tame the beast?" It is far better for me and everyone else that I take my anger out in the form of music rather than school violence, not that I would ever do that. However I'm sure some kids out there would consider that when they're mad and have no way to vent. Through all this mumbling, I've been attempting to show you just how good a teacher Mrs. Walker is. Please consider every aspect of the situation before you make your final verdict. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Linli Pao RECEIVED C.O.T. S E P 11 2000 Administration Cathy Wheatley - City Council Consideration of In Home Occupancy Permit Costs & Restrictions Page 1 From: "Eileen Qutub" <e.qutub@worldnet.att.net> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 9/11/00 4:26PM Subject: City Council Consideration of In Home Occupancy Permit Costs & Restrictions September 11, 2000 Dear Honorable Council Members, I am writing today on behalf of a constituent of mine, Sherrene Walker who lives in unincorporated Washington County near Beef Bend Road. She gives piano lessons in her home. In trying to abide by the law, she contacted Washington County to obtain a business license and after being referred to the City of Tigard has subsequently learned that she should have asked for an in home occupancy permit. All of this to say that she learned Tigard is charging an amount that is shockingly higher than any other of eleven municipalities and counties that Ms. Walker researched. Tigard charges $880 while the next highest is only $177 and most are around $100. She also discovered that she was only allowed to teach students in her home from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. although she has found that many of her students are eager to start at 7 a.m. so that they can take their piano lessons before going to school. She teaches three days a week and has been able to serve thirteen students per day (some are siblings and travel to and from her home in the same automobile). Unfortunately, Tigard would limit her to six per day. The exorbitant fee and onerous requirements would severely limit Ms. Walker's ability to continue to provide this valuable service to our community. I also learned that even if the City decides to lower the fee and allow a little more freedom in hours and the number of students, Ms. Walker will not be able to benefit from that decision. She contacted me because she is concerned about others who may be in her position - trying to meet the needs of students who would like to learn piano, while making a little extra money to pay for things like her children's college tuition. Thank you for considering my input regarding this important matter. Please feel free to call me at 579-3165 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue. Sincerely, Eileen Qutub State Senator District 4 CC: <lacie@transport.com> 1 , , , , i I I f11o hICXJrP RECEIVED C.O.T. SE P 11 2000 Administration Tigard City Council September 10, 2000 I am writing to voice my opinion regarding the city's regulations imposed on Sherrene Walker's Piano Studio. It seems that she has been hit with some very unreasonable fees, and regulations that are out of line with the surrounding cities. My two daughters have had the benefit of learning piano under Sherrene Walker's tutoring. Because of the many cut backs in the school system, I was able to bring my daughters to Mrs. Walker for piano lessons, that included music theory, history and group lessons. The group lessons had been a way for the students to practice playing in front of their peers, giving them the confidence that is needed in many areas, not just in piano playing. The fees and rules that have been demanded of those who are bringing students into their homes in Tigard are unreasonable, not to mention hindering. Where else would I be able to get such one-on-one piano lessons in a positive environment that is not only educational, but also enjoyable? We don't understand why the City of Tigard has not kept up with the surrounding cities, to see what their fees and rules are. I believe that having time a frame that fits with the 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. regulation is more than reasonable, and if Sherrene is not able to teach until 8 a.m. you have left out many students who would no longer be able to take piano before school. This is an ideal time for many students, and since the home is located on a corner, traffic flow in the area is not a problem. The limits on how many students that Mrs. Walker can have should not be limited to only 6 per day. This too would limit how many students she can teach, and therefore leave students without her valuable piano lessons. Please reconsider and see that the expensive fees, and the rules imposed do not make sense for this situation, and adjust according to what is reasonable and is the standard in every other city in the surrounding area. Thank you, Susan Cottis 14750 S.W. 150th Tigard, Oregon 97224 September 9, 2000 City of Tigard RECEIVED CAT. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. SEP 11 2000 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Administration To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members I'm writing in reference to the regulations and fees presently required for music teachers in the Tigard area. Tigard is at risk of losing a signifi- cant number of neighborhood music teachers, because of the regulations and initial fees ($600 to $900) which are not compatable with surrounding com- munities and need to be changed. Children may never have the opportunity to take music lessons without the convenience of the neighborhood teacher, and therefore deprived of learning a skill that would last a lifetime. When parents are faced the the additional problems of transportation to lessons, lessons will be cancelled and a childs talent may go undiscovered. By limiting the number of students a teacher may have in one day to six, an unnnecessary restriction presents a hardship to children who want lessons and to the teacher who is trying to schedule compatable times for instruction. Our daughter has taken lessons from a neighborhood teacher, Mrs. Walker. Because of Mrs. Walker's high moral standards and integrity, along with her reputation of professional excellence, our daughter was influenced in a positive way morally, socially and musically. The opportunities she had to perform in recitals helped her overcome shyness and gain confidence. It would be a great loss to this community if Mrs. Walker could no longer afford to continue teaching in Tigard because of the present regulations and fees. Do the citizens of Tigard want to risk losing the benefits provided by our neighborhood music teachers? The public performances in nursing homes, opportunities for both instrumental and vocal accompaniment, performances in shopping centers may no longer be available to our community. In conclusion our main concerns are: *Tigard will lose neighborhood music teachers because of the present regulations and high fees. *Children will be deprived of a lifetime skill without the neighborhood teacher. *Our community will no longer have public performances proveded by the students our our neighborhood music teachers. We request that you would consider adopting the standards established by a community such as Tualatin, Sherwood or Lake Oswego to avoid a lengthy and costly process, which would be necessary to change the present regulations and fees. Respectful -.-r . Y 411__Z4 Mr. & Mrs. Mike Narver September 12, 2000 To: Officials of the City of Tigard I am writing as the custodial grandparent of Riley Warrilow who is 11 years old and has taken piano lessons from Sherrene Walker for 5 years. I support Sherrene in her efforts to continue to teach her lessons to Riley and other students in her own home. This is a very constructive use of spare time for children and multiplies its effectiveness by the amount of time the students have to practice as well in providing a very healthy use of free time for youngsters. I understand the need to have regulations regarding home businesses, but I believe that instructors who give musical instruction should be given special consideration by the City of Tigard or any other jurisdiction. By preventing her from having more than 6 students a day or forcing her to change location, it will drive the price of lessons even higher and mean that fewer youngsters will be able to engage in such a good use of their time. Undoubtedly some talented young people will be prevented from continuing or even begin to get lessons at a reasonable price. The City of Tigard should be doing everything that it can to facilitate the positive use of community resources and children's time instead of finding reasons to make such opportities more difficult and expensive. In this area of larger public schools and a time when programs in schools are being cut back because of budget constraints, the community should be working together to facilitate chances for students to cultivate healthy opportunities. I hope that the City of Tigard will look favorably on the proposal to give Sherrene and similar contributors to the welfare of our children every opportunity to do their work in the most effective and least expensive way. Sincerely, C12 '1 VZe 6.I- Kathy Lile Co Lt A C11 q//a/00 To: Honorable Acting Mayor And City Council Members City of Tigard From: Sharon A. Francis 12305 SW Duchilly Court Tigard, Or. 97224 Date: September 12, 2000 Re: Amending and revising Tigard's overly restrictive rules and burdensome fees imposed on citizens who teach music lessons in their homes. For over 13 years, I have been a proud resident of Tigard. I am also the proud parent of a 19 year old musician, Ryan Francis, who is a sophomore at the University of Michigan. At the age of 6, Ryan began the time honored tradition of studying personally with a classically trained musician in her home. Until he began lessons at Warner Pacific College at the age of 15, he studied with two different local teachers, both of whom had masters of music degrees, and both of whom supported themselves by giving lessons from their homes. It was the direct result of these lessons that Ryan was invited to attend the prestigious Tanglewood Institute in Massachusetts at the age of 16 as a young composer. There he studied with world famous composers for six weeks, including Andre Previn and John Williams. Last year, he was one of seven freshmen admitted to the music composition program at the University of Michigan, one of the top two schools in this field. He received a partial four year scholarship. In January 2000, a professional music ensemble premiered original compositions which they commissioned Ryan to compose. In June, he was the stage manager for the Cascade Head Classic Music Festival in Lincoln City. If Ryan's teachers had been foreclosed from giving lessons from their home, the cost to me as a parent would have been prohibitive to supplement the teachers' rental of other space. My son's talents could have gone undeveloped. Professional music studios are rare in the Portland metro area. One cannot simply give lessons in ordinary office space because of design and sound issues, let alone the prohibitive cost. Music teachers do not have an alternative space. mom If they are foreclosed from teaching to the number of students necessary to generate a living income, the result will be fewer musicians in years to come. This would be a sad state of affairs for the Portland area, which is presently nationally famous for its excellent youth orchestra led by Hew Edwards. ~ Music is an essential part of our society. Studies have shown that the study of music enhances n overall learning, particularly math skills-something that has become known as the Mozart N effect. It encourages self-discipline and increases one's attention span. Despite these known benefits, the Tigard-Tualatin School District has cut back on music classes, and other classes in the arts. It is even difficult to get into choir now. It is shameful for the City of Tigard to further restrict children's musical education. As a matter of public policy to encourage learning skills in our children, I urge tl:e City of Tigard to increase the number of students permitted, to increase the hours of lessons, and to decrease the business license fees which are out of line with similar communities in our area. If we should be so lucky that my son wants to return to his home town to pursue his composition career, I would be sad to see him thwarted by these restrictive regulations. I- WIN Karam JoAmsom-Wide A~ Studio 17688 S.W. Nees Drive, SRerwood, OR. 97140 0503)925-1716 September 12, 2000 City of Tigard, Oregon City Counselors and all concerned, My name is !Caren Johnson-Will and I am here tonight in support of Sherrene Walker and her efforts to change fees and use conditions for in-home music studios. 1 have just started my second year teaching piano from my home studio. For my first six months teaching, I had 5 students and made $50 per week (before expenses). Now, one year later, I have built my studio up to 18 students, though it will still be another year or two before I have enough students to support myself on my income alone. Music pedagogy is a profession where our education and expertise far exceed our compensation. It is often said that most musicians and music teachers spend as many hours and as much money to learn and become proficient in our profession as most neurosurgeons do. But our fees can't exceed what parents can pay. I will never become wealthy teaching piano-I teach because I love it. The point though is that it takes a lot of students to earn a decent income, and it i takes years to accumulate those students. In Sherwood, I paid $65 for my business license and a one-time fee of $25 for "Home Occupancy". I would not be teaching piano today if I lived in your city. I could never have afforded your fees on $50 per a week. I consider myself to be very lucky-and I live just five miles ? from Sherrene Walker. In centuries past, musicians learned artistry not from the printed page, but from master teachers committed on passing their music on to the next generation. All the great masters were also teachers. In fact many teachers today can trace their musical lineage back to at least one great composer/teacher. Where would society be now if Mozart's town council limited him to just 6 students per day? In an era where children are receiving such limited exposure to "real" music, a community should do all it can to open doors to independent music education. When huge fees and restrictions are in place, master teachers like Sherrene Walker and all music teachers suffer, the children suffer, and the community as a whole suffers. You are elected to make the best decisions for Tigard. The best decision though, is not always the least expensive one for the city. Most of the work has been done for you. Done by one, not so lucky master piano teacher asking to keep her studio open. Asking to make the way easier for her colleagues. Asking to be allowed to better her community. It's time for you, Counselors of the City of Tigard, to do your part. Thank you very much. Sincerely, n n r" - UJcyj Karen Johnson-Will In-home Studio Piano Teacher. September 12, 2000 To the Honorable Mayor James C. Griffith and City Council Members of Tigard: Brian J. Moore, Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt, and Joyce Patton: Thank-you for the opportunity to make known to each one of you a great burden on my heart for all music teachers who are currently teaching in their homes in the Tigard jurisdiction. I am a music teacher living in Gresham. For the past year after many hours of listening to pros and cons on the Home Occupation committee the final result was as follows. Traffic is the issue,--not the number of students in a day. And so the Council here voted to have only off-street parking for any home-based business, and no more than two cars at a time in the driveway. The hours of instruction are allowed from 7:a.m. in the morning until 10:00 p.m. in the evening. This allows students who have after school jobs or after school sports activities to have an early morning lesson, or a later evening lesson. The Committee realized that restricting numbers of students was not able to be enforced anyway. Music teachers want to be in compliance with the law. Now we are able to do our work for young people in the Gresham community knowing we are keeping the law as well as serving our fellowman. What a deliverance not to have to tell parents we must turn away their children because we are only allowed a certain number of students a day! We have been trying the new Gresham code since June and find it is very workable for our active music studio. Why not try for one year the more relaxed approach to your situation for music teachers? For example, many large cities in Canada have granted a total exemption for home-based music teaching, viewing it as a satellite of the school system. Loss of private music instruction will potentially impact school programs in a negative way. If music teachers who are home-based are restricted to numbers, or hours in which they may legally teach, then there will be loss of music instruction to those seeking it. Thank-you for doing all within your power to make Tigard a place for full artistic opportunity for its young people providing them with POSITIVE educational and cultural endeavors. Thank you for considering making your fees for permits and licenses to be more in keeping with the surrounding areas. I understand your fees at the present time are very high compared to other communities. If I can be on any further help for clarification purposes, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Myv'w C0rba4'1. General Syllabus Chairperson, Oregon Music Teachers' Assn. Portland Dist. Phone number: (503) 661-4395 e-mail: JCorban297@aol.com CC: Sherrene Walker, OMTA past President Tualitin Valley Dist. September 12, 2000 Honorable Mayor Griffith and Tigard City Council Members and guests: I thank you for the opportunity to address this issue before you again. My comments are directly related to the summary review that staff will be presenting as Agenda Item No 10. Therefore, I would like to request the opportunity to defer my comments until after the summary so they will be more pertinent and understandable. The first paragraph states that I provide piano instruction to 60 students. As I stated in my Home Occupancy Application, I have 42 students. It also states that I have provided this instruction without a home occupation permit from either Washington County or the City of Tigard. As stated at the July 25th, 2000 meeting, I was informed by Washington County in 1991 that they didn't sell business licenses and that I should call City of Tigard. City of Tigard rightly told me they couldn't sell me one until we were annexed which they were expecting to happen. My first request is to have an educational exemption for music instructors. Both Tualatin (who calls it tutoring) and West Linn have exemptions for pupils. The other types of instruction that staff noted that could fall under the "educational exemption" would not be included. Dance, karate, judo, etc. are not subjects taught in the school system and therefore would not be included. Other musical instruments that would be educational would also need to adhere to any noise level requirements which would preclude them being a nuisance to neighborhoods. Therefore, I don't see a problem with providing an exception for music students as other municipalities have done. Regarding the traffic issue. According to staffs report, a single family averages 10 trips a day. They state that having six allowable students would bring it to 22 a day. Based on that figure of 22 allowable trips a day, my current studio has less traffic than the City computes is allowable under their traffic configurations. On Tuesdays by the time each student is dropped off, or rides the bus, we have 21 vehicle trips. Just this morning, two were dropped off and took the bus in front of my home to Twality. On Wednesdays, due to the fact that I have several family groups, there are only 18 vehicle trips a day. On Thursdays, there are only 17 vehicle trips. Two people come at a time - one is on a computer lab and the other is instructed individually. After a half hour the two students switch and the other has a lesson. Therefore, typically one or two cars, depending on car pooling, come into my driveway to drop off students at a time. Some of the older or more advanced students take longer lessons. So they are here for one and half hours together. There is not a constant flow of traffic. Also, since I am the first house on the street, they pull into my driveway, drop off and leave. It does not impact the rest of the street. I have sent a letter to each student's family asking them to follow this traffic pattern whenever they come to lessons. So even though I have more students per day than Tigard allows, I do not have more vehicle trips than Tigard allows. This shows clearly why we need to remove the student limit that Tigard has of six students a day. 0 Regarding the business hours, as you can see most cities do not have those regulated The cities that do have hours regulated, other than Tigard, follow their local construction hours. For Hillsboro and Portland, that is 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. For Gresham that is 7:00 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. Tigard's construction hours are 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M. but their home business hours of operation are 8:00 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. That means that I can be pounding nails outside my home from 7:00 - 8:00 A.M. but I cannot be teaching a student piano lessons which cannot be heard outside the home! I am not asking for more hours, just start one hour earlier to accommodate students and stop an hour earlier at 9:00 P.M. It would seem to me that Tigard could easily change the starting hour to 7:00 A.M. thereby facilitating the Middle School students who don't start until 9:00 A.M. Regarding the Home Occupation Survey that staff has prepared. I have compared the initial costs for each city. I have added Sherwood and Wilsonville as they are two cities in our Tualatin Valley District of the Oregon Music Teacher's Association, which is affiliated with the Music Teacher's National Association. Although staff notes in their summary that the City doesn't charge for business licenses outside the city, they do require a Home Occupancy Permit at a cost of $883.00. By the time I pay the $883.00 fee, plus purchase the necessary lists, stamps, envelopes, etc. required by the City bringing my costs so far to almost $1,000, I would have to teach in Beaverton for almost fourteen years paying their $100.00 Home Occupancy Fee every five years and their $50.00 annual fee as staff has noted is what they require. In Lake Oswego I would have to teach over fifteen years to spend the same amount of money. Since King City is a senior community and doesn't have specific codes I wouldn't expect to teach as many students there. Portland has a 2.2% of net income over $25,000 so I wouldn't have a fee to pay there as I don't net over $25,000. West Linn is a one time fee of $100 and $30.00 if I have employees. I don't have any, so it seems it would only be the $100.00 initial fee so I would never spend as much as my initial fee cost for Tigard. Clackamas County's fee is $177.00 annually and would allow me to teach for six years before I would spend the same amount as I spent initially for Tigard. Forest Grove's fee is $59.00 for ten years. I could teach for almost 170 years before I spent the same amount as for Tigard! Gresham just passed their new codes in July, an annual cost of $161 between Home Occupancy Fee and Business License. I could teach almost seven years before catching up to Tigard's fees. Tualatin only has a $50 fee so it would take almost twenty years to spend the same amount as in Tigard. Washington County's fees were the same as Tigard's for Unincorporated Tigard but they also have a $257 renewal which Tigard doesn't have. Newberg has no fee - so I would never catch up. Hillsboro has a new code and expects their annual fee to be around $100 so it would take almost ten years to spend the same amount of money. Sherwood's initial cost is $95.00 or $97.50 outside the city limits with a renewal of $65.00 taking about 14 years to catch up to Tigard's fees. Wilsonville has a $100.00 annual fee so it would take about ten years to catch up to Tigard. Is it any wonder why music teachers in Tigard either move, retire early, or don't even start a studio when they find out the fee, or go "underground"? In regard to limits on the number of students a teacher can have, I have taken the information from the Home Occupation Survey that staff has prepared. Clackamas says Cad no more than 5 vehicle trips - it is the only area with less trips than Tigard. Tigard allows no more than 6 students per day. As stated in my Home Occupancy application, I have 42 students which is equivalent to 6 per day. However, due to the school, family, church and sports schedules of my students, I teach three days a week, starting the middle schoolers early, and continuing with homeschoolers, gradeschoolers, and high schoolers until 7:30 or 8:00 P.M. Mondays and Fridays are typically holiday, conference, teacher training days, so it is impossible to regularly schedule those days. If a student had an upcoming performance and Monday was their lesson day and a holiday, they miss their lesson. So I have tried doing all lessons on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays for the past few years, and it has worked very well, So again, even though I have more students a day than allowed, I do not have more students than allowed for the week, and I do not have more vehicle trips a day than allowed for six students because I am not going anywhere! Portland has a limit of eight per day. However, in talking to Craig Childs who administers the program, he said that if two people come in one car that is one client. Washington County said under ten clients a day and Hillsboro's new code says an "average" of ten a day which would equal 70 clients per week. I wasn't able to reach Forest Grove so couldn't address them. Beaverton's Type 11 code reads for 6 or more. Tigard staff indicated that Beaverton said they could possibly not approve a request, but in my discussion with Beaverton's planning division they didn't think my studio would be a problem in Beaverton. Again, King City is a senior community and when I live there I won't be teaching 42 students. The rest of the cities, including West Linn and Tualatin who have exemptions for pupils, Lake Oswego, Newberg, Sherwood, Wilsonville and Gresham have no limits on the number of students per day. In attending the Gresham City Council meeting it was noted that Gresham staff could not possibly monitor number of clients so why set a ruling. But rather they set parking policies that required two off the street parking spots, i.e. a person's two car driveway. This seems to be a much more reasonable and measurable requirement. With the limit on clients cited above, the only places I could not teach as I currently am would be Clackamas County, Tigard, Washington County, and possibly King City or Portland. The other ten cities listed I wouldn't have a problem keeping my current student load and still be in compliance with the codes. Based on the above information, and staffs suggestion that changes be limited, it would be my request for the City of Tigard to grant music instructors an "educational exemption" from having such restrictive regulations on numbers of students, times, and inflated fees. It would only be for music as that is a topic that has always been taught in the public schools and is now waning due to Measure 5. It would not open up any of the concerns N staff brought up like dance, karate, judo, etc., because they are not school subjects so would not qualify for the exemption. It would be very hard to misuse this exemption. There could still be a reasonable annual business license fee of $50 to $100, and not have to worry about the Home Occupancy Permit and all of it's regulations. Zq Also, by bringing in line the business times with the construction times, our request to begin lessons at 7:00 A.M. would be met. This would seem to be the easiest way to protect the rights of our students to be able to take piano lessons. C3~ If you do not feel that this is possible for reasons that I cannot think of, then I would request only the following three items be changed: 1) The hours of operation be changed to coincide with construction hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. as they are in any other city sited that has hours listed; 2) The limit on number of students be changed to say an "average" of twelve to sixteen a day, so that teachers can continue to accommodate the needs of students and their families' schedules. When we offer our state Syllabus exams, teachers volunteer their homes for 15 - 16 students of other teachers in the community, provide lunch for the adjudicator and give the students opportunities to be adjudicated by a master teacher. In the City of Tigard many teachers have not been able to open up their homes due to these restrictions. My home has been used every year for this opportunity. Now we won't be able to offer it to students in the City of Tigard unless these codes are changed. 3) The fees be restructured to be more equitable to the surrounding areas. As noted in staff s report, bottom of page one, "the City of Tigard amended its development code in 1991 to adopt its present home occupation regulations. This was the result of several months of study of the Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPOs), the Planning Commission and staff as iveff as stutdy of other cities. " Some time between 1991 and the present, Tigard's fees have either skyrocketed or the other fees have gone way down if they were at one time congruent. Although the City of Tigard amended its code in 1991, many things have happened since then to warrant another amending of its code. First Measure 5 has completely changed the scope of music education in the schools. At the present time, our schools still have a good program compared to many other schools. Much of this is due to the education of students in private instruction in the homes. My students alone have accompanied their school choirs, accompanied instrumentalists at Solo and Ensemble Festivals, played for the Baccalaureate services at both Tigard High School and Tualatin High School, as well as entertained at many community events. Multiply that by all the Tigard teachers, and students have been able to keep up musically. Music teachers in all schools at all levels, will tell you how much they appreciate getting a student who already has a music background and can read music. If the current trend of Tigard teachers being forced to move, or cut 2/3rd's of their studio as I will have to in order to comply with current regulations, or retire early, or go "underground" continues, the music programs will slowly decline due to lack of interest and training. In a time when sports have been cut from Middle Schools, and we have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on drug prevention, j gang prevention, let's not take away such an honorable and worthwhile lifetime skill as music from our students! (41) Secondly, with the change from Junior High Schools to Middle Schools has come a change in philosophy about school start times. Therefore, Tigard/Tualatin School District has moved Middle Schools to start at 9:00 A.M. every day but Wednesday and not until 10:00 A.M. then. By starting this late they get out very late, and have only time for homework, dinner, recreational sports and family. They like to get up early one day a week and get their music lessons done, catching the bus in front of my house to get to school. This necessitates the changing in time. Thirdly, with the addition of the Intergovernmental Agency Agreement, there are several other issues that are yet to be addressed. Since my neighborhood has not been annexed into Tigard as of yet, I am requesting a variance so that I can continue teaching as I have been for the last ten years. The decision that you may make tonight or in the future, will not only affect my piano students but our personal family as well. Our daughter's college education is dependent on my income and her summer employment. Without my current level of students and our bank loans, it will not be possible for her to continue her college education. I appreciate your time in listening to this issue. If I was not passionate about the necessity of providing a strong musical heritage for our next generations, I would not have spent the last two months continuously researching and seeking a resolution. I believe that my request for an "educational exemption" for all music teachers is not only sound but advantageous to our community and has been precedented in both Tualatin and West Linn very successfully. However, in the event that Council is not inclined to agree, I have offered three changes that would not only accommodate the teachers, the students, and the community in the Tigard area, but would also allow Council to make keep their present codes with only these three limited changes. Please give careful consideration to this request and respond in the best interest of our students. I believe it is in the best interest of all of us to provide the next budding "Bach, Beethoven or Brahms" with the best music education in the area. Thank you again for your time and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Sincerely, l Sherrene Walker Attachments HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED UNREGULATED Millsboro Beaverton Lake Oswego *7.OOA.M - 9: 00 P.M. King City West Linn Clackamas County Portland Forest Grove Tualatin *7. 00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. Washington County Newberg Sherwood Greshafn Wilsonville *7. 00 A.M. -10: 00 P.M TIGARD 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 P.M. * Follows city's construction hours. STUDENT LIMITS S 6 8 IO No Limit Clackamas Tigard *Portland Washington County County * *'Beaverton Lake Oswego "Hillsboro King City AA West Linn AA Tualatin Newberg Sherwood Wilsonville Gresham * = 2 in a car=1 client _ "an average" of ten per day = 70 per week = Type II = 6 or more clients ^ = Senior Community AA Exclusions for Pupils ljrju Lair rNrTrA„~ L- F~= $117 $883 $161 Tigard Unincorporated $100 Clackamas 595 Gresham County $75 King City Renewal $36 Wash-County $70 Sherwood $50 Renewal $257 Renewal $50 559 0 Lake $65 Rene►va Tigard Limits Beaverton Oswego West Linn igard City Tualatin Forest S50 Renewal S60 Renewal Outside City enewal 5600 initial ]Newberg Grove Limits/Sherwood S30 R $55 Renewal 597.50 Wilsonville Hillsboro aboutS100 Copies to: • Mayor/Council ✓ Other: City Manager ✓ m J-4 Council File DI C~L 13 See q -W CC 144 1w1e1. Michele Stranger-Hunter 17761 SW Belton Road Sherwood, OR 97140 September 5, 2000 RECEIVED C.O.T. Tigard City Council City Offices SEP U 7 2000 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Administration Dear Counselors, I am writing in support of Sherrene Walker's application for a Home Occupancy Permit to operate her home music studio. Mrs. Walker has a reputation as being one of the very best piano teachers in the Northwest. Any impediment to her provision of lessons created by City regulations would be a disservice to the community. I'm sure the Tigard home business regulations were intended to prevent home-based businesses from negatively impacting residential areas. As Mrs. Walker has expressed, she serves more than six students on some days and offers performance opportunities (at no additional cost) six or seven times a year to all students. In addition, she provides some lessons early in the morning before school for the convenience of students and their parents. Under current regulations, these practices would need to change. Mrs. Walker would have to serve fewer students and omit the group benefit altogether. Due to her standards of excellence, she has had a long waiting list of students. Reducing the number of lessons available would create a further hardship. I am sure that the City's intent is not to eliminate or significantly reduce learning opportunities for children. Independent music teaching in the home is a positive feature in any neighborhood. Mrs. Walker's home studio does not disrupt the residential area in any way. Her business creates no new traffic impacts and in fact the "traffic" is limited to dropping off students and turning around in her driveway, the first on the street. Please give this situation every consideration. Although I am not a resident of Tigard, I relate to Tigard for most of my service and shopping needs. Thank you for the time you have taken to read this letter of support. Sincerely, C-, Michele Stranger-Hun er r WY OF TIGARD OREGON September 8, 2000 Ms. Michele Stranger-Hunter 17761 SW Belton Road Sherwood, OR 97062 Dear Ms. Stranger-Hunter: Thank you for your recent letter regarding Sherrene Walker. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to each member of the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact me at 639-4171, ext. 382. Sincerely, reer A. Gaston Deputy City Recorder n N -1 I:\ ADM\GREERWCKNO\STRANGER-HUNTER.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Copies to: Mayor/Council t/1 Other: City Manager ✓ ~"D1aC_' KN- Council File 6erc 9 Y 1:6 AIP. KGJeHt~ 19735 S.W. 48th Avenue Tualatin, OR 97062 September 5, 2000 RECEIVED C.O.T. Tigard City Council SEP 0 7 2000 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Administration Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Council Members: 1 am writing this letter regarding my daughter's piano teacher, Sherrene Walker, a Tigard resident who has recently learned from the city that she faces a major curtailment of the amount of students she is allowed to instruct in her home. This summer, while Mrs. Walker was on a break from her piano teaching commitments, she received a Notice of Violation of Tigard's current Home Occupancy Permit statute. I know that Mrs. Walker would never knowingly violate any city regulations, and it is my understanding that she applied for the license immediately upon hearing of the violation. Even though application for the license has been made at considerable personal expense, as the statute now stands she may still be forced to cut the number of students she has been instructing by 60 percent. It is my hope that you will recognize the intrinsic value and importance of private musical instruction for our children today. My ten-year old daughter has taken piano lessons from Mrs. Walker for the past two years, and I can tell you from personal experience that the instruction has been invaluable. She is learning so much more than how to play a musical instrument. Mrs. Walker has taught her about the art and history of music, how to compose a song herself, how to set goals and develop a plan for reaching them, how to be comfortable performing in front of an audience, and what it feels like to know that she is doing something of significance that will last her for a lifetime. I feel that my daughter is learning skills that will enable her to make a meaningful contribution to the community in a few short years. It truly saddens me to think that she might not be able to continue receiving these benefits due to an ordinance set by the City of Tigard. -2- My hope is that you, also, will appreciate the undeniable merit of private musical instruction, especially as many schools have had to completely eliminate the arts from their curriculum due to budget cutbacks. The Walker family and Sherrene Walker's home business have already been a valuable asset to the neighborhood and the Tigard area for the past ten years. Allowing her to continue with the number of students she has currently enrolled will ensure that our children receive the highest quality of music education available. Since learning of her business' Notice of Violation, Sherrene Walker has invested significant time and effort to research home business policies in neighboring cities. Her findings indicate that the home occupancy policies for the City of Tigard are seriously in need of reevaluation. Mrs. Walker has been eager to work with the City Council to develop a workable policy that will allow private music instructors in the City of Tigard to educate as many students as possible. In light of this, it is my hope that you will either exempt her business from the current home business rules or that you will institute new policies more in line with those of other cities in the Portland area. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Sandra L. Wise Nil CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON September 8, 2000 Ms. Sandra L. Wise - 19735 SW 48`n Avenue Tualatin, OR 97062 Dear Ms. Wise: Thank you for your recent letter regarding Sherrene Walker. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to each member of the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact me at 639-4171, ext. 382. Sincerely, reer A. Gaston Deputy City Recorder I:WDKGREEMACKNO\WISE.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 September 13, 2000 Dear Tigard City Council, I am a mother of two children and a Tigard City resident. My daughter was hoping to take piano lessons from Sherrene Walker this fall but as you know, she may not be allowed to continue teaching music to my children due to the oppressive restrictions and fees which are currently on the books. When Sherrene reported to me that it cost $883.00 to obtain a Home Occupation Permit, I wondered what other neighboring cities are charging for the right to operate a home business. The answer is that Tigard is at least $600.00 over what any of its neighboring cities require for a home based occupation permit and business license. Furthermore, the city of Tigard restricts the music teacher to only six children per day for "traffic reasons" without taking into account the fact that the child may just walk across the street, or ride their bike or take the school bus to the music teacher's home. Piano lessons and music instruction most often involve children from the age of 6 to 18 years of age and teaching is done on a one on one basis. The traffic impact is not the same as a home business based on product sales or one with employees because the children generally live within a mile radius of the teacher. Because of this restriction on Sherrene I have had to find a teacher who lives in Beaverton. I would have preferred to stay in Tigard but it appears that this city is not interested in serving children. When I was growing up, music instruction was a positive, stimulating and healthy experience. I played kick the can, I ran a lemonade stand and I took piano from the teacher down the street. My music instructor was part of the culture of our neighborhood. Taking piano lessons certainly kept me out of trouble I was too busy practicing. Private music study also assisted me in my other school studies by teaching me the discipline of day to day practice. I also received pride and confidence from the sharing of a hard earned talent. A few weeks ago I got the chance to hear the Tigard High School Marching Band rehearse and thought, "What would these kids be without music? How many of them have benefitted from private music study?" I hope and pray that the City Council will change their policy to encourage rather than discourage music teachers to teach and enable children to receive home a based music instruction. s a Save the music, Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Holt j Cathy Wheatley - Private Music Instruction and the Public Schools Page 1 From: "Sherrene Walker" <lacie@transport.com> To: <Cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 9/17/00 5:44PM Subject: Private Music Instruction and the Public Schools Original Message From: Sue Hale <shale@ttsd.k12.or.us> To: <lacie@transport.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 4:07 PM > To whom it may concern: > I would like to voice my support for easing restrictions on home use for > private music teachers. Musical training is so developmentally beneficial > for our students, both in total musical training and in other academic > subject areas. Students studying music score consistenly higher on > standardized tests than those who do not. There is not a more efficient > method of teaching the fundamentals of music than keyboard study. If none > of my students ever had piano experience, my job as choral director would > be so much more difficult. Sight singing makes so much more sense to > students who have studied piano. Having a pianist in class is a real plus > because I can guide my students better when I can get away from the piano. > Any measure that can be taken to improve opportunities for piano study in > our area will be greatly appreciated by the music staff at the high school. > Sue Hale > Choral Director > Tigard High School > 9000 SW Durham Rd. > Tigard, OR 97224 > (503)431-5525 > fax: 431-5410 > i s I Cathy Wheatley - Home Occupation Task Force - Interested Persons Page 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: Bewersdorff, Dick Date: 9/19/00 5:21 PM Subject: Home Occupation Task Force - Interested Persons Dick, here are the names and addresses of the people interested in serving on the Task Force. These names were given to me at the September 12 meeting with the exception of Senator Qutub (her assistant called and asked that she be considered). Sharon Francis 12305 SW Duchilly Court (attorney - 13-yr resident, musician) Tigard OR 97224 Gene Nelson 12760 SW Terraview Drive Tigard OR 97224 (503) 598-9499 Jeanne Holt 14030 SW Liden Drive Tigard OR 97223 (503) 524-7774 Eileen Qutub 11135 SW Partridge Loop Beaverton, OR 97007 (503) 579-3165 - Michelle Lowry, Sen. Qutub's asst.) Cathy Cathy Wheatley, 639-4171 Ext. 309 cathy@ci.tigard.or.us CC: Gaston, Greer; Lunsford, Patty; Monahan, Bill; Newton, Liz 17 - IL~o 677.2-a3 - e p~I ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /1 at ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IN lk~r ~plano ins r ~N ~Iom ~ - tlon' from exemp «Educationa s~andardS or occlivatloll ~ : license de c.~• ~ . -C lop o - Tequiring it to 1 a.11 - time lim change.ti on number o~ clients 3. ~ no limit s Li'' 1i1151L11 Y t nlr Survey Home Occupation Practices Other cities and counties Matrix comparison SUr'V~y Business Hours 0 C~ Limit $55 a a _ 10 P Emotovees $1%, 526 sq-lt. ® elivertes Customers None Expiration p None $55 more Fee No Who None Allan 3 Per one tStA tvAes No more than $50 City principal kg172 URBI - 6 per day NIA T Type 1 Occupants None None NIA foard 8545 g50 principal t$683 URB) NIA 5 or less NIA Type Occupants NIA One NIA 11 NiA g75 Went 6 or more permanent NIA 25°Jo door area NIA No Residents 5 years None SA00 first Beaverton Type $100 None NIA NIA year Year nt Type germane None 11 Residents Yearly None $50 each OniY Business None additional Type i Family Yearly 1 a- 9 P Business 2.2°J° of net ,,come ove Lake Tenants Only License None Type 1 None 7 a- 9 P Kino None 2.20i° of net City 8 a _ 5 p None income over 2 years One NIA Business No more than $30 ii Residents Tax 6 a - 5 9 8 per day 2p°1° floor area employees TYPe 1 Only 2 years Up to 3 Portland Business No more than or 300 sq-It. Residents Tax t4, more 5 Per day Type only None than 5 per including NIA 11 $100 day delivery' $30 TYP Habitants including exclud' customers ing 30% door area or 500 sq-it. AIL e 1 Up 10 3 w more than West Linn No more 10 per day None than 10 per NtA $875 including NIA day delivery' Type Habitants including excluding NIA customers more t4o No more than than 11 5 NIA 5 vehicle trios Annual $i77 as Type only eotsthan Clackam it No more (',OUntY -AIL City Tvpes Who Fee EmAration Deliveries Customers EmNovees Size Limit Business Hours Forest Type I Family $59/10 10 years WA Traffic not to WA 20% of main WA WA Grove Members years exceed building (to be normal single increased) farnilv Gresham Type I Permanent $25 Annual None None None 50% floor area $36 7a-10p Residents (except postal FedEx, P ARL Type Permanent $250/2 2 years None No Limit One 50% floor area $36 7a-lop II Residents years (except postal, FedEx, P Tualatin Type I Permanent See Notes See Notes Not over 2 Only by None WA $50 WA Residents ton trucks telephone or mail, except counselors or Morino Washinaton Type I Permanent $175 Annual WA Less than 6 None 250/6 floor WA WA Countv Residents ($82 per day area, renewal) 400 sq.ft. max Type Permanent $883 Annual WA 10 per day 1 250/6 floor WA WA II Residents ($257 area, renewal) 400 sq.ft. max accessibility I= WA $0 NIA WA NIA 1 WA WA NIA Hillsboro Type I Principal Business None as 3 per week 10 customer None 25% floor Fee not 7a-9p Residents License long as the vehicle trips area, or 528 established and two business with no more sq. ft, but expected persons license is than 2 (which ever is to be $100 closely maintained customer less) annually related to vehicles on Principal site at any Ask 5 Standards & approaches vary ~ considerably: ~ Sorrie have Type I & Type II permits. ~ Some have only Type I• s St Others have no permits. Regulations vary for customers, fees, ~ deliveries, repair, etc. s s e ~ pre~~~t om ~ ~lgard ado ~tad its .1991 Bards In ~ 0ccup atio t~. ~ d lncluding~ Of of Several monstu y ~r t ~ . _ Re sin ~ - NPOS COMMISSion planning staff OtIle'r cities ~ s ~ wa114~er r~~ueSt° related to Issues ~ -`Traffic boyhood ~r . to neigh -potential impact l types of instruction ~~ulty with s s s S IM, YEMENI TxaffiC welling gelle, gle family d ~ ;:"Typical sin er day • a vehicle trip ~ tri Per C-1 Y je2 vehicle PS . ~ 6 customers = _ 2D added vehicle trips ~r s 5 day week) 1 60 customer er day C ~ 24 Vehicle ,rips p Other Vote-atlal impacts on ~ hboThoOd.. ~ Noise ~ parking s s Other *Instruction typical scholastic drums violins t dance 4 horn 0^1) karate judo ]l ~r ~ ee5 . hed by Study iTV 1996 g - Schedule eStablis ver costs ~ to qaKlally recO w ashi~gton n area pern1its follow ~~rba fee owe D~~upation Count' ~ and requlre5 °ne time Tlg City In ~ pexmit fey 'required the tax 15 °n~~1 ~ Business s -Alk bode Change _ _ _ City -Rot affects on1~1 ~ ing Ow code Chang urban area rode amendment County ~ , ; V~1 ashington area ~ required for urban reQulreS' Ae ch~nge dlay notice to DLC~C1.~Counci45 Comm- ss~o ~ _ planning hea 3 to 4 months ~ - a~ m~~n~atl~~ • OT1S. existing regulail ~eCO the ~ uetO th colvUll s AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/12/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Ci -Coun Goal 5 Planning and Im lementation IGA PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK~ GR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Should the City enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with the other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council approve the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY Metro has delayed adoption of a regional Goal 5 program for the protection of streams and riparian areas. The new target date for completing the protection program for these resources is next spring. The purpose of the delay is to allow time for a reassessment of the policy issues and the proposed 200-foot management area on all streams. Washington County has suggested the various County jurisdictions use this delay as an opportunity to influence the Goal 5 planning process. In particular, the County proposes the jurisdictions consider working together to develop a Goal 5 stream protection program reflecting westside interests, followed by an effort to get Metro to recognize or follow this program. The main goal of teaming together would be to present a unified voice in support of greater flexibility and local control. Following the adoption of the Metro program in whatever form, the jurisdictions would work together to develop a common implementation program, as they did with regard to Title 3. To assist with the development of the proposed local response to Goal 5, the County is proposing the jurisdictions share the cost, tentatively estimated at $100,000, of hiring a consultant. Tigard's pro rata share of the cost, based on population, would be $9,308. A copy of the proposed IGA is attached along with a copy of the detailed work scope and budget. The consultant's role will be to facilitate coordination, provide technical and legal advice, and represent the County and local jurisdictions before Metro. Washington County would administer the contract, with staff from each of the jurisdictions serving as a steering committee. The IGA has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the agreement and do not work with the other jurisdictions. mmoi VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Action Plan for Growth and Growth Management Goal # 1 calls for the City to "Protect natural resource areas from the impacts of increased growth". FISCAL NOTES Tigard's share of the estimated cost of hiring the consultant is $9,300. Monies were not budgeted for this expense. Community Development will attempt to cover the $9,300 through department salary and materials and services cost savings. However, should such savings not be possible, it will be necessary to process a budget adjustment. is\ci"ide\sum\goa15IGA.doc AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/12/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE City-Metro Fanno Creek Property IGA PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council authorize the Council President to sign the attached Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for City management of a Metro-purchased Greenspace property? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council approve the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the May 23, 2000, Council meeting, Jim Desmond, the Metro Greenspaces acquisition manager, met with Council to discuss the local management of an 11-acre natural area, located along Fanno Creek between Hall Boulevard and Bonita Road and known as the Brown property (see map attached). This rectangular-shaped property is relatively flat and is surrounded on parts of two sides by existing City greenway. The railway line and the Fields open space property, respectively, border the property on its two other sides. The vegetation consists of heavily wooded, mature coniferous and deciduous trees and brushy understory vegetation. As depicted in the maps, Fanno Creek flows east west through most of the 1,600-foot length of the property. Among other potential uses, the property would provide right-of-way for the future extension of the Fanno Creek trail. It also connects to the City's proposed Bonita Park and would provide passive recreation opportunities to complement the park's proposed active uses. In general, the IGA transferring control of the property obligates the City to manage the property as a natural area. Before the property can be opened for formal public use, the City is required to develop a management plan with public involvement. The plan, which is subject to Metro Council approval, is required to set forth the types and levels of public use, the location of trail and other improvements, and specific management and 0 maintenance standards. H H The IGA contains a provision allowing the City and Metro to add future Metro-purchased Tigard properties q should both parties agree to local management. Any such future properties would be considered on an individual basis; the City would have to buy off on a property before it could be added to the agreement. Any property Council did not consider suitable or as meeting the City's requirements would not have to be added. a According to Metro, the advantage of adopting a master IGA is that the City and Metro would avoid having to go through a formal process to re-adopt a separate IGA each time Metro acquired a property in Tigard and both governments agreed to local management. If the IGA is approved, this will be the City's second local management agreement with Metro. In 1998, the City assumed management and planning responsibility for a seven-acre Metro-purchased property located adjacent to Woodard Park. The City attorney's office reviewed the IGA and negotiated certain modifications to better protect the City's interests. The Community Development and Public Works Departments both support the City assumming control of the property. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not authorize the Council President to sign the IGA. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The purchase by Metro has preserved a natural area property with substantial stream frontage in an urban neighborhood. Community Aesthetics Goal #1 calls for "Developing strategies to balance needs of new and infrll development with the need to provide protection of defined aesthetic qualities valued by those who already live and work in Tigard." FISCAL NOTES The eleven-acre property was purchased by Metro using regional Greenspaces dollars. The cost was in the $350,000 range. As with other properties in the City park and greenway system, the City will be responsible for ongoing maintenance and for responding to any citizen complaints related to the property. Based on typical greenway maintence costs, Public Works estimates the cost of maintaining the eleven acres at $500. The City also would be solely responsible for the cost of any future improvements, such as a paved trail. At the same time, the IGA does not obligate the City to carry out any improvements. is\6rywide\sum\browniga.doc 052298 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT City of Tigard / Fanno Creek Open Space Property This Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement") dated this day of 2000, is by and between Metro, a metropolitan service district organized under the laws of the state of Oregon and the 1992 Metro Charter, located at 600 Northeast Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97232-2736 ("Metro"), and the City of Tigard, located at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 91223. RECITALS: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Metro Open Spaces, Parks and Streams 1995 Ballot Measure 26-26 ("Metro Open Spaces Bond Measure"), on June 15, 1998, Metro purchased approximately 11 acres of real property, including approximately 986 feet of Fanno Creek frontage, located along S.W. Bonita Road, City of Tigard, commonly known as the "Brown Property" and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein; WHEREAS, the Brown Property is located within the Fanno Creek Target Area identified pursuant to the Metro Open Spaces Bond Measure, and is also identified as a regionally significant open space and natural area in the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan; WHEREAS, Metro and the City of Tigard wish to preserve the Brown Property as open space in accordance with the Metro Open Spaces Bond Measure and the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan; WHEREAS, on , 2000, the City of Tigard's City Council authorized the City of Tigard to enter into this Agreement to manage, operate and maintain the Brown Property, and future Metro Open Space acquisitions located within the City of Tigard's city limits if accepted in accordance with the terms set forth in this Agreement; WHEREAS, on , 2000, the Metro Council authorized Metro to enter into this Agreement to transfer the management responsibility for the Brown Property, and future Metro Open Spaces acquisitions located within the city limits of the City of Tigard, if accepted by the City of Tigard in accordance with the terms set forth in this Agreement, and WHEREAS, Metro and the City of Tigard wish to enter into this Agreement to provide for the responsibilities and obligations of the parties with respect to the allowable uses, f management, maintenance, and operation of the Brown Property; # I,. 1 1'I(iARI) / FANNO CIZL'BK IGA N;.iK('-YILfSV'lI.F4.OI.UNli7\NfI:TROI\PARKSIUCI'TS\I'ARKS\I.ON(ITI;RM\OlKn Spices\ iAbll;\Nlhuwn'_ urd fc it}.i On dew U IMB10 052298 NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Acquisition 1. In June of 1999, Metro purchased the Brown Property in fee simple ownership with Metro Open Spaces Bond Measure proceeds. The City of Tigard acknowledges that it has received from Metro a copy of the Phase I Environmental Assessment performed on the Brown Property by Hahn and Associates, dated March 29, 1999 and the follow-up letter from Hahn & Associates dated June 15, 1999 regarding additional work performed on the Property. 2. Metro may negotiate purchase and sale agreements for other open space property within the city limits of the City of Tigard. Metro shall be responsible for these negotiations and for determining the terms and conditions of said Purchase and Sale Agreements and any other terms of the transactions as determined between Metro and the sellers. Metro shall be responsible for conducting the normal due diligence investigations prior to acquisition, pursuant.to Metro Open Spaces Bond Measure requirements. Metro shall also be responsible for drafting and coordinating escrow instructions and closing details, and shall pay the Buyer's closing. costs. The City of Tigard may wish to accept management responsibilities for the properties acquired as set forth herein and in section B(3). If, prior to accepting the properties, the City of Tigard requires any due diligence investigations not normally performed by Metro, the City of. Tigard shall be solely responsible for those items. B. Manaeement, Maintenance, and Operation 1. As required by the Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, the long-term management guidelines for the Brown Property and any other open space property managed by the City of Tigard under this Agreement (collectively, the "Properties") must be set forth in a Resource Management Plan ("Management Plan") for the Properties. This Agreement shall set forth the interim protection guidelines for the Properties which shall govern prior to adoption of the Management Plan, and shall also set forth the use limitations for the Properties which must be carried forth and reflected in the Management Plan. 2. Metro and the City of Tigard agree that the City of Tigard shall be responsible for the ongoing management, maintenance, and operation of the Properties, both during the interim period and after adoption of the Management Plan. 3. If Metro executes an agreement to purchase additional property within the Fanno Creek Target Area which Metro would like the City of Tigard to manage under the terms of this Agreement, Metro shall notify the City of Tigard in writing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Notice of Acquisition"). Upon request by the City of Tigard, Metro agrees to provide the City with a copy of any independent environmental studies performed for Metro on the Property about which Metro has sent the City a Notice of Acquisition. Tile City of Tigard shall notify Metro if the City of Tigard does not wish to accept management responsibilities for that property in accordance with this Agreement, using the City of Tigard's best efforts to make this notification prior to the closing date for the acquisition. If the City of Tigard has not so notified Metro within thirty (30) days of receiving Metro's t'age 2 TIGARn i rANNO CRI-EK IGA \)p114C. I ILGS411TSWMA NE IINI li'I'RoI\I'ARKS\Of:I'T\tl'ARVaV,ON(; I FRNP01 •n$y:-,11:AUff VAftrown2-dreigadnd- 1)An) I /INI 0527.98 Notice of Acquisition, then the City of Tigard shall be deemed to have accepted the new Property for management, maintenance and operation responsibilities in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4. The term of the City of Tigard's management, maintenance, and operation responsibilities for the Properties shall be determined by the Management Plan, but in no event shall the term be less than ten (10) years from the effective date of this Agreement, renewable by mutual written agreement for additional ten (10) year periods. 5. Metro grants to the City of Tigard, its agents and contractors, the right to enter the Properties for the purpose of performing all activities reasonably necessary for the management, maintenance and operation of the Properties and for the fulfillment of its duties under this Agreement and pursuant to the Management Plan. C. Interim Protections Guidelines 1. Prior to the adoption of a Management Plan for the Properties in the interim period, the Properties shall be managed, maintained and operated by the City of Tigard in accordance with and in a manner consistent with this Agreement, the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan, and the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan (this Agreement and these plans collectively referred to herein as "the Plans"). In case of conflict among Plans, the Plan affording the highest level of resource protection shall govern. 2. In the interim period and thereafter, the Properties shall be managed, maintained, operated, and protected in accordance with their intended use as a natural area open space, with the primary goals being protection of the Properties' natural resources, enhancement and protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and public recreation consistent with the foregoing. 3. In accordance with the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan, formal public use of the Properties and site development on the Properties shall not begin until a Management Plan for the Properties has been adopted. 4. Prior to the adoption of a Management Plan for the Properties in the interim period, the Properties may be used informally by the public for wildlife friendly passive recreation, wildlife viewing, and wildlife friendly pedestrian activity, in the City of Tigard's discretion. All uses of the Properties in the interim period shall be consistent with this Agreement and with the Plans, and shall not preclude any uses that could later be allowed in the Management Plan. 5. Prior to the adoption of the Management Plan for the Properties in the interim period, the City of Tigard shall not allow or permit any alteration of any water, timber, mineral, or other resource on the Properties, except for the control of exotic or pest plant species or as necessary to prevent Properties degradation or for security or public safety concerns. If the City of Tigard believes that an improvement, trail, or alteration of any water or timber resource on the Properties is necessary prior to adoption of a Management Plan for the Page 3 TIGARD / FANNO CRI-r:K IGA \\A1HC 1'1LIiS\f1LIiS\OLDNIilU1liTRp1\PAHKS\blil'fS\I'AkKS\LQN(iTP. RNMIkn SpacrOEAf)IUM11-0mdr raclnd- OR/OI /tM 052298 Properties, Metro shall have the right to approve of such action, and the City of Tigard shall provide Metro 90 days advance written notice of its intent to construct any improvements, trails, or alteration of water or timber resource on the Properties. In any event, no improvements or trails shall be constructed on the Properties and no alteration of water or timber resource shall occur that are inconsistent with this Agreement and shall not preclude any uses that could later be allowed in the Management Plan. 6. Metro will perform the following immediate stabilization measures on the Properties: A. Metro will remove blackberries in upland areas and replant disturbed areas in upland portions of the Properties with native vegetation and trees. B. Metro will maintain the areas so replanted until the planted vegetation is established. 7. Prior to adoption of the Management Plan and thereafter, the City of Tigard shall maintain security of the Properties, and shall provide additional fencing, gates, signage, and other measures as the City of Tigard may deem necessary to increase safety on the Properties, and to"deter improper public use of the Properties prior to adoption of the Management Plan. During the interim period, the City of Tigard shall control access to the Properties, and shall respond to neighborhood or citizen complaints regarding improper use or noise on the Properties. D. Resource Management Plait for the Properties 1. The City of Tigard shalt develop a resource management plan ("Management Plan") for the Properties, either individually, or collectively. The Management Plan(s) shall set forth the acceptable management, operation, maintenance, types and levels of programmed and public use, and trail and improvement standards for the Properties. The City of Tigard shall manage the Properties in accordance with the standards and guidelines developed in the Management Plan(s). 2. The Management Plan shall ensure that the Properties are used, managed, maintained and operated in accordance with the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan and with this Agreement, and that all trails and improvements on the Properties comply with the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan and with this Agreement. The Management Plan shall also ensure that the Properties are maintained as natural area open space, with the primary goals being protection of the Properties' natural resources, enhancement and protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and passive public recreation consistent with the foregoing. As part of the process of developing the Management Plan, the City of Tigard shall take an inventory of the resources on the Properties. Such inventory shall include the best available information that reflects the status of the natural resources' condition, at a level adequate to characterize baseline conditions for master plan development. 3. Metro shall designate at least one staff member to participate in the Management Plan process for the Properties. In addition to any other approvals required by the City of Tigard, the Management Plan shall be subject to approval by the Metro Council prior to its Page 4 TIGARD / 1'ANNO CREEK IGA UMHC.fILCtiUILfiti\OLI1NIi1\Ptla'HOI\PAH Kti\DIiPI ti\PAHKtiHANIiTI:ItWOlxn 5P3ca\HADII!W\Bmwn2 -d fc iga cln doe flH/(71 /(N) 052298 implementation, which approval shall 'not be unreasonably withheld and shall be based on consistency with this Agreement and with the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan. E. Permits, Easements, Assessments, Coordination will: Other Public Agencies 1. As stated in the Greenspaces Master Plan, by accepting management responsibility for the Properties the City of Tigard agrees to be responsible for funding the operation and maintenance of the Properties with the City of Tigard's own resources. The City of Tigard's management responsibility shall include responsibility for all taxes or assessments for the Properties. 2. Prior to adoption of the Management Plan and thereafter, the City of Tigard shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary for management, maintenance or operation of the Properties. 3. Any permits granted by the City of Tigard to users of the Properties shall comply with the terms and limitations set forth in this Agreement and in the Management Plan for the Properties. 4. The City of Tigard shall be responsible for contacting and coordinating with other local or state agencies regarding any and all management, maintenance or operation issues that may arise with respect to the Properties. 5. All requests for easements, rights of way, and leases on or affecting the Properties shall be submitted to Metro in accordance with the Metro Easement Policy, Resolution No. 97- 2539B, passed by the Metro Council on November 6, 1997, attached hereto as Exhibit C. F. General Provisions 1. Indemnification. The City of Tigard, to the maximum extent permitted by law and subject to the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS Chapter 30, shall defend, indemnify and save harmless Metro, its officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all liabilities, damages, claims, demands, judgments, losses, costs, expenses, fines, suits, and actions, whether arising in tort, contract, or by operation of any statute, including but not limited to attorneys' fees r, and expenses at trial and on appeal, relating to or resulting from the City or its employees', agents', or contractors' management, maintenance or operation of the Properties, including 0 but not limited to construction of trails or in relation to any other improvement on the H Properties. 2. Oregon Constitution and Tax Exempt Bond Covenants. The source of funds for the 4 acquisition of these Properties is from the sale of voter-approved general obligation bonds that are to be paid from ad valorem property taxes exempt from the limitations of Article XI, section I I (b), i l (c), I I (d) and I I (e) of the Oregon Constitution, and the interest paid by Metro to bond holders is currently exempt from federal and Oregon income taxes. The City of Tigard covenants that it will take no actions that would cause Metro to be unable to maintain the current status of the real property taxes as exempt from Oregon's constitutional Pagc 5 TIGARD / 1-ANNO CREEK IGA \11.1RG('ILf:StffLGtilplJ)NIf7~A1I: TR011PARKS\m:PrS\PARKSII.ONG1TRM\01-Sp...0!AUIIi\V\11--2-d r, igad h. nnroinro 052298 limitations or the income tax exempt status of the bond interest. In the event the City of Tigard breaches this covenant, Metro shall be entitled to whatever remedies are available to either cure the default or to compensate Metro for any loss it may suffer as a result thereof. 3. Si a e. The City of Tigard may provide on-site signage informing the public that the City of Tigard is managing the site. Metro will provide on-site signage which shall be installed by the City of Tigard, stating that funding for the acquisition came from Metro Open Spaces Measure bond proceeds. The City of Tigard shall also document in any publication, media presentation or other presentations, that funding for the acquisition came from Metro Open Spaces Measure bond proceeds. All signage will be consistent with Metro guidelines for Open Spaces Projects. 4. Joint Termination for Convenience. Metro and the City of Tigard may jointly terminate all or part of this Agreement based upon a determination that such action is in the public interest. Termination under this provision shall be effective upon ten (10) days written notice of termination issued by Metro, subject to the mutual written agreement of the parties. 5. Termination for Cause. Either party may terminate tlus Agreement in full, or in part, at any time before the date of completion, whenever that party determines, in its sole discretion, that the party has failed to comply with the conditions of this Agreement and is therefore in default. The terminating party shall promptly notify the other party in writing of that determination and document such default as outlined herein. The other party shall have thirty (30) days to cure the problem. Notwithstanding any termination for cause, both parties shall be entitled to receive payments for any work completed or for which that party is contractually obligated for, which completion or contractual obligation occurred prior to the effective date of the termination, provided that no party shall be obligated to make any payment except for work specifically provided for in this Agreement. 6. Laws of Oregon. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Oregon, and the parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Oregon. All applicable provisions of ORS chapters 187 and 279, and all other terms and conditions necessary to be inserted into public contracts in the state of Oregon, are hereby incorporated as if such provisions were a part of this Agreement including but not limited to ORS 279.015 to 279.320. t 7. Assignment. The parties may not assign any of its rights or responsibilities under this Agreement without prior written consent from the other party, except the parties may { delegate or subcontract for performance of any of its responsibilities under this Agreement. 8. Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered (including by means of professional s messenger service) or sent by fax and regular mail. A J Pale 6 TIGARD / FANNO) CRE.FK IGA MSIRC. I'II.Q'Mf I. SAM RIP. IINVAH001-AHI:SdIIiPI%%PARI:S\LUNQf FR%IN0I-Sp.ws\VA0I I;MR. w.2.-IQ ig.do A.x 08101/00 052298 To Metro: Metro Charles Ciecko Director, Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces 600 N.E. Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 To City of Tigard: City of Tigard Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 91223 9. Severabilitv. If any covenant or provision in this Agreement shall be adjudged void, such adjudication shall not affect the validity, obligation, or performance of any other covenant or provision which in itself is valid, if such remainder would then continue to conform with the terms and requirements of applicable law and the intent of this Agreement. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements or representations relating to these Properties. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands on the day and year set forth above. CITY OF TIGARD METRO BY: L By: Title Title: Exhibits: Exhibit A - Legal Description - Brown Property Exhibit B - Form of Notice of Acquisition Exhibit C - Metro Easement Policy and Metro Resolution No. 97-2539B Page 7 TIGARD / I-ANNO CREEK IGA \\AfRC-I'll-N_SV°II.htiW1.I1N1 IAMI:TROI\I'ARKS\Ulil')"S\PAIt Ks\i.oNG'ri;RM\Ol cn Spac017AD1P%V\Rro-2 -d (c ie, d. d,x , Oft/01/00 =milli 052298 EXHIBIT A Brown Property Page 8 TIGARD / PANNO CREEK IGA \1AIRC.191.fi5U:11.IiS%01.I)NiiTMFTRO1IPARKSIF)rPTSIPARKSII.ONGrLRKr~o,n., Sl.c,s%L•ADIElVllpown2 uwd rc iga cln doc ONA IAN) 052298 EXHIBIT B Notice of Acquisition , 2000 City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 91223 Re: Acquisition of Property along Fanno Creek Dear Duane Roberts: Pursuant to the Metro Open Spaces Bond Measure 26-26, and the Intergovernmental Agreement between Metro and the City of Tigard dated _ , 2000, attached hereto ("Intergovernmental Agreement"), this shall serve as notice of acquisition of the following property along the Fanno Creek Target Area: [Property Address], in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described in Exhibit I attached hereto ("the Property"). Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement, Metro requests that the City of Tigard manage this Property pursuant to the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Please notify Metro in writing if the City of Tigard does not wish to accept management responsibility for this Property. As set forth in the Intergovernmental Agreement, if the City of Tigard does not so notify Metro within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, the City of Tigard shall be deemed to have accepted the new Property for management, maintenance, and operation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Intergovernmental Agreement. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 797-1914. Sincerely, Jim Desmond, Manager Metro Open Spaces Acquisition Division cc: Charles Ciecko, Director, Metro Regional Parks and Grcenspaces Page 9 TIGARD / FANNO CREEK IGA UMHGFILCSVl1.li5\01.17NIi11Atli l-ROI\PARKSMIT1SMAk KS\1ONOI I.N.W01 nSp:..e.UiAOI(i\V\Ilwwn2mtdkigadod- On/01 /00 Jill N 1~~ 052298 EX~TT C Metro Easement Policy and Metro Resolution No. 97-2539B Page 10 TIGARU / FANNO CREE-K IGA %\MRC-FII.I:S\191.1-5\01.1)NEIN ETROI\I'ARKS\13GP)'S\1'ARKS\1.0IdG'1'1?R."\I)l-Sinc<s\IiAOI Ii\VVII-12-d kiga cln Mx 08/01/110 052298 EXHIBIT A Brown Property Government Lots No. 5 and No. 6 in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying within the boundaries of the Oregon Electric Railroad right of way and the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of Government Lot No. 5 lying East of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way; AND FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of Government Lot No. 5 lying within the boundaries of the Bonita Industrial Park. Page 8 TIGARD / FANNO CREEK IGA 1 V)OCS414 0S\06RGGION TRI.\05FANNO CRK\041-.o -dVip dx OC, JJEW,m 6/2712000 052298 EXHIBIT B Notice of Acquisition , 2000 City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 91223 Re: Acquisition of Property along Fanno Creek Dear Duane Roberts: Pursuant to the Metro Open Spaces Bond Measure 26-26, and the Intergovernmental Agreement between Metro and the City of Tigard dated , 2000, attached hereto ("Intergovernmental Agreement"), this shall serve as notice of acquisition of the following property along the Fanno Creek Target Area: [Property Address], in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described in Exhibit I attached hereto ("the Property"). Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement, Metro requests that the City of Tigard manage this Property pursuant to the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Please notify Metro in writing if the City of Tigard does not wish to accept management responsibility for this Property. As set forth in the Intergovernmental Agreement, if the City of Tigard does not so notify Metro within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, the City of Tigard shall be deemed to have accepted the new Property for management, maintenance, and operation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Intergovernmental Agreement. If you have any questions, please. do not hesitate to contact me at 797-1914. Sincerely, I i Jim Desmond, Manager Metro Open Spaces Acquisition Division I i cc: Charles Ciccko, Director, Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces I Page 9 TIGARD / FANNO CRIiEK IGA 1 U)OCSa14 05104RF:GION TRU05FANN0 CRK\04Nown nxQbga d- 000IFI . 602 n000 IM11101 =01 11 NOME 052298 EXHIBIT C Metro Easement Policy and Metro Resolution No. 97-2539B I HEREBY CERTIt•Y THAT THE FOREGOING BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL IS A COMPLETE ND EXACT 00FY OF UIE ORIGMLiHEREOF. J; n V..~aecmrvi~ nwie;r;1- clak of dte udm Qortrrcll FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING GENERAL) RESOLUTION NO.97 25398 POLICIES RELATED TO THE REVIEW OF ) EASEMENTS. RIGHT OF WAYS. AND LEASES ) FOR NON-PARK USES THROUGH PROPERTIES) MANAGED BY THE REGIONAL PARKS AND ) lntroduoed by GREENSPACES DEPARTMENT. ) Mike Burton,•Executive-Offcer . WHEREAS. Metro currently owns and nianages.mom than 6,000 acmes of regional parks, open spaces, natural areas, and recreational fadtrties; and WHEREAS, additional lands are b. M acquired through thg Open Space, Parks, and Streams Bond Measure, approved by voters In May of 1985; and WHEREAS, the primary managetrient objectives for these properties are to provide opportunities for natural resource dependent recreafron, protection of fish, *11drrfe, and native plant habitat and maintenance and/or enhancement of water quardr. and WHEREAS, Metro will be approached with proposals to utir¢e regional parks, open spaces, natural areas, and recreational facilities property for utility, transportation, and other non-park purposes; and WHEREAS, Metro seeks to insure that these uses have no negative I npact upon the primary management objectives of Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaoes properties, end WHEREAS, it would be in Metro's best Interest to provide for the orderly evaluation and consideration of proposals to utircze portions of Metro Regional Parks and Goeenspaoes properties for utility, transportation and other non-park uses: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Metro Cound( hereby adopts the poGey attached as Exhibit A7 for any and all requests related to fonnal proposals for the use of Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces properties for the purposes noted therein. ADOPTED by the Metro Council this ~D day of .1997. I - I I rJon K ti 3 ATTEST: Approved as to Form: i a t cor Ing S etaryDaniel Ap,,. GPr-1 unsel Page 10 TIGARD / FANNO CREEK IGA I UXKSa 14 OSWGREGION TRIA05FANNO CM04twown -d\,ga dx 0001E W- W27/7000 Exhibit "A" METRO POLICY RELA'T'ED TO THE REVIEW OF F.,e4SElVfNTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, AND LEASES FOR NON-PARK'USES Metro owns and manages, either on its own or in partnership with other government and private entities, several thousand acres of regional parks, open spaces, natural areas and recreational. facilities. These facilities art maintained to promote and preserve natural resbtimccs and rxreational opportunities for the public consistent with the Gtr Master Plan adopted by the Metro Council in 1992, the Open Spaces Bond Measure approved by the voters is 1995 and other restrictions limiting the uses of specific properties in existence at the time of its aoquistion by the public. Nothing in this policy shall be construed to allow these facilities to be used in any manlier which detracts from this primary-purpose. This policy is written from the perspective of Metro as the property owner, however, in those cases in which Metro co-own a property with other entities, all decisions concerning the use of the property in question will be fully coordinated with the other owners. In addition, all new development and all proposed worm within, Waw Quality Resource Areas or other environmentally sensitive work will be conducted in accordance with Metro or local government policies, to include where appropriate, application for permits and completion of environmental reviews. In event that local government policies arc less restrictive than the Metro Model ordinances, Metro. will apply the more restrictive Metro policies. RcgarAing requests for casements, right of ways, and leases for non-park uses in Moro owned or managed regional parks, natural areas or recreational facilities, it is Metro's policy to: l) Provide for formal review of all proposed easements, right of ways, and leases for non- park uses by the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Advisory Committee, the Regional Facilities Committee and the full Council. Notwithstanding satisfaction of the criteria set forth herein, the fad determination of whether to approve a proposed easement, right of way, or lease-is still subject to the review and approval by the full Metro Council.- 2) Prohibit the development of utilities, transportation projects and other non-park uses within corridors or on sites which are located inside of Metro owned or managed regional parks, natural auras, and recreational facilities except as provided herein. 3) Reject proposals for utility easements, transportation right of ways and ceases for non-park uses which would result in significant, unavoidable impacts to natural resources, cultural resources, recreational facilities, recreational opportunities or their operation and management. 4) Accommodate utility casements, transportation right of ways or other non-park uses when the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department (tine Department) determines that a proposed casement, right of way or non-park use can be accommodated without significant impact to natural resources, cultural resources, recreational facilities, recreational opportunities or their .operation and management; and that the impacts can be minimized and mitigated. 5) Require full mitigation and related maintenance, as determined by the Department, of all unavoidable impacts to natural resources, recreational facilities, recreatiorW opportunities or their operation and management associated with the granting of casements, right of ways, or [cases to use Metro owned or managed regional parks, natural areas or recreational facilities for non-pa& uses. 6 Jimit rights conveyed by easements, right of ways, and leases for nonl)ark uses to the minimum necessary to reasonably accomplish the purpose of any proposal. 7) Limit the term of casements, right of ways and leases to the minimum necessary to accomplish the objectives of any proposal. 8) Require "reversion r, "non-transfemble" and "removal and restoration" clauses in all easements, right of ways and leases. - 9) Fully recover all direct costs (including staff tune) associated with processing, reviewing, analyzing, negotiating, approving, conveying or assuring compliance with the terms of any casement, right of way, or lease for a non-park use. 10) Receive no less than fair market value compensation for all easements, tight of ways, or leases for non-park uses. Compensation may include, at the discretion of the Department, periodic fees or considerations other than monetary. 11) Require full indemnification from the casement, right of way or lease holder for all costs, damages, expenses, fines or losses related to the use of the easement, right of way or lease. Metro may also require appropriate int,.rance coverage and/or environmental assurances if deemed necessary by the Office of General Counsel. 12) Limit the exceptions to this policy to: grave sales, utilities or transportation projects which are included in approved master/management plans for Metro regional parks, natural areas and recreational facilities; projects designed specifically for the benefit of a Metro regional park, natural area, or recreational facility;-or interim use leases as noted in the Open Spaces Implementation Work Plan. 13) Provide for the timely review and analysis of proposals for non-park uses by adhering to the following process: a) The applicant shall submit a detailed proposal to the Department which includes all relevant information including but not limited to: purpose, size, components, location, existing conditions, proposed project schedule and phasing, and an analysis of other alternatives which avoid the Metro owned or managed regional park, natural area or recreational facility which are considered infeasible by the applicant: Cost alone sliall not constitute infeasibility. b) Upon receipt of the detailed proposal, the Department shall determine if additional infonmation or a Master Plan is required prior to further review and analysis of the proposal. For those facilities which have master plan's, require that all proposed uses are consistent with the master plan. Where no master plan exists all proposed uses shall be consistent with the Greenspaces Master Plan. Deficiencies shall be conveyed to the applicant for correction. c) Upon deternuriation that the necessary information is•eomplete, the Department shall review and analyze all available and relevant material and determine if alternative alignments or sites located outside of the Metro owned or managed regional park, natural area, or roc~cational facility are feasible. d) If outside alternatives are not feasible, the Department shall determine if the proposal can be accommodated without significant impact to park resources, facilities or their operation and mans ement. Proposals which cannot be accommodated without significant impacts shall be ejected. If the Department determines that a prbposal could be accommodated without significant impacts, staff shall initiate negotiations with-the applicant to resolve all issues relatod to exact location, legal requirements; terms of the agreement, mitigation requirements, fair market value, site restoration, cultural resources, and any other issue relevant to a specific proposal or park, natural area or recreational facility. The Department shall: endeavor to complete negotiations in a timely and business-file fashion. e) Upon completion of negotiations, the proposed agreement, in the appropriate fomr,at, shall be forwarded for review and approval as noted in item "1" above. In no event shall construction of a project commence prior to formal approval of a proposal. fl Upon completion of all Metro tasks and responsibilities or at intervals determined by the Department, and regardless of Metro Council action related to a proposed casement, right of way or lease for a non-park use, the applicant shall be invoiced for all expenses or the outstanding balance on expenses incurred by Metro. g.) Permission from Metro for an easement or right-of-way shall not preclude review under applicable federal, state or local jurisdiction requirements.. REGIONAL PARKS AND GREENSPACES STAFF REPORT IN CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 67-2539A FOR THE:PURRrOSE OF APPROVING GENERAL POLICIES RELATED TO GRANTING OF EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, LEASES AND LICENSES FOR NON-PARK USES THROUGH PROPERTIES MANAGED BY THE REGIONAL PARKS AND GREENSPACES DEPARTMENT. Date: July 29, 1997 Presented by. Charles Ci ecko, Director Regional Parks and Greenspaces FACTUAL BACKGROUND -AND ANALYSIS: Metro thrqugh Its Regional Parks and Greenspaees Department currrrntly owns and manages over 6,000 acmes of regional parks, open spaces, natural areas, and recreational facilities. The primary management objectives for these lands Is the provision of natural resource dependent recreation opportunities, protection of fish, wildlife and native plant habitat and the maintenance andfor enhancement of water quality. From time to time, the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department Is approached with proposals to -Alize portions of properties for non-park pufposes, such as utilities, motion components, cell phone towers etc. Currently, there Is no policy to guide the review, analysis br authorization of uses uWch are unrelated to the primary management objectives. The purpose of the proposed resolution is to create policy which wi(( guide-staff in responding to . proposals for non-park uses. -lighlights of the. proposed policy include: • Formal roview and approval of proposals by the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Advisory Committee, Regional Facilities Committee and full Council. Requires development of rion-park uses outside of Regional Parks and Greenspace properties whenever.feasible except when determined that the proposal use can be accommodated without significant impact. . Requires ful( mitigation of all unavoidable impacts. Requires reimbursement of all costs associated with review, analyses and authorization for use. • Requires receipt of not less than fair market value for all non-park.uses. Requires full indemnification for Metro and insurance, if appropriate. Establishes limitations on exceptions. Establishes process for timely review, analysis and resolution of all proposals. the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Advisory Committee considered this issue at their July 1, 1997 neeting and recommends its adoption. 3UDGET IMPACT: the proposed policy requires receipt of not less than fair market value for non-park uses and 'eimbursement of all costs incurred by Metro thereby eliminating the potential of subsidizing uses which ire Inconsistent with the primary management objectives of Regional Parks and Gteenspaces Sroperties. N Regional Parks and Greenspaces staff member will be present to answer any questions by Council •egarding this policy. XECUTWE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION: fhe Executive Officer recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 97-2539A. 114 let) {/3 G NN~t33C r' ~I r J 4 QQrA99 • rn _ r YM' _ ..•.f n,g.~'~ .i' .,.~,:f'"Y , tl. +~~.rY J~: r $ :.r C 1: fee: • ~ ''fir ; /1•-Aif n+.. •i1I V"'W~" rru 4 y- ` a. CSI v` / Iy ..1,.., 1 44 y~.. i Ns it iu..,F r.. CJ. ft Vll !C F _ S, x-16 ~ ,~•w~••' ~ - .c~ , '.tw,'a,<t. ' ' ClaGl'' •Eia 3 ~~.ff~~3~d •~,1•, `~~.i t . ' r k~ t•~~"~.•~ ~{.4t~• J4' ~~~1'.. ~-~l'•.4.i-s• 3~. e.~~y oY~ ~1•!/ ~.~.r'~~"•~,<' - _QY~ _ n;w...~ _ ,..,~i~..'~ -~R'. F•~r;~$'~~ r-tl;•.r!^X}~~~d~ ~ ► ifi r .tP -~1 •i1 y J'~ `ci~:,~'\ , i ~1. C~: t'l,iW.. ~ rtl'1' 1Y` _ . 7l L'Q"'~~'~,'.1~.4M1(vt.' of ~.t.~~: _ i 1{a•v;• ~ ~ (j ' ..i, y •'Y. t t a/ S' ' i' ?'1,^ A~' ,L. _ Rjk i~` b r yr_•<.1 n'y.ri~'! <o { '♦+7~ a,', i1 H o ti,~' \ ~ `.d. ' ~4` ' t t~~.« ~F * s+fa, `'t t. `VP y`1<' ,,..••rtCR1"':41•w: < t 3*' ' +yt' `S• '{,.1 c! - .s , 'F -t• l ` 4 ~ e`' t': < r 'yL.•f~'i+, ~,ti: ~:1• ..~~rle `t t.. •'~C..., ~yri ~f r 3XI c.+ ~,°~'.1i • +~y'.,}r`''' V v"'~{~• •v. ' t . ti. ~~r:; ~:i n. . Y •r r - vi, ~.~y~ _ „ ~"jt r. .~:~Y: , I•~;,~..Ay,f•: } ~d ' S~';; ~ ~"@`~?a,~ y'•~ti ~.DR ~ '.K', S. o- • .S { `SSA a''1 - 7" )"l ti!~ i _.Xy' 4^ejF,~. . l: . I, 1F "'~'~S~ ..+',,.•'er• !~'L•,,f '.k'b ~'S'.trta: ~.~1 ~ t " 1r, i ~„nts I' i•~~~,sy.'• ~1 ` r Tt '*~~•f fy~~~.v ■ L.~`t-'f`A~. 1, ~ C~pA'• i~. 1~ ~.~j,, ~ : .j k;t tl.f' `Ibb;:•~ll'~, t.F,, 7'` ~t'~ ;r,~ i g' ,t~`~~. r ~'`',1 S►~ ~1~~~~f4,~•~ •i.. r. :'L :V.T"t "Li *'"j I es•~_~/ wr r {ir{i* nri\`"? .av.'t.+~''.•,y:'?• r•4' $4 r ' r tr .~.i_ • RaOD •r0. : t F/ 11V R~ t J 49 •t. `!•ta7•~1,.' ~±r~'~i1 l+" ~.xay~~VW r CS ~ ;Y Y' ~„.L•..~''d _~\y a+ i 't { C: '~1t~' t r ~ 1 1. ;~if: < ~ • rr,. R • ;r✓.~ j' t...~.,ti ~7yS `~1 f ` 't_ 1 ~ r`rA ~ ,'l I^ -:a:L' ..~•~,~~5 ~ -I~F~F 1' ~ ~ ~ ~•\i . " V .a• ~:,•~ti,~ ` .4 S~•• ~ .+k+~' ,r) 1-bk• ~'f't'/~.,i_~ il~.' ~I Af(?:~i. "i~~ /w~•,~'k1 6•~;p~ .i.~~ :~ti,.>,•:,.=l~.i.:L~.Ye•P w. I ll)L r ~•"~c ~t•~' yWr ~t .r~~~.~ r '.~i,Z3:.~' ! ~.`a~.o t,.t, f'. •7 f I 1 .e;.~.f't •r~t.r.'', M ~r~ii ~dl ±2'e~i-: • ~RI flil L':~ ~'t~.'i