City Council Packet - 07/24/2001
Of- Ina L
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
JULY 24, 2001
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED
13125 SIN Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Revised 7/20/01 Mayor's Agenda
a
CITY OF TIGARD
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda
item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set
for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:30 mm.
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 503-639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, x309 (voice) or 503-684-
2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - July 24,2W] page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
JULY 24, 2001
6:30 PM
STUDY MEETING
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session to discuss labor relations under ORS 192.660(1) (d). All discussions
are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,
as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any
final action or making any' final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the
public.
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council ar Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications 8r Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35 PM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:40 PM
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted
in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be
removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: May 22, 2001
3.2 Receive and File: Council Goal Update
3.3 Approve Modifications to the Council Groundrules - Resolution No. 01- 47
3.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 2 to the FY 2001-02 Budget to Transfer
$29,376 from the Water Quality/Quantity Fund Contingency to the Capital
Improvements Program for Funding of the Healthy Streams Plan Agreement
with Clean Water Services (Formerly Unified Sewerage Agency) - Resolution
No. 01- 48
3.5 Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Settlement Agreement with Qwest -
Resolution No. 01- 49
COUNCIL AGENDA - July 24, 2001 page 2
3.6 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Contract with Spencer a Kupper
for Consultant Services for the Washington Square Regional Center
Implementation Plan - Resolution No. 01- 50
b. Authorize the City Manager to Sign Aquifer Storage and Recovery
(ASR) Project, Phase 2, Contract with Montgomery Watson
C. Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of Bonita Road Sanitary
Sewer Improvements
d. Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of FY 2001-2002 Pavement
Major Program (PMMP) and Embedded Crosswalk Lighting System
Project
3.7 Adopt the OPEU Collective Bargaining Agreement and Authorize the City
Manager to Sign the Final Draft - Resolution No. 01- 51
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested
to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered
immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need
discussion.
7:45 PM
4. PRESENTATION BY PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC (PGE) ON RECENT
CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND ENERGY ISSUE POLLS
a. Introduction: Finance Department
b. Presentation by Karen Lee, PGE Government Affairs Office
C. Council Discussion/Questions
8:15 PM
5. UPDATE FROM THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
a. Introduction: Library Department
b. Update from the New Tigard Library Construction Committee Members
C. Council Discussion/Questions
d. Council Direction to the New Library Construction Committee
8:35 PM
NOTEi STAFF WILL RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT THE BLUE HERON PARK
' SUBDIVISION APPEAL HEARING (AGENDA ITEM NO. 6) BE OPENED AND
CONTINUED TO AUGUST 14, 2001.
s
COUNCIL AGENDA - duly 24, 2001 page 3
Mayor to read the following:
6. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE BLUE
HERON PARK SUBDIVISION (SUB 2001-00001, PDR 2001-00001, ZON
2001-0002, SLR 2001-00003, VAR 2001-00002)
ITEM ON APPEAL: On June 11, 2001, the Planning Commission denied a
request for approval of, an 18-lot subdivision on 4.15 acres. The lots are to be
developed with attached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development
average just over 3,800 square feet. Development is to be clustered on the west
side of the development site, allowing for the preservation and enhancement of the
pond, wetland, and stream area on the eastern portion of the property. A sensitive
lands review Is required for the development due to the presence of steep slopes, a
wetland, and a natural drainageway on the site. On June 22, 2001 an appeal was
filed regarding the Planning Commission°s denial of the project. LOCATION:
12450 SW Walnut Street; WCTM 2S103BC, Tax Lot 3900. The project site is
located on the south side of SW Walnut Street, opposite of SW 124' Avenue and
west of SW 1211 Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-
4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or
without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.
Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic
and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING
APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapter 18.390.
a. Open Public Hearing and Continue blearing to August 14, 2001
b. Declarations or Challenges
Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parse
contact or information gained outside the hearing, including
any site visits?
Have all members familiarized themselves with the application?
Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the
Council°s jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge
on the participation of any member of the Council?
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony
For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to
raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient
to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to
COUNCIL AGENDA - July 24, 2001 page 4
MUM
the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be
directed toward the criteria described by staff or other criteria
In the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to
the decision.
Proponents
Opponents
Rebuttal
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
g. Continue Public blearing to the August 14 meeting
h. Council Consideration: No ordinance to consider tonight since the
hearing is continued to the August 14 meeting.
9:35 PM
7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:40 PM
fi. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9:45 PM
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If
an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be
announced Identifying the applicable statue. All discussions are confidential and
those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news
media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3),
but must not disclose any Information discussed. No Executive Session may be held
for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive
Sessions are closed to the public.
10:00 PM
10. ADJOURNMENT
\\TIGM3 USFWEPTSWDWCATH'ACCA\010724.DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA - July 24, 2001 page 5
AGENDA
TVGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING
July 24 2001 - 6:30 p.m.
The Study Meeting Is held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall. The
ouncil encourages interested citizens to attend a!1 or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds
the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Meeting to the Town Hag.
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), and (h) Labor Relations, Real Estate Transactions, and Pending
Litigation.. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as
ovided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any Information discussed. No
Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final
decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
> ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
d Cook Park Expansion (Information distributed to City Council)
0 Tonight's Meeting:
- Blue Heron meeting. Staff recommending the hearing be opened and continued to
August 14, 2001. Notice of the continued hearing was mailed last week.
0 Tigard Blast to be held August 3, 4 and 5. If you are participating In the parade, please
be at St. Anthony's parking lot by 8 a.m. on August 4.
0 Annexation Focus Group Meeting Reminder - July 26, 2001, 7-8:30 p.m.
0 Redistricting Hearings - Friday July 27, Noon @ the Beaverton Public Library and at 7
p.m. at the Garden Home Recreation Center
0 Update - Play Equipment and PGE power lines (memo from Gary Lampella, Building
Official)
0 National League of Cities Conference - December
-r V
G A
➢ Executive Session -
The Public Meetings Law authorizes-governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain
limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" Is defined as "any meeting or part of
a meeting of a governing body, which Is dosed to certain persons for deliberation on certain
matters."
Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions:
192.660 (1) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents,
if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites.
192.660 (1)-(b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests
to have an open hearing).
192.660 (1) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital.
192.660 (1) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.)
192.660(l) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations.
192.660 (1) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from
public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon
Revised Statutes.
192-660 (1) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the
governing body is competing with other governing bodies.
192.660 (1) (h) - Legal counsel - Executive session are appropriate for consultation with
counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or
litigation likely to be flied.
192.660 (1) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy
directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related
performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or
staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The
standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief
executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open
to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment.
192.660 (1) Public investments - to cant' on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with
private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or
liquidation of public investments.
192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Local Contract Review Board
FROM: John Roy n ~-Ot
eZ
RE: Cook Park Expansion Phase I
DATE: July 24, 2001
As a result of obtaining very competitive bids for Cook Park Expansion, Phase 1, staff
recommends modifying the scope of services with the contractor, Northwest
Earthmovers, Inc. The Local Contract Review Board recently approved the award for
construction of Phase I which included the following components;
■ 85th Ave. emergency access road
■ Parking lot with landscaping
■ Infrastructure
Butterfly meadow planting & irrigation
■ Wetland viewing gazebo.
The total dollar amount of Phase I with the wetland viewing gazebo is $635,553.30. In
the FY 2001/2002 adopted budget $771,764.00 was allocated for Phase I construction.
This remaining amount of $136,210.00 is the difference between the allocated and
actual construction cost.
The Contractor is proposing a change order to the original scope of services to include
the grading of the sports fields. The proposal would save the City and the Atfalati
Recreation District several thousand dollars. The recommendation is as follows;
If the sports field were constructed now the construction cost benefit to the City would
be $16,500. This would be the cost that would have been spent hauling off excess soil
' from grading operations of the parking lot. An additional benefit would be the quality of
topsoil utilized from the parking lot being of higher quality than the soil imported.
The costs benefit to Atfalati Recreation District would be approximately $60,000 to
$70,000. This would be for costs of import the material needed (approximately 7,000
cubic yards) to construct the sports field at a later date.
KathylCook park phase I change order Jul. 24, 01
11311 1
The Contractor proposes to perform the sports field infrastructure, sanitary/storm sewer
improvements and grading (which will include erosion control measures) for the sum of
$56,936.50. According to the purchasing rules, a purchase order can be amended for
up to 20% of the amount of the original purchase order. That being the case, the total
change order value allowed for this purchase order would be $127,110.00. The change
order proposed falls well within this maximum value.
Although the sports field development has been identified as the responsibility of the
Atfalati Recreation District, our completing this work at this time will not relieve the
District of their obligation. A meeting was held last week with the District and it was
discussed that this change order could save them and the City money, while providing
the community with practice fields sooner. We did receive confirmation from the District
that this modification resolves cost issues related to importing soil for the fields and
allows them to proceed. As a result, the proposal was endorsed by the League and
District representatives who encouraged the City to proceed with expending funds now
with a commitment from them to reimburse or add future improvements either at Cook
park or elsewhere in the City's park system. The City and the District will continue to
maintain the percentage distribution of responsibility for the total improvement plan for
Cook Park, as presented prior to the City Council.
A timely decision is necessary in order to fit within the contractor's construction
schedule. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
KathyACook park phase I change order Jul. 24, 01
Cathy Wheatley - Cook Park Ex ansion Page 1
From: <DaPrezTLL@aol.com>
To: <johnR@ci.tigard.or.us>
Date: 7/24/01 2:48PM
Subject: Cook Park Expansion
Dear John:
This letter is to confirm our meeting of July 20, 2001. Tigard Little
League is committed to the Cook Park Expansion. We will continue to do our
part and are excited at the prospect of getting underway.
We look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
Cynthia M. Anderson
President TLL
503-590-5356
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Gary Lampella, Building Official
DATE: July 24, 2001
SUBJECT: Structures in Power Line Easements
On July 17, 2001 a father and son received an electrical shock using a play structure under the
power lines in Eagles View subdivision. A contract electrical inspector, Bennie Palmer, visited the
site and was interviewed by the press. He made a comment that was misconstrued and taken out
of context. His statement that "I wouldn't let anyone build one of these things within a half a mile of
a high voltage power line" was meant as descriptive and not a literal comment. He did identify
himself as a contract inspector and said his view was not necessarily the City's opinion.
Although structures located under the power lines could be a hazard, the homes in the subdivision
are not subject to anymore hazard to electrical shocks than homes in any other subdivision. The
electrical fields are localized within a few feet of the towers and do not affect the livability of the
neighborhood.
The structure was moved to a safe location and the hazard has been abated. It is important that
the residents understand that these types of easements are "no build easements." Prior to placing
any kind of structure in these types of easements the serving utility company and the City need to
be consulted for construction restrictions. The Building Division will be keeping a closer watch on
this development, and any other development with high voltage lines, to ensure this does not occur
again.
The City's ultimate goal is to promote safe, livable and hazard free housing for all residents within
its jurisdiction.
C. Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. 1
Meeting of 9 - 25-
MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 24, 2001
® STUDY MEETING
Council Present: Mayor Griffith, Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton and Scheckla
(arrived at 6:34 p.m.).
Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Administrative Items:
• City Manager Monahan reminded the City Council that the Tigard Blast will occur
on August 3, 4 and S.
• City Manager Monahan reminded the City Council of a focus meeting pertaining
to the potential Bull Mountain Annexation at Deer Creek Elementary School on
July 26, 2001, from 7-8:30 p.m.
Councilor Scheckla arrived at 6:34 p.m.
• City Manager Monahan reminded the City Council of upcoming legislative
redistricting hearings on Friday, July 27, at noon at the Beaverton Public Library
and at 7 p.m. at the Garden Home Recreation Center. Mayor Griffith reviewed
proposed boundary changes noting that, at this time, the plan is to add part of the
City of Portland to the district that Tigard is in and to delete King City's from
Tigard's district. Mayor Griffith will try to attend the hearing at the Beaverton
Public Library.
• City Manager Monahan noted that staff is recommending that the hearing for the
Blue Heron matter be opened and continued to the City Council meeting of
August 14, 2001. He said there was a problem in that the site was not posted
(notice of hearing) as called for in the Tigard Municipal Code. The set over of the
hearing will allow for the proper meeting noticing to be accomplished.
• City Manager Monahan reviewed the Cook Park expansion contract recently
awarded. The contractor working on this Phase 1 has proposed a change order to
the original scope of services to include grading of the sports fields. A
memorandum was distributed to the City Council outlining the benefits of this
proposal. The memorandum also explained how this would assist the Atfalatl
Recreation League. The League owes the City of Tigard some funds. Mr.
Monahan noted that he has been advised that a check will be delivered by the end
of the week to the City of Tigard in the amount $20,000 to bring the league
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 1
current. In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, City Manager Monahan
noted that the City Council should act on whether or not to approve the request
for the change order. This will placed on this evening's agenda as a non-agenda
item.
® Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed a memorandum distributed
to the City Council regarding structures and power line easements. This
memorandum is on file with the City Recorder. Recently a father and son received
an electrical shock using a play structure located under a power line in Eagles View
Subdivision.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed that an electrical inspector made a comment that he
"wouldn't let anyone build one of these things within a half mile of a high voltage
power line." Mr. Hendryx said this statement was meant to be descriptive and
was not a literal comment. The inspector identified himself to the media as a
contract inspector and said his view was not necessarily the City's opinion. The
memorandum further stated that structures located under a power line could be a
hazard. The homes in this subdivision are not subject to any more hazard to
electrical shocks than homes in any other subdivision. The electrical fields are
localized within a few of the towers and do not affect the livability of the
neighborhood. The structure in question was moved to a safe location and the
hazard abated.
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went go into Executive
Session at 6:59 p.m. to discuss labor relations, real estate transactions and
pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(d)(e) and (h).
Executive Session closed at 7:30 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council U Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith, Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton and Scheckla.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications ex Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
o Cook Park Expansion Contract Addendum - Council to convene as the
Local Contract Review Board.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None.
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 2
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
City Attorney Ramis advised that Item 3.5 should be removed from the Consent
Agenda in light of the City of Portland litigation with Qwest and some of the
questions surrounding franchise agreements at this time. Action on this item should
be delayed until it is better known what course should be taken.
Councilor Dirksen requested that Item 3.6 a. be removed from the Consent Agenda
to be voted on separately. He noted that he would prefer to not vote on this item
since he was not on the City Council at the time the original contract for the
Washington Square Implementation Plan was approved.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the
Consent Agenda without items 3.5 and 3.6 a.
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: May 22, 2001
3.2 Receive and File: Council Goal Update
3.3 Approve Modifications to Council Groundrules - Resolution No. 01-47
3.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 2 to the FY 2001-02 Budget to Transfer
$29,376 from the Water Quality/Quantity Fund Contingency to the Capital
Improvements Program for Funding of the Healthy Streams Plan Agreement
with Clean Water Services (Formerly Unified Sewerage Agency) - Resolution
No. 01- 48
3.5 A ..ali arize._~L... !'5.... 044 ger-t
Item 3.5 deleted upon advice from City Attorney Ramis.
3.6 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Contract with Spencer 81 Kupper
for Consultant Services for the Washington Square Regional Center
Implementation Plan - Resolution 01-49 (Considered separately - see
below.)
b. Authorize the City Manager to Sign Aquifer Storage and Recovery
(ASR) Project, Phase 2, Contract with Montgomery Watson
C. Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of Bonita Road Sanitary
Sewer Improvements
d. Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of FY 2001-2002 Pavement
Major Program (PMMP) and Embedded Crosswalk Lighting System
Project
3.7 Adopt the OPEU Collective Bargaining Agreement and Authorize the City
Manager to Sign the Final Draft - Resolution No. 01-50
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 3
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
Item 3.6 a: Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Contract with Spencer 8z Kupper
for Consultant Services for the Washington Square Regional Center
Implementation Plan - Resolution 01-49
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve Item 3.6a.
(including Resolution No. 01-49).
The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present; 4-0-1:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Abstained
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
4. PRESENTATION BY PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC (PGE) ON RECENT
CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND ENERGY ISSUE POLLS
Finance Director Prosser introduced this agenda item and Karen Lee of PGE. Ms. Lee
presented the results of a commissioned poll performed by Davis 8z Hibbitts on
statewide attitudes toward civic responsibility and energy issues. The civic
responsibility portion of the survey tested attitudes of frequent, occasional, and non-
voters toward voting and community involvement. A copy of Ms. Lee's presentation
is on file with the City Recorder.
i
5. UPDATE FROM THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
Library Director Barnes introduced the Committee. Committee members present:
Sue Carver, George Burgess, Lonn Hocklin, Jim Funk, Kathy Sleeger, Curtis Tigard,
David Chapman, Elaine Harris, Brian Douglas. Staff members serving on the
s Committee: City Manager Monahan, City Engineer Duenas, and Library Director
Barnes. Council liaison to the Committee: Councilor Patton.
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 4
SIR Elm 1111,11
Ms. Barnes brought the City Council up to date on decisions made, Including that the
proposed library would be a 47,000 square foot, two-story structure. She reviewed
the criteria for selecting sites.
Mr. Burgess described the proposals by the architect presented at the last New Library
Construction Committee meeting for a model. The model would give a visual
representation of what the proposed library would look like on a yet-to-be-determined
site. Interior adjacencies will also be described that would detail the layout of the
building.
Ms. Carter briefly reviewed the public information campaign. The Tigard Times and
Cityscape will be used to disseminate Information to the public. She also noted that
City events would represent a means for circulating information. She mentioned that
information was distributed at the Balloon Festival (330 surveys were turned in). In
addition, the Committee was present at the 41 of July Celebration at Cook Park.
Members of the New Library Construction Committee will distribute information at
the upcoming Tigard Blast. Fact sheets are being assembled and the model of the
proposed library will be used to Inform the public. The Committee will continue to
look for opportunities to present information and, once the site is selected, the
Committee members will begin meeting with small groups throughout the City.
Mayor Griffith noted that if any interested group would like to have a representative
of the Library speak to them, they should contact Library Director Barnes.
Discussion followed on the fact that the proposed library would be designed to meet
library needs in the community for the next 15 to 20 years. All of the sites would
allow an option for expansion.
City Manager reported on the potential sites and reviewed the site-selection criteria.
Discussions have been held with representatives for all three sites to determine
availability. At this time the Committee has decided to focus on only two of three
sites since issues have developed on one of the sites.
More information and a recommendation on the final site will be presented to the
City Council on August 28, 2001.
Councilor Scheckla commended the Committee for the work they have done to date.
Councilor Patton recommended that the work be started as possible on the design of
the model and illustrations of adjacencies. Consensus of City Council was that the
Committee could continue to work with the architect on the illustration of
adjacencies.
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 5
6. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE BLUE
HERON PARK SUBDIVISION (SUB 2001-00001, PDR 2001-00001, ZON
2001-0002, SLR 2001-00003, VAR 2001-00002)
Mayor Griffith read the agenda title and the following description for this hearing
item.
ITEM ON APPEAL: On June 11, 2001, the Planning Commission denied a
request for approval of an 18-lot subdivision on 4.15 acres. The lots are to be
developed with attached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development
average just over 3,800 square feet. Development is to be clustered on the west
side of the development site, allowing for the preservation and enhancement of the
pond, wetland, and stream area on the eastern portion of the property. A sensitive
lands review is required for the development due to the presence of steep slopes, a
wetland, and a natural drainageway on the site. On June 22, 2001 an appeal was-
filed regarding the Planning Commission's denial of the project. LOCATION:
12450 SW Walnut Street; WCTM 2S103BC, Tax Lot 3900. The project site is
located on the south side of SW Walnut Street, opposite of SW 1241 Avenue and
west of SW 1211 Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-
4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or
without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.
Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic
and Institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING
APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapter 18.390.
a. Mayor Griffith opened the Public Hearing.
b. Planning Manager Bewersdorff Introduced Associate Planner Kevin Young who
advised that staff recommended the public hearing be continued to August 14,
2001. He advised of problems with regard to posting the site with a hearing
notice. The site is now posted. Mr. Young previewed the history of the
decision as outlined in the City Council meeting packet materials. He noted
that staff continues to recommend approval for the development and that
letters received to date by staff have been forwarded to the City Council.
There were questions regarding process and the set over of the hearing until
August 14, 2001. City Manager Monahan noted that at the August 14
public hearing additional details will be described for the benefit of City
Council.
Councilor Scheckla noted concerns about whether the Town Hall would be
large enough for the anticipated public attendance at this hearing. After brief
discussion, it was determined that the hearing would be held at the Town Hall
since notification specified this particular location.
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 6
It was also noted that final minutes of the Planning Commission meeting would
be included with the meeting materials for the August 14 hearing.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Dirksen, to continue the
appeal hearing for the Blue Heron Park Subdivision to August 14, 2001.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
There was discussion of the arrangement of items on the August 14, 2001,
City Council meeting. The EID/BID hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m. with the
Blue Heron public hearing scheduled for 7:30 p.m.
A member from the audience noted that the minutes of the Planning
Commission appeared to be very "pro" development. She suggested that it
would be helpful to have a Planning Commissioner present at the City Council
public hearing to testify to the City Council. City Attorney recommended
against having a planning commissioner attend to testify citing the commission's
role as au objective decision maker in judging the merits of quasi judicial land
use matters.
7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None.
8. NON AGENDA ITEMS:
• (Local Contract Review Board) Proposed change order to the original scope of
services for the Cook Park Expansion Phase 1 contract with Northwest
Earthmovers, Inc. (For additional information, see discussion by the City Council
during the Study Session portion of this meeting.)
Property Manager John Roy reviewed the Phase 1 components for improving
Cook Park. He noted that the proposed change order would result in savings of
about $16,500. This amount would have been spent hauling off excess soil from
grading operations of the parking lot. Instead the soil would be placed on the
sports field and then graded, which was planned to be done at a later date. An
additional benefit was that the topsoil utilized from the parking lot area was of
higher quality than imported soil. The contractor proposes to perform the sports
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 7
field Infrastructure, sanitary/storm sewer improvements, and grading (which will
include erosion control measures) for the sum of $ 59,936.50. According to the
purchasing rules, a purchase order can be amended for up to 20% of the original
purchase order.
Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Dirksen to approve the
proposed change order.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
> STUDY SESSION (continued)
City Manager Monahan reported that the National League of Cities conference
reservations have been made for the City Council. There was discussion on
airplane reservations. There was discussion about reimbursement payment due
from City Council members if his/her spouse attends.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:25 p.m.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Attest:
i ~
.i
i yor, ar
i
-~S "v~?1
~ Date:
3
I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\010724.DOC
COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 2001 page 8
--mommeam 111111
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 LeogaCe TT 9 916
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 S4] Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Accounts Payable
j
i
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) SS. j
1, Nat-by Rn~vrler
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi ;?rd-T„a1 at-i n Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at q'i gn rc1 in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Plibl i n HParI nU/rjiJB 2001-0000]
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for 014B successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
.Tilly 5, 2001 1
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th clay of July, 2
EGON.
i :i,;ti ;iSSICN
tary Public for Oregon NO. 311234
•;:'ION EXPIRES APRIL 2, 2002
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON' _
~
The following will be considered by the TIGARD CITY.
COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001, AT 7:30 P.M. at the
Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard,
Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited.
The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance.,
with The Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted,,
by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of the
procedure set forth in Section 18.390.050. Testimony may be*-'
submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally k
the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter
at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by
statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker aq
opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use
Board of Appeals based on that Issue. Failure to specify the criterions
from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at
which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that
criterion. 110161TM
A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted'
by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria a*, SUB2001-00001
available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will btI PDt2001-00001
made available for inspection at not cost at least seven (7) days prior, IOHIOO140002
to the hearing, and copies of all items can also be provided at - SLA2001.00003
g, VW001-00002
reasonable cost. • - =
Further information may be obtained from the Planning Divisioir BLUE HEtOH PAAK .
(staff contact: Kevin Young) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard,: SUMMON
Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2001-00001/ '
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2001-00001/
ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2001.00002/SENSITIVE LANDS
REVIEW (SLR) 2001-00003/VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00002 ~ A
>"APPEAL" OF BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION< I 4 _
ITEM ON APPEAL: On June 11, 2001, the Planning Commission
denied a request for approval of an 18-lot subdivision on 4.15 acres:
The lots are to be developed with attached single-family homes. Lot q®
sizes within the development average just over 3,800 square feet
Development is to be clustered on the west side of the development
site, allowing for the preservation and enhancement of the pond, M916 Publish:July 5, 2001. i
wetland, and stream area on the eastern portion of the property. A
sensitive lands review is required for the development due to the
presence of steep slopes, a wetland, and a natural drainageway on the:
site. On June 22, 2001 an appeal was tiled regarding the Planning;
Commission's denial of the project. LOCATION: 12450 SW-
Walnut Street; WCTM 2S103BC, Tax Lot 3900. The project site is:
located on the south side of SW Walnut Street, opposite of SW 124'".
Avenue and west of SW 12151 Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density-
Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to:
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without:
accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.-
Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted:
conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted,
conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED::
Community Development Code Chapter 18.390.
d1.5a 3S9d 1A Ste' Se lon
CITY OF TIGeD
June 29, 2001
OREGON
Dave Nicoli
D.P. Nicoli
19600 SW Cipole Road
Tualatin, OR 97062
RE: Atfalati Recreation Agreement
Dear Dave:
As I mentioned to you in a voice-mail message last week, to date the City of Tigard has
not received the annual payment by the Atfalati Recreation District towards the
purchase of the Lamb/ Gray property. As I'm sure you recall, the agreement between
the City and Atfalati which was signed in August 1997 called for ten annual installment
payments of $15,000 to be received by May 1 of each year. According to City records,
the following payments have been made:
February 10, 1998 $15,000
May 8,1998 $15,000
June 11, 1999 $15,000
August 4, 2000 $10,000
In reviewing the payment schedule, it appears that only a partial payment was made in
2000. Is it your intention to complete the payment for 2000 and also make the 2001
payment in one payment of $20,000? If so, could you please advise when the City will
receive the payment.
' In addition, the agreement requires proof of insurance be filed annually with the City's
risk manager. Between September 1, 2000, and June 20, 2001, the City was unable to
s obtain proof of insurance. I have been advised that we have now obtained that proof of
a insurance that is good through September 1, 2001. Would you please take whatever
steps are appropriate to make sure that future insurance information is provided to risk
management in a timely manner. As I'm sure you are aware, Section 12 of the
agreement provides that Atfalati will maintain in full force and effect public liability
131125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Dave Nicoli
D.P. Nicoli
June 29, 2001 2
and property damage insurance throughout the term of the contract. It is crucial that
the City be kept informed of the status of insurance and be provided with Certificates of
Insurance in a satisfactory form throughout the term of the agreement.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
William A. Monahan
City Manager
c: Loreen Mills
1.1AO&N3U%ETMRSMTFA1AT1 PAYU NTS4NSUPAWXDOC
u
MEMORAND
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager 1k A- i
FROM: Loreen Mills, Risk Manager
RE: Atfalati Recreation District Agr ent Upda
DATE: June 21, 2001
Atfalati Recreation District is delinquent with its financial obligations with the City for the
Gray/Lamb Cook Park Addition.
The City's agreement with Atfalati requires annual installment payments of $15,000 to be
received by May 1st of each year for a period of ten years. While Atfalati can and has paid
more than $15,000 in some years, the contract requires the annual payment still be made
each May 1st. Atfalati's payment record follows:
February 10, 1998 $15,000 Initial payment required by contract
May 8, 1998 $15,000 Payment due on 5/1/98 - 8 days late
June 11, 1999 $15,000 Payment due on 5/1/99 - 41 days late
August 2, 1999 $8,400 Extra payment - was this intended to be part of the
$5,000 owed on 511100?
August 4, 2000 $10,000 Partial payment that was due 5/1/00 - 95 days late
N/A $ -0- Payment due on 5/1/01 - 51 days late to date
From this payment history, Atfalati has established a history of increasingly late payments
and has failed to pay the total due from last year and this year's payment. The following
arrears balance is as of 6/21/01:
Partial payment due from 5/1/00 $5,000
Full payment due from 5/1/01 $15,000
TOTAL PAST DUE 129.10-0-0
The agreement is silent on whether interest is to be charged on payments in arrears or late
payments. In an effort to "keep the City whole" and treat Atfalati fairly, the Finance
Department could determine the interest that the City would have earned on the monies due
and charge this figure only rather than charging an arbitrary interest amount on the $20,000.
The agreement with Atfalati also requires proof of insurance be filed annually with Risk.
Between 9/1100 and 6/20101, we were unable to obtain proof of insurance or have our phone
{ calls returned. While we have obtained proof of insurance now through 9/1/01, 1 would like to
a find a better way to obtain this information more timely in the future.
a
Please advise how you wish to proceed in collection efforts on the arrears, whether the City's
? lost interest-revenue is to be charged, and how future payments and proof of insurance
a issues should be addressed.
a
Attachment: pages 2, 7 & 8 of City/Atfalati Agreement.
c: Craig Prosser, Finance Director
The purpose of this agreement is to also allow for the consolidation and coordinated use of
the present baseball/softball facilities at Cook Park, the existing soccer facilities at Cook Park and
the facilities to be developed on the Property. The cooperative efforts between the City of Tigard.
ARD, and the various recreational organizations that use the present facilities and the facilities to be
developed is desirable to maximize the use for existing organizations and future organizations.
The parties agree as follows:
1. Purchase of Real Pro a The present members of ARD, TSC and TLL agree to
pay the City a minimum of $15,000 per year for a period of ten (10) years toward the purchase
price of the Property for a total payment of $150,000. ARD shall have the right to prepay its
obligation at any time. The TSC and TI.L are presently assessing their members a per-player fee to
fund this purchase. To the extent that there are assessed funds that have been collected by ARD for
this purchase in excess of $15,000 per year, ARD agrees to place these funds in a separate account
(the Fund), and said funds shall be used upon agreement between the City and ARD as to the use of
these funds for purchase, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property. The first
payment shall be due August 1, 1997, and each payment thereafter shall be due on May 1 of each
year until the entire $150,000 is paid.
The City and ARD recognize that ARD is soliciting additional members to its organization.
It is agreed that should additional ARD members use the Property, they shall be assessed for the
use of the Property and funds assessed shall go into the Fund provided for herein. It is further
Page 2 - AGREEMENT
Properly for any purpose during the recognized seasons would have secondary priorities.
Community events may preclude use of sports fields and related facilities by ARD; prioi to
scheduling these events the Committee shall be consulted.
11. Scheduling Other Uses of Propene. ARD shall provide the Committee with a
schedule of days and times of use and suggestions for field rejuvenation prior to February 1 of each
year. The City shall schedule ARD reservation for the Property and review and schedule ARD's
requests for other City fields. Reasonable use of the Property by other users consistent with ARD
recognized TSC and TLL seasons, will be scheduled by the City utilizing a permit process.
12. Insurance ARD and/or the specific member will maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement public liability and property damage insurance, including bodily
injury, property damage, and personal injury insurance, covering ARD's and/or its member
league's sponsored activities on the Property during the recognized sports seasons. This insurance
shall cover all claims which might arise from operations and activities under this Agreement or
pertaining to ARD's and/or its member league's activities directly and shall carry the City as an
"Additional Insured."
The insurance policy will be with a carrier allowed to transact business in Oregon. The
policy of insurance maintained by ARD and/or its member league shall provide at least the
following limits and coverages: General Liability and Property Damage and shall have a minimum
liability of one million dollars for any one occurrence. ARD's and/or its member league's
insurance policy shall contain provisions that such policy shall not be canceled or their limits of
liability reduced without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City Risk Manager. ARD
Page 7 - AGREEMENT
OMEN
andior its member league shall provide the City with Certificates of Insurance in a form satisfactory
to the City certifying the issuance of such insurance. The Certificates shall be forwarded to: Risk
tiianac, r, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, Oregon. 97223. Such certificates must be
delivered prior to commencement of the terms of this Agreement.
The procuring of such required insurance shall not be construed to limit ARD's and/or its
member league's liability hereunder, Notwithstanding said insurance, ARD and/or its member
league shall be obligated for the total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by negligence
or neglect connected with this Agreement.
13.. Cooperation in Parks Planning_ City has and will continue to involve the
community in the planning for Cook Park, and design and construction of improvements to the
Property. The City, TSC, TLL, neighbors and others have participated as members of the Cook
Park Task Force. Through their efforts, and that of a consultant, the Plan has been developed.
Public meetings have been held throughout the process. In the future, City will give notice of
public meetings regarding its parks planning process, when revisions to the Plan are under
consideration. y
Y. :jyy x :LVY.W'
14. Term. This Agreement becomes effective on the date it is signed by both parties
and will continue for a ten (10) year term which shall begin on August 1, 1997.
15. Ten Year Review and Termination of Agreement Within a one-hundred and
twenty day (120) period prior to the conclusion of the initial ten (10) year cycle, and each ten (10)
i
year anniversary thereafter, ARD and City shall conduct a mutual review of this Agreement and
modify or terminate the Agreement if both parties determine that such a modification or termination
Page 8 - AGREEMENT
c~iscuss~ i2
S~oLt~.,,Se sS/drl.
ate- ajzo
MEMORANDUM l1/~rnA
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
RE: Proposed Redistricting
DATE: July 20, 2001
Representative Max Williams called today reminding that the redistricting decisions are
now under consideration by the Secretary of State's office.
The Secretary of State is conducting hearings around the state from July 21 through
August 3. Hearings in our area are scheduled for Friday, July 27, 2001:
Noon Beaverton Public Library
12375 SW 5t'
Meeting Room B
7 p.m. Garden Home Recreation Center
7475 Oleson Road
Room 10
Online testimony can be submitted. Here's the web address:
www.sos.state.or.us/redistrict/comments.htm
Max noted the new proposal would take out King City and Durham. The new proposal
would cross over 1-5 and include some area that's in the City of Portland.
It is possible that this may be discussed more during the July 24, 2001, City Council
meeting.
1AAMACATHYI000NCIUMEM0 - REDISTRICTING.DOC
10~ ~ o \J5
r ~
41West 7 on
o
cp 101xv/0 W Verboori o RGR
Rp vE z 1 R 9t & AIRPORT
Forest Q Al Hillsboro COR L RD 1s CQRNELL
Grove
EL RD
Corne Ius = N m
N y ~ 6q R
Zc TUALATI
TOWN RO N VAC TV HWY
Dilley A a BEAVERTON
erto
o
o; GASSHER RD
11= Cooper
z
Farmington turn a
0 on " Tigor
FERRO
SONOLBug
BA Mtn
Laurel 00 Scholls
King
WASHINGTON CO c "-3 City
District urha
"A61H ! I. L CO. /C. ~
A AT
Map 7 9 RDf ala I
State Ropr®senmtlves N
T
WashIMM ill House senate
District District
a
o = zc~
3&5 5 Go! c ¢
667 3 0~. IB H L z ~c
ea9 4 os Sherwood o N J
24627 13 p 3 c)
0]
Map Gmphb by Metro -&MWY 1992
Cortspdaa and !hinted by Seaetsy at State Pill KeisSrg
TTIT T C1 T T TrrTCTTn raTT
• C y i `rm r`. 4 ~~•%*ll'C . .ru ,~•YynS`i.?"} „°I~!K'L' "1 -
92nd sr r ~ ~*G~' ~ ~ o «,r .h . I ~I )rl
NIS
r 6 -T>;,.•~J~'I'~t{, V`~7tC jr_ [ti I r • ~ - o
~ » ~y t '~l,`,;1~ry.d.'s~vy ~ ~Lt= , c~{oL°' 7 til -.r, t r`• J ( ~
I our
•'~4 ~ `~•'u~t ~ ~ 141it11 , Y.` r ia•.-1 ' 16 U iQ i _ ' ~~}r,
. 131
- 1"~"" ~.ti'. ;i:,)r~,1.T{~ -T~i~ •8ie,~ u.' i`p'a ~S% -t+~
,rf1. - ,I.'• y ,J•',Eil ' f~i ;ri T• 1} ~ .r ~ a~ , _ ~r~j~r,
- ~ x'''11 ~r l(i,: 5 ~ ~ '{jr~r li ~ f` -~r
1' i ~ , f 3 J I ~ 1,1$4 ~ 1 `b h Gig `r lr -
r- } ' • 't ,~fr,fi3~S ?~~d{ I' i TI I f w h'(} f ''`~•~(rt'*ilyg f~'`'~ Or~✓.>r a -a' 7 - ` _
13
T`F t1+0r' l ~ j {y~ I.l.t~1 f N J''` , F~ 'E7i I ` I r. 1 d~ Im, C
lY' yr A !
I()y
( I I y~
JL l
I 1 hi
t . Sth till ~(I{ I' t~ o-, > I ;w.
}g t '1 Ir.+ 2 1 `r - • 1S;]~' >+T 1, r < i Cl
{ I _ l' r ~k': I17r Ij it i ' . u 1 ~ I ~ ~~yyl 1~G~ i t.. i~+r ~ ,:9
F z
7ij
}!~y + N 1 'C ~[~-•i!'-.r ~ ti 9~` ~Ul~~~r l Ill 4.. t 7
,:~,N fir. t~'j~•.~1^~J ?'S.. yl • ~ • ~f '*3`. r
fi•. 55!1-1 7+ C , ri.:6r~ iD ti
_ ~ •a~l"~ 1 ~ r`,~~ J 7TU7~'z~''ti ~'i 11 ;4 .'E;
~ , I1 I yV.ryr. tF-~:;~' vfrP .L••1`1. r~:~,~t ` ~;t, ^q fa~''•i.
~ . ~ r "nj,; qy ~ ,,yyam~ .
AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : July 24, 2001
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues
not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager
prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA ITEM # 3 a.
FOR AGENDA OF July 24.2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMIlVIARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Receive and File: Council Goal Update
PREPARED BY: C.Wheatley U DEPT HEAD OK A4--CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Update on the progress of the Council goals for the second quarter of 2001.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the update.
INFORMATION SAY
Attached are brief summaries of the progress made in the second quarter of 2001 on the Council goals
developed by the Council in January 2001.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Visioning goals are identified throughout the goals and tasks developed by the City Council.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARIES\COUNCIL GOAL UPDATE - 7-24-01.DOC
2001 Tigard City Council Goals
July 2001 Update
GoalI Transportation.
Staff Responsible: Jim Hendryx and Gus Duenas
Continue the City's Transportation Improvement Program:
a. Complete the City Transportation System Plan, discuss funding
mechanisms and initiate implementation.
b. Support and promote commuter rail.
c. Develop a Ned route bus program for Tigard intra-city service.
d. Revisit Transportation Improvement Projects (the 2000 bond
measure) and potential funding sources.
e. Promote resolution of 99W issues (and other state owned facilities in
Tigard).
Tasks:
1. Reconstitute the Bond Measure Task Force.
2. Review the bond measure options.
3. Discuss alternative funding solutions
4. Work with Washington County to promote funding of
commuter rail.
S. Address Issues of Hwy 99W with ODOT and raise issues to the
2001 legislature.
6. Continue to improve pedestrian/pathway connections.
7. Review the need for sidewalk and street lighting improvements,
even on trails.
8. Implement the City Transportation Improvement Program.
9. Promote opportunities to travel through the City of Tigard
without accessing Hwy 99W.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 1
I:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\200 I \GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
July 2001 Update (Engineering)
The Transportation Financing Strategies Task force has met three times since April
2001. The Task Force Is evaluating funding sources for both corrective and
preventive maintenance of City streets, and expansion of major collectors to
accommodate current and future traffic. One potential major funding source for
street maintenance is a transportation user fee (street utility fee). The City of
Portland recently included such a fee in their Fiscal Year 2001-02 budget. The
cities of Tualatin, Wilsonville, Eugene, and others have initiated that type of fee for
their street maintenance work.
On June 21, 2001, the Task Force listened to a presentation by Dan Boss,
Operations Director of Tualatin on that City's Street Maintenance Fee. The Task
Force is seriously considering implementation of a Transportation User Fee to help
protect the City's investment in the street infrastructure. The League of Oregon
Cities has warned us about attempts by the state legislature to cap or preempt
street utility fees. We have gone on record to strongly oppose any such legislative
attempts to preempt Oregon cities from Initiating such fees. Mayor Griffith has sent
letters to both Senator Deckert and Representative Williams strongly opposing any
legislative action to preempt these fees.
The initial progress report by the Task Force to City Council is scheduled for
August 28, 2001. Progress reports from the Task Force will be at approximately
six-month intervals until the Task Force mission is accomplished.
July 2001 Update (Community Development)
a. Complete the City Transportation System Plan, discuss funding mechanisms and
initiate implementation.
Timing for adoption of the TSP has been discussed with the City Attorney and a
strategy has been developed to address Measure 7 concerns. Staffing levels and the
availability of the consultant will delay further action until Fall of 2001.
b. Support and promote commuter rail.
The State Legislature has approved funding for the local share of the Commuter
Rail Project. Federal funding is now being sought. Construction is scheduled for
completion in the Fall of 2004.
C. Develop a fixed route bus program for Trgard intra-city service.
Council recently prioritized needed transit improvements at its June 19, 2001
workshop. Working with the Westside Transportation Alliance, Council's priorities
will be emphasized to Tri-Met.
July 2001 Coal Update Page 2
MADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\200 I \GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
z
d. Develop a fixed route bus program for 73gard antra-city service.
Council recently prioritized needed transit Improvements at Its dune 19, 2001
workshop. Working with the Westside Transportation Alliance, Council's priorities will
be emphasized to Trl-Met.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 3
1:\AMCITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
111181 10111111111 mile
arm
April 2001
Continue the City's Transportation Improvement Program
a. Complete the City Transportation System Plan, discuss funding mechanisms and
initiate implementation.
The Planning Commission Hearing, was conducted on February 5, 2001. Planning
Commission approved the TSP and recommended that it be forwarded to City
Council. Planning staff is keeping a comment log on the TSP, which is currently in
draft version pending comments and public hearing before adoption. Once all the
comments have been received, all revisions to the draft plan will be made and a final
version will be published with relevant comments incorporated.
The TSP workshop with City Council was conducted on March 20, 2001. DKS,
the TSP consultant, made a presentation, answered questions from Council, and
received comments from Councilors regarding various aspects of the Plan.
Councilors were concerned about the lack of intra-City bus service and wished to
have that emphasized in the TSP. The impact of Measure 7 is still to be ascertained.
There will be consultation with the City Attorney's office on the ramifications of
adopting the TSP, but not moving to revised the Municipal Code until later. The
timing for adoption of the TSP will be reviewed periodically during the next few
months as these discussions with the City Attorney and City Council continues.
b. Support and promote commuter rail.
A resolution of support from the Tigard City Council, and letters of support from the
Tigard Chamber of Commerce, Tigard Central Business District Association and its
Board Members, have been sent to the Governor and key Legislators.
C. Develop a fixed route bus program for Tgard intra-city service.
Working with the Westside Transportation Alliance, an additional year of funding has
been awarded to continue the Access to Work program into 2003/2004.
Washington County received federal funding to expand the Transit Choices for
Livability program in the County. Staff continues to work with the County and the
Westside Transportation Alliance to increase transit options in Tigard.
Correspondence has been sent to Tri-Met requesting detailed information on the
amount of transit taxes paid by businesses within the community vs. the level of transit
service received.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 4
1AADM\CI7Y C0UNCIL\G0AL5\2001\G0ALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
go, 11119
d. Revisit Transportation Improvement Projects (the 2000 bond measure) and potential
funding sources.
City Council passed Resolution 01-06 appointing a Transportation Financing Strategies
Task Force to re-evaluate the bond package, determine what went wrong with the bond
issue and make recommendations to City Council for future funding strategies. The first
meeting of this Task Force Is scheduled for April 19, 2001. The Task Force will be
presenting periodic progress reports every quarter. Major transportation improvements,
safety projects, and traffic calming measures will continue to be incorporated in the
yearly Capital Improvement Program subject to the availability of funding.
e. Promote resolution of 99W issues (and other state owned facilities in Tigard)
Staff continues to coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation on the
level of Improvements needed on 99W and other state owned facilities. Opportunities
for grant funding is being evaluated to further peruse this effort.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 5
I:XADM\CITY COUNCIMOALSMORGOALS JULY UPDATE-DOC
Goal 2 Provide recreational opportunities.
Staff Responsible: Jim Hendryx
Tasks:
1. Develop and define a strategy to provide recreation
opportunities for all citizen needs Including:
a. Programs
b. Facilities
c. Activities
2. Evaluate the need for a separate Parks and Recreation
Committee.
July 2001 Update:
The Mayor's Youth Forum has met four times since February. The group is
focusing on programs and services for youth In the community. A Community
Youth Service/Program Resource Inventory has been prepared that briefly describes
all of the current programs and services available to youth in the community and
the challenges and limitations to continuing various programs. The Youth Forum is
assessing ways the group can help service and program providers meet those
challenges.
A representative of the Boys and Girls Clubs spoke to the Youth Forum and the
Forum will research in the coming months how a Boys and Girls Club might serve
Tigard Youth.
In the next few months, the Youth Forum will also focus on getting youth involved
in addressing the issues.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 6
I:V►DMICITY COUNCIMOALWOOMOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
April 2001
Many organizations are attempting to rill voids in recreation opportunities for youth
in Tigard. On February 27, 2001, Mayor Griffith hosted a Tigard Youth Forum.
The idea was to brainstorm what services are being provided now for youth and
what additional services are needed.
The main theme seemed to be buses and rooms for programs are available from the
schools, however, funding Is the Issue. A discussion was held about forming a Youth
Advisory Committee. A Steering Committee is working on this formation.
i
M
i
a~
ai
i
]uly 2001 Goal Update Page 7
I:\ADM\CITY COUNCILMALSX20ORGOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
Goal 3 Support the efforts of the Tigard Central Business
District Association (TCBDA) and their plan to
revitalize the downtown.
Staff Responsible: ]im Hendryx
Tasks:
1. Assist in getting funding for implementation of the TCBDA
downtown program.
2. Determine the level of City financial support to the revitalization
effort.
3. Review development code requirements that affect the
downtown (i.e., parking, etc.).
]uly 2001 Update:
1. Assist in getting funding for implementation of the TCBDA
downtown program.
Public hearings are scheduled in ]uly and August to establish an Economic
Improvement District. The district would fund the TCBDA's program for
improving the downtown.
2. Review development code requirements that affect the
downtown (i.e., parking, etc.).
Measure 7 related Issues have been resolved and the parking provisions are
scheduled before Council in the Fall of 2001.
i
i
7
H
i
i
3
July 2001 Goal Update Page B
I:\ADM\CITY COUNCIMOALWOOMOALS JULY UPDATLDOC
Ila
April 2001
a. Assist in getting funding for implementation of the TCBDA downtown program.
TCBDA, with financial assistance from Tigard, has contracted with the Oregon
Downtown Development Association (ODDA) to evaluate and pursue funding
options. TCBDA has evaluated options and is pursuing creating Economic and
Business Improvement Districts to support their revitalization efforts. A preliminary
budget has been established, assessments determined, and the program developed.
Funding for the program would come from a variety of sources including property
and business owners and the City. Presentations have been made before the CIT, City
Council and business and property owners outlining the accomplishments of TCBDA
and the proposed revitalization program. A public hearing to enable the City to
establish an Economic Improvement District and a Business Improvement District is
scheduled before City Council on April 10, 2001. Public hearings to create the
Economic Improvement District are tentatively scheduled in June and July of 2001.
b. Determine the level of City financial support to the revitalization effort.
Establishment of an Economic Improvement District and Business Improvement
District (EID/BiD) would establish the level of support from the City. The City's
preliminary contribution towards the EID/BID would be approximately $26,667 per
year.
C. Review development code requirements that affect the downtown (i.e., parking
etc.).
Prior to voter approval of Measure 7, staff working with TCBDA proposed to modify
the parking standard for businesses along Main Street. Conversion of existing
buildings to uses requiring more parking would not be required to provide the
additional off-street parking. The Planning Commission considered the amendment
and voted unanimously in support of the amendment. Furthermore, new buildings
replicating the square footage of existing buildings would not be required to provide
i off-street parking. Entertainment businesses would be excluded from these provisions.
Measure 7 delayed further action on this amendment.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 9
1:\ADM\CITY COUNCIMOAM200AGOALSS JULY UPDATE.DOC
Goal 4 Continue to Implement the City Park Master Plan.
Staff Responsible: Jim Hendryx
Tasks:
1. Apply funding to the plan.
2. Urge that Washington County establish a Parks Systems
Development charge for the Tigard Urban Services area.
3. Complete the Summerlake Park plan.
4. Update the City Park master plan elements as land is added to
the City system.
5. Continue to implement the Cook Park master plan.
6. Continue discussions with the Tigard-Tualatin School District for
creation of a City Park associated with the proposed Alberta
Rider School.
July 2001 Update:
The City parks SDC was revised upward by an average of 57% effective July 1".
The Washington County Commission has expressed majority support for an Urban
Services Area park SDC. This support is tied to the development of an annexation
plan for the area. An annexation study is now underway.
The park consultant has submitted a revised proposal for completing the Summer
Lake Park master plan through a public process.
The bid process for the first phase of the revised Cook Park Master plan has been
completed and construction is now underway. The work will be partially financed
by a $250,000 state grant award. An application for a state loan to provide
additional funding Is currently pending.
Construction of the Tiedeman/Woodard Park segment of the Fanno Creek trail is
set to start in August. Funding will come from a $50,000 federal Recreational
Trails Program grant and Local Share Greenspaces dollars.
Grant applications for facility improvements to Woodard Park, a children's play
structure and a picnic shelter, are pending.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 10
1:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
April 2001
The proposed 2001-02 parks CIP includes four projects identified in the master
plan. These Include Cook Park, the dog park, Fanno Crick trail extension, and
Woodard Park play structure (contingent on grant funding).
A meeting between City and County officials regarding the unincorporated park
SDC is set for April 101.
With the recent completion of the lake management plan, staff now will move
forward with completion of the Summer Lake park master plan.
A master plan for Northview Park has been completed and will be considered
for adoption by Council In April.
Phase one of the three-phase Cook Park Master Plan is set for FY 2001-02
Implementation.
Discussions with the School District regarding a joint use park are ongoing.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 11
I:\ADM\CITY COUIYCIL\GOAM2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
Goal 5 Determine the City's long-term water
supply.
Staff Responsible: Ed Wegner
Tasks:
1. Evaluate the three options presently under review.
July 2001 Update:
The City continues to work on long=term water supply options. The
Intergovernmental Water Board and Joyce Patton, Council Liaison, continue to
review and explore the Joint Water Commission and the City of Portland.
South Fork Water Board/Clackamas River
1. South Fork Water Board has decided not to explore further options with
Tigard and Lake Oswego.
loint Water Commission
1. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed by Tigard and the
Commission outlining future water sales, participation in a capital
improvement program and working together in a long-tern water supply
study.
2. The Integrated Water Resources Manager's Group signed a joint Funding
Agreement to fund a study of the feasibility of new sources to meet the
needs of domestic, commercial, industrial and agricultural users within the
Tualatin River Basin.
Portland Water/Bull Run
1. Negotiations on a wholesale contract are going very slowly. We (Wholesaler
Group) hope to have a draft of an interim contract by July 18.
2. On April 25, 2001, Portland City Council approved a resolution endorsing
the development of a regional water entity. Councilor Patton testified in
favor of this resolution. Things are moving slowly. We have had two
preliminary meetings and agencies have until July 13, 2001, to notify
Portland If they would like to participate in the discussions. Thus far,
Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, Gresham, and Clackamas River Water District
have indicated a willingness to participate.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 12
1:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
April 2001
The City continues to work on three long-term water options, until such time that
sufilclent data Is available for Tigard and Its Intergovernmental Water Board
partners to make a decision.
South Fork Water Board/Clackamas River
On March 15, 2001, the SFWB met to discuss three options that are available to
South Fork with regard to alliances with other entities:
Option 1 Take no action - preserve status quo.
Option 2 Proceed with formation of new Intergovernmental
entity.
Option 3 Enter into wholesale water contracts.
After much discussion, the, matter was held over to a later meeting.
Portland Water Wholesale Contract
♦ Negotiations on the wholesale contract are going very slowly. We are still
awaiting a staff response to the proposed wholesale contract.
♦ Commissioner Erik Sten of the Portland City Council recently suggested that
the Bull tun water source become a more regional asset with regional
ownership. We are awaiting Portland's next move.
Ioint Water Commission
♦ Staff continues to work on a Memorandum of Understanding allowing
Tigard to become a partner when an additional water source is secured and
is selling surplus water.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 13
RADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATEDOC
11111110,M1 1111111 11111111011 1111=1
Goal 6 Establish an annexation policy for non-island areas.
Staff Responsible: Jim Hendryx
Tasks:
1. Consider options available to apply to annexation proposals.
2. Determine if the City should actively encourage annexation of.
a. Parcels
b. Areas
July 2001 Update:
Discussions have occurred with representation from Washington County on
evaluating annexation of Bull Mountain. An intern has been hired to assist in
preparing a study on the feasibility of annexing the area. The study should be
completed In Fall of 2001.
A focus meeting with selected citizen representatives from the area is scheduled for
July 26, 2001. Results of the meeting will shape the scope of the study.
April 2001
Council provided direction to staff at the March 20, 2001 work session to prepare
a study for the Bull Mountain area. After the study is completed, staff will present
this information and ask for further direction from Council.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 14
I:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
N 11110 - ~~j
Goal 7 Encourage and support private sector programs to
rehabilitate existing, and develop new, affordable
housing.
Staff Responsible: Jim Hendryx
Tasks:
1. Continue to enforce the housing code.
2. Consider ways to support provision of affordable housing.
July 2001 Update:
1. Continue to enforce the housing code by working with owners to bring
buildings into compliance. Close cooperation with TVF&R is ongoing.
2. On Juy 171, Council will consider a request from Community Partners for
Affordable Housing (CPAH) for $10,000 in fee relief for its new 26-unit
affordable housing project. If granted, the fee relief would allow CPAH to
reduce the rent on one three-bedroom unit to a level affordable to a family
earning 30% of median income.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 15
1AADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\200I\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
April 2001
1. Continue to enforce Housing Code:
♦ Housing complaints generally resolved within 2-3 days, the few
exceptions have involved Issues requiring permits and corrective action;
♦ Have not yet had to issue formal summons to court to resolve ho_ usinrr
complaints - all have been resolved with "voluntary" cooperation;
♦ Close cooperation with TVFBtR Is ongoing, seeking ways to improve fire
safety at apartment complexes.
2. Enforce Building Codes:
♦ Have not yet had to bring cases Into court to resolve building complaints
- most respondents have come Into "voluntary" compliance on receipt
of a formal Notice of Violation, and all of those we have served with
Summonses have (so far) chosen to come into compliance before
appearing In court;
3. Code Enforcement procedures:
s Have proposed a few "housekeeping" updates to the Municipal Code to
clarify parts of the Civil Infractions Enforcement Process;
4. Private Sector Programs: No requests for information or support have been
received from the private sector regarding "affordable housing."
Affordable Housing: Council consideration of options for supporting
affordable housing has been placed on hold until the impact of Measure 7 is
better known.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 16
I:\ADM\CITY COUNGL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
Goal 8 Review the report of the New Tigard Library
Construction Committee (NTLCC) and provide
direction.
Staff Responsible: Margaret Barnes
Tasks:
1. Hear the report of the NTLCC regarding programming and
potential sites for construction.
2. Provide direction on:
a. Size
b. Cost
c. Location
d. Funding
3. Determine when a bond measure for construction of a new
library should be placed before the voters.
July 2001 Update:
The New Tigard Library Construction Committee met with the City Council on April
17, 2001 to present the findings of the "Needs Analysis Report for a new Tigard
Library" and the "Building Program for the new Tigard Library." At this meeting the
Council also reviewed a diagram illustrating the "space adjacencies" of the major
service areas of the library. Also presented to the Council was the criteria developed
by the Committee and BML Architects to evaluate preliminary sites. The Committee
presented information to the Council on three potential sites. The Committee also
recommended to the City Council that they acquire property and build a new library
of 47,000 square feet, which would serve Tigard's service area for the next 15-20
years, based on population projections and foreseeable needs.
The Committee met with the Council again on June 19. At this meeting they
presented to Council additional information on the potential sites. The Committee
also presented information supporting the recommendation that the new library be
a two-story structure. The preliminary estimated cost for this project is between
$14,000,000 and $17,000,000.
When a bond measure for construction of a new library should be placed before
the voters has not yet been determined. The Committee will next be presenting to
the City Council on July 24, 2001.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 17
I:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDAT€.DOC
April 2001
In early 2000 BML Architects and the consultant, Cynthia Ripley of Ripley
Architects were retained by the City to do a three-part study for a new library.
This study consisted of a needs analysis report, the development of a library
building program to accommodate the'services and a site analysis. The New Tigard
Library Construction Committee has been meeting on a regular basis since
November of 2000. The Committee, after accepting the "Needs Analysis"
report, which was prepared by the consultant, has been working with BML
Architects reviewing the "Building Program" report and analyzing potential possible
sites. The Committee will be giving a preliminary presentation to Council on April
17, 2001. This presentation will include information concerning the approximate
recommended size of a new facility, recommended programming, preliminary
estimated costs for a new library, and a review of representative sites. When a
bond measure for construction of a new library should be placed before the voters
has not yet been determined.
i
7
H
i
i
a~
i
July 2001 Coal Update Page 18
(:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATEAOC
i
Goal 9 Develop a new City-wide sewer completion
policy.
Staff Responsible: Gus Duenas
Tasks:
1. Develop a City-wide sewer program which includes:
a. Cost alternatives and options;
b. A proposed construction sequence;
2. Take into consideration how to make the program equitable for
those property owners who previously participated in the City
s
July 2001 Update:
The Engineering staff prepared a long-term program to extend sanitary sewer
service to over 600 houses within the City that remain without service. The new
program Includes projects prioritized over a 5-year period and adds new
incentives to encourage owners to promptly connect to the sewer system once
the service becomes available. The goal of this program is to enhance the
environment by allowing for the elimination of septic tanks and leaching fields
over time. At Its June 12, 2001 Council meeting, the Tigard City Council
approved the $ 5.8 million program and the enhanced incentive package
proposed.
Until now, the formation of reimbursement districts has been at random and has
been greatly dependent upon Interest shown by the residents within these areas.
The new program builds on the successes of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension
Program but goes well beyond the original intent of that program. It uses the
formation of reimbursement districts as the mechanism for the improvements,
but establishes a project priority list spread over a 5-year period to systematically
extend sanitary sewer service to developed but unserved areas Citywide.
The residential areas that remain without service have been divided into thirty-
four project areas listed in priority order of construction. The projects have been
further divided into five fiscal years for inclusion into the City's Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). There will be annual review of the projects during
the formulation process for each year's CIP. The City will use the following
criteria to adjust the project schedule as part of the annual review of projects:
July 2001 Goal Update Page 19
RADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
111111110 Mollie 10111111111111111 1
• Project areas where there Is a known Immediate need for sewer service
• Installation of sewers In streets that are programmed for construction
• Projects not requiring permits or easements and are without legal
complications
• Lot owner Interest In the program
To further encourage prompt connection to the City's sewer system, City
Council enhanced the current incentive program as follows:
• The current incentive program caps the amount at $8,000 up to a
maximum of $15,000 for those residents that connect within a year
after the sewer Is made available. The new Incentive program lowers
the amount an owner is required to pay for a share of the public sewer
from $8,000 to $6,000.
• The one-year period under the current incentive program is extended
to three years after sewer service becomes available. The lot owners
can connect to the sewer anytime during that three-year period to take
advantage of this reduced fee.
• Refunds will be sent to all that have paid the higher fee under the old
Incentive Program so they will receive the same benefit as those in the
new program. Owners under the old program that have sewer service
available but have not connected to the sewer will also be given an
additional two years to connect to the sewer and take advantage of the
reduced fee.
A resolution Incorporating the enhanced Incentives Is submitted for City
Council approval at the July 10, 2001 business meeting.
1
i
i
1
i
1
July 2001 Goal Update Page 20
I:\NDM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
11111M IMIMIIINMM~=
April 2001
Engineering staff proposed to City Council the development of a Citywide Sewer
Extension Program during the December 19, 2000 meeting. This program
would Include the recently annexed Walnut Island area and other unsewered
areas throughout the City. Council provided direction to staff to proceed with
development of a plan to extend sewers to unserved areas Citywide.
Engineering staff Is in the process of drafting the Citywide Sewer Extension Plan.
The plan will include a proposed sequence of implementation with list of
prioritized projects and estimated costs for each of the projects. A package of
incentives with cost implications will be packaged separately for Council
consideration. The Plan is scheduled for presentation to Council In June 2001.
If Council provides direction to proceed with the Plan, Implementation will begin
In FY 2001-02.
July 2001 Goal [.Update Page 21
RADM\CITY COUNCMGOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
Ills
Goal 10 Expand citizen Involvement opportunities.
Staff Responsible: Liz Newton
Tasks-
1. Focus on improved ways to inform the public.
2. Expand citizen involvement opportunities.
3. Make more effective use of media (Cityscape, cable television,
City Web Page, press coverage, meetings, and public contact).
4. Strive toward a consistent public involvement effort.
5. Conduct a "City 101 " education program for the public.
July 2001 Update:
In the second quarter of 2001, media coverage continues to be tracked with
volunteers compiling the articles for the monthly reports. The City continues to
get excellent coverage in the Times. Of particular note is an increase in the
coverage of Library programs.
Ten individuals are in the process of being trained to operate the cameras in the
Town Hail. In June, the Planning Commission was trained on how to appear on
camera and their meeting was taped for training purposes. Planning Commission
meetings are scheduled to begin being taped to air in August or September.
CIT meetings continue to be a forum for providing educational and instructional
programming. In May a water conservation feature was presented and in July right-
of-way maintenance was the featured topic. The July CIT meeting was pre-taped
for the first time and aired on the regular schedule. The 2001-2002 budget
includes funding for a webmaster position that will facilitate expanding the City's
use of the web as a communication tool.
Staff continues to prepare and distribute the Community Connector
communication every other week. Efforts will be made in the coming months to
add connectors to the program. To that end, the Community Connector program
was featured in a display at the Balloon Festival and will be featured at the City's
401 Birthday celebration.
July 2001 Coal Update Page 22
1:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE-DOC
April 2001
In the first quarter of 2001, citizen Involvement efforts focused on tracking media
coverage, recruiting and training volunteers to operate the Town Hall cameras, and
developing a series of informational programs to be presented at CIT meetings.
In February staff began tracking media contacts. All but one of the weekly press
releases issued were picked up. The purpose of tracking the press releases is to get
a better sense of the type of stories the press is interested In covering.
Six volunteers took the Initial training to operate the cable television cameras in
Town Hall. Staff Is now scheduling volunteers to work on cable casting meetings so
that their skill level will continue to Improve.
At the February CIT meeting, a 30-minute program on Land Use 101 was
presented.
In the next quarter, staff will continue to track media coverage, and work toward
expanding volunteer Involvement in cable programming with plans to add coverage
of the Planning Commission meetings. CIT meetings will continue to be a forum
for providing educational and Informational programming.
A new focus will be exploring the use of the Internet and City's web page as a
citizen involvement tool, including recruiting for Community Connectors on the
web page. With 70% of the Portland area connected to the Internet, it is
increasingly important to Involve citizens through the use of the Internet.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 23
1:\ADMCITY COUNCIL\GOALS\200AGOALS JULY UPDATEMOC
Goal 11 Participate in the 2001 Oregon Legislative
session.
Staff Responsible: Bill Monahan
Tasks:
1. Provide input to discussions of the Oregon Legislature regarding
retention of telecommunication franchise fees for local
government.
2. Provide Input to the Oregon Legislature as It addresses concerns
raised by voter approval of Measure 7.
July 2001 Update:
Council met in April with Senators Deckert and Representative Williams and again
in June with Senator Deckert to hear updates on legislative activity of interest to
the City of Tigard.
Staff continued to monitor legislative activity, responding when needed (and when
notification was received before a vote on the matter was scheduled) to requests
from our legislators or the League of Oregon Cities.
The City prepared a proclamation in support of the Commuter Rail project to assist
Senator Deckert and Representative Williams as they asked their colleagues for
approval and funding of this project.
Other issues monitored included franchise fee authority for local governments,
transportation funding, and the "Measure 7" committee.
II
July 2001 Goal Update Page 24
1AADWITY COUNCIMOAM200MOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
April 2001
Council met in December and February with Senator Ryan Deckert and
Representative Max Williams. The Council gave input about telecommunication
franchise Issues and this discussion was followed up with Ir. u-i-mation that was
mailed to the legislators.
Council heard a report from Representative Williams who is the chair of a new
committee formed to prepare a proposal to present a compromise to address
Measure 7 through the legislative process.
The Council chose not to participate financially with the League of Oregon Cities'
(LOC) lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of Measure 7. The Council
supports efforts by LOC to work with the legislature to develop an alternative to
Measure 7, which leaves intact some of the elements of the Measure that the
Council favors.
The Council was pleased to be Invited to the legislative event, initiated by
Representative Max Williams, honoring the late Mayor Jim Nicoll. The event was
well attended and a fitting tribute to the contributions of Jim Nicoll.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 25
I:\ADKaTY COUNCIMOAL5 OORGOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
WISH
Definitions:
Goal A specific direction that Council is taking. Reaching the goal may
not be achieved in one year.
Task A specific activity taken In furtherance of the goal which can be
achieved within a specific period of time.
Issue Flatters of concern to the Council or raised by citizens over which
Council may or may not have direct control for policy setting or
decision making, but the City can contribute.
July 2001 Goal Update Page 26
I:\ADM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALS\2001\GOALS JULY UPDATE.DOC
AGENDA ITEM # 3.?)
FOR AGENDA OF Julv 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Consider Approval of Resolution Modi inp- the Council Groundrules
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK V /y~ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Consider the proposed resolution modifying the Council Groundrules as discussed at the July 10, 2001, City
Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Council reviewed the City Council Groundrules at its July 10, 2001, meeting. Two changes were suggested by
the City Council on Page 3, "STUDY SESSIONS" as follows:
Deleted language is shown by a stfikedffettglt of language; added language shown by an underline of
language.
> STUDY SESSIONS: Study Sessions precede or follow a Business Meeting or Workshop
Meeting. As stated above, they are conducted in a Workshop-type setting to provide an
opportunity for Council to review the Business Meeting Agenda and to ask questions for
clarification on issues or on process. Information is also shared on items that are time sensitive.
During Study Sessions, any Council member may call for a Point of Order whenever he or she
wishes to stop the "discussion" because he or she feels that it is more appropriate for the City
Council to discuss the matter during the Council meeting. If a Point of Order is raised, the City
Council will discuss the Point of Order and determine whether the "discussion" should continue
on or be held during the Council meeting. The decision on whether to continue the "discussion"
or not shall be determined by the majority vete consensus of the Council members present. If
Council discusses a Council Agenda Topic in a Study Session prior to a that Council meeting,
either the Presiding Officer or City Manager will briefly state at the introduction of the Agenda
Topic, the fact that Council discussed the topic in the Study Session and mention the key points
of the discussion.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Propose additional changes.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COI•OMITEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Proposed resolution.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
I:WDM\CITY COUNCIL\COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARIES\COUNCIL GROUNDRULES - JULY 01.130C
RAII-Imi OHIO[
AGENDA ITEM # 3'
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #2 TO THE FY 2001-02
BUDGET TO TRANSFER $29,376 FROM THE WATER OUALITY/QUANTITY FUND CONTINGENCY TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FUNDING OF THE HEALTHY STREAMS PLAN AGREEMENT WITH CLEAN
WATER SERVICES (FORMERLY UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY)
PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke DEPT HEAD OK~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A budget amendment is required to transfer appropriations from the Water Quality/Quantity Fund contingency to the Capital
Improvements program to fund an agreement with Clean Water Services approved by the Council on April 10 for participation in
the Healthy Streams Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution so that sufficient appropriations exist within the Capital Improvements program to make the required
payment to Clean Water Services.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At its March 13, 2001 meeting, Council received a report from Clean Water Services on the method used to determine the portion of
the cost of the Healthy Stream3 Plan assigned to the City. The Healthy Streams Plan is intended to provide Clean Water Services
and its member jurisdictions, including the City, with the means to cooperatively respond to the requirements of the Clean Water Act
and the Endangered Species Act. is also designed. At that time, Council directed staff to prepare an Intergovernmental Agreement
outlining the program as presented.
On April 10, Council approved the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clean Water Services.
This request is to establish the required appropriation so that the City can pay Clean Water Services for the City's portion of the plan.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None. The City is required by the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement to share in the funding of the Healthy Streams
Plan.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Resolution
FISCAL NOTES
$29,376 - Water Quality/Quantity Fund
Ell! 11~
Xunznwd0rX . Yu- fn i/1
AGENDA ITEM # 3.5
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH OWEST
PREPARED BY:CraiQ Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK t49-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City of Tigard enter into a settlement agreement with Qwest regarding excess franchise fees paid?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve a settlement agreement.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On September 9, 1999 Qwest (formerly US West) and the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) entered into
an agreement requiring Qwest to issue refunds to its customers for overcharges on their bills. The PUC formally
approved this agreement on April 14, 2000.
Qwest is franchised to provide telephone services within the City of Tigard and pays a franchise fee equal to 5% of
its gross revenues from local access services generated within the City of Tigard. Because of these overcharges,
Qwest's gross revenues were overstated, leading to an overpayment of franchise fees.
Qwest has requested a refund of excess franchise fees paid to all cities within its service area. The League of
Oregon Cities negotiated a standard settlement agreement for all cities (except the City of Portland, which
negotiated its own agreement). The agreement calls for a refund of $14,363 from the City of Tigard, plus interest
calculated from May 15, 2001. If Tigard signs the agreement and makes payment in full before July 30, 2001
Qwest will waive accumulated interest charges.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not approve the resolution. If Tigard does not sign the settlement agreement and make payment to Qwest by
July 30, 2001, Qwest has indicated that it will deduct excess payments of $14,363 plus interest from future
franchise fee payments.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
NA
ATTACHMENT LIST
Resolution
FISCAL NOTES
The agreement calls for a one-time payment of $14,363 to Qwest.
I:\ADMWACKET\20010724\C0RRECTED SUM SHEET GIWEST.DOC
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.01-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH QWEST.
WHEREAS, Qwest Communications (formerly US West) is franchised to provide telephone
service within the City of Tigard, and
WHEREAS, Qwest pays a franchise fee of 5% of gross revenues earned within the City. of Tigard
from local access services, and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) approved an order on April 14, 2000
requiring Qwest to refund customers a stipulated amount for over-charges, and
WHEREAS, due to the over-charge, Qwest's gross revenues were higher than they should have
been and therefore, Qwest's franchise fees paid were higher than they should have been, and
WHEREAS, the PUC has ruled that Qwest is entitled to a refund of excess franchise fees paid as a
result of this over-charge, and
WHEREAS, the League of Oregon Cities has negotiated a settlement agreement with Qwest on
behalf of cities within Qwest's service area, and this settlement agreement calls for cities to make a
one time refund payment to Qwest of the excess franchise fees paid.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The City Manager is authorized to sign the settlement agreement between the City of
Tigard and Qwest, included with this resolution as Attachment A.
PASSED: This day of 2001.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO.01-_
Page 1
Qwest ride the ( ht
421 Southwest Oak Street
Suite n Qwes
Portland, , Oregon 97204
Phone 603.242.5508
FAX 603-242-8689
e-mail: ppedanQgwest.com
Greg Peden
Director
Policy and Law
June 20, 2001 RECEIVED C.O.T.
J tJ L 16 2001
Mayor Jim Giffith
City of Tigard administration
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Refund of Franchise Fees to Qwest
Dear Mayor Giffith:
This letter will confirm the terms of the agreement under which the City of Tigard (the
"City") has agreed to refund franchise fees to Qwest.
1. Background
On September 9, 1999, representatives from U S WEST, now Qwest, and Staff of the
Oregon Public Utility Commission signed an agreement that required Qwest to issue
refunds to its customers in a stipulated amount (the "customer refund"). The Commission
approved the stipulation on April 14, 2000. PUC Order No. 00-190.
During the time period subject to the customer refund, Qwest paid franchise fees to the
City. Qwest implemented the customer refund on its billings sent to customers on or
about September 22, 2000, and has also made refunds to former customers. The
customer refunds included a return by Qwest of franchise fees previously paid to the City
as part of and in addition to the customer refund ordered by the PUC.
Qwest representatives began contacting cities in March 2000 to notify them of the
proposed settlement and to begin discussions of how to address the refund for prior
license fee and/or franchise fee payments to the cities. The cities disagreed with Qwest
regarding the nature of the customer refund and how much of it was attributable to local
exchange revenues or to other services. These discussions continued through April 2001,
at which time Qwest and the City agreed upon the following terms.
II. Agreement
A. Calculation of the Refund Amount
The City and Qwest agree that the City shall refund franchise fees to Qwest, arising from
the Commission-ordered customer refund, in the dollar amount of $14.362.10 (the
"refund amount").
B. Time of Payments
The City will pay the amount of $14,362.10 on or before July 30, 2001. Checks
should be made out to "Qwest Corporation" and payments should be mailed to:
Bob Barton
Qwest Corporation
6300 Syracuse Way
Englewood, CO 80111-6748
2. If the City does not submit payment to Qwest for the refund
amount by the close of business at 5:00 p.m. on July 30, 2001, Qwest may recover the
refund amount as a credit against franchise fee payments due to City on or after July 30,
2001. Should any credit balance remain, Qwest may calculate and offset its franchise fee
payments in a similar manner for the following period(s) until the City's refund is
complete or by any other means.
D. Reservation of Rights
Both parties expressly reserve any claims that may exist for indemnification, pending any
third-party claims for liability or additional refund amounts. By entering this Agreement,
City and Qwest do not waive any rights they have under any franchise agreement,
ordinance, code provision, or other law to the extent that is consistent with the terms of
this Agreement.
Sincerely,
III Acceptance
The parties cept th rms stated above through the duly authorized signatures below.
Name; Name:
Title: Title:
? Date: I Date:
Qwest o oration City of Tigard
i
i
3
AGENDA ITEM CD (k.
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign a contract with- Spencer &
Kupper for consultant services for the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan
PREPARED BY: Beth St. Amand DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign a contract with Spencer & Kupper for
consultant services for the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign a contract with Spencer & Kupper for consultant services
for the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council approved the Washington Square Regional Center Plan on February 8, 2000, and voted to delay
implementation of the plan until issues related to parks and open space, natural resources, transportation and
stormwater were addressed. In June 2000, the City requested proposals from qualified applicants to prepare an
implementation plan and public involvement plan for the Washington Square Regional Center Master Plan. The
consultant team of Spencer & Kupper was the sole bidder on the project. At its September 19, 2000, workshop
meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with the scope of work and public involvement plan for the
implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. On October 25, 2000, Spencer & Kupper signed
a contract to prepare an implementation plan and public involvement plan for the Washington Square Regional
Center Master Plan for the sum of $111,203. This contract was to be sent back to Council with a resolution;
however, due to an oversight by staff, the contract was submitted to the City Manager without the resolution having
been submitted to Council. To date, Spencer & Kupper has been paid a total of $100,754 on this contract.
Adopting the resolution recognizes that the City Manager signed the contract with Spencer & Kupper in order to
complete the scope of work and public involvement plan for implementation of the Washington Square Regional
Center Plan.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL. AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Resolution
Attachment 2: Minutes from 9/19/00 City Council workshop meeting
FISCAL NOTES
Last fiscal year, the City had approximately $115,000 available for the consultant's portion of the project. By
the end of June, 2001, $100,754 had been paid. The approved budget for 2001/2002 allocates $25,000 for
consultant services to provide follow-up and implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
line IIIN
Attachment 2 Agenda Item No. LL I
I C• I • C;
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meetingof
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
• Call to Order: Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
• Council Present: Council President Moore; Councilors Hunt; Patton and Scheckla
• Staff Present: City Attorney Chuck Corrigan, City Engineer Gus Duenas, Deputy
City Recorder. Greer Gaston, Police Chief Ron Goodpaster, Community
Development Director Jim Hendryx, Planning Manager Nadine Smith, Assistant to
the City Manager Liz Newton, Public Works Director Ed Wegner
• Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None
• Call to Staff and Council for Non Agenda Items: None
2. At 6:35 p.m. Tigard City Council went into Executive Session under the provisions of
ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) a (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues.
Executive Session Adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
3. CONVENE AS LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD TO DETERMINE
WHETHER ANDERSEN CONTRACTORS, INC. SUBMITTED A RESPONSIVE BID
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WETLAND MITIGATION
Staff Report and Discussion: City Engineer Gus Duenas explained that companies
which bid on construction projects are required to submit a State pre-qualification
statement. Andersen Contractors, Inc., the low bidder on a wetland mitigation
project, did not submit the pre-qualification statement. Instead, it stated "Submitted
previously" on its bid sheet. Andersen Contractors, Inc. was currently working on
another City project and their pre-qualification statement was on file.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 1
MEN 11,111'
City Attomey-Chuck Corrigan said that the Council had the authority to rule whether
Andersen Contractors, Inc. had submitted a responsive bid. He continued by saying
that the oversight did not constitute a material defect in the bid; it was a technicality.
Council Decision: Council decided that Anderson Contractors, Inc. had submitted a
responsive bid for the construction of the wetland mitigation project.
4. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) DISCUSSION
Staff Report and Discussion: Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton, CIT
Facilitators Basil Christopher and Bev Froude, and CIT Staff Coordinator John Roy
gave Council an update on the CIT. Ms. Newton Informed Council of a trial change in
microphones which may Improve the sound quality of televised meetings. In response
to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Newton stated that there wasn't an
additional charge to test the alternative equipment.
Discussion ensued regarding the one-on-one sessions with staff offered at CIT
meetings, and the popularity of such sessions. Ms. Froude stated that the sessions were
not being used as much as they could be, and proposed that every department need
not be present at every meeting. Councilor Hunt expressed concern about the use of
staff resources when CIT members may not have any questions of them. Ms. Newton
explained that the Police Department representative has been popular. Other
departments, such as Finance, do not attend meetings, since CIT members have had
few finance-related concerns. Mr. Christopher stated that he liked these informal
sessions, and that the sessions may encourage citizens to attend the meetings. It was
also discussed that citizens can submit questions in advance of the meeting, or get
questions answered directly from staff and bypass the CIT meeting altogether. Ms.
Newton stated that she could poll the CIT members to get there feeling on the
matter.
Councilor Moore suggested having the Council meet with CIT members on a regular
basis. This would provide citizens with another opportunity to talk with Council.
Councilor Patton supported the suggestion as long as citizens understood that the
Council may not have immediate responses to their questions and concerns. Mr. Roy
stated that this would be a good place for Council to give citizens the "big picture."
Ms. Newton updated Council on the cost of televising meetings. The use of the in-
house equipment Is $100, as compared to $310 when the Tualatin Valley
Community Access (TVCA) track was utilized. The cost will decrease further when
Network Services staff completes training on the equipment, and then trains
volunteers.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 2
Ms. Newton commented that attendance at CIT meetings has been about 20
members per meeting, an improvement over previous summers. She also stated that
since the meeting is televised, there are additional people watching the meeting from
home.
Ms. Froude proposed offering a class called Tigard Government 101. The class would
educate citizens on how local government works and how they can get involved. She
suggested offering the class as part of the CIT process so that it could be televised and
rebroadcast. Councilor Moore strongly supported. Ms. Froude's suggestion.
Councilor Patton stated that the video of the class could be shared with community
organizations. Mayor Griffith expressed his support for the idea.
Ms. Newton stated that she thought the City could take better advantage of television
coverage by using crawl messages and posting Information during the break. She also
stated that role of the facilitator seems to be working smoothly. Ms. Newton
concluded that she would talk with CIT members and explore various options for
responding to questions and concerns, while trying to further reduce the demand on
staff.
S. BRIEFING ON NON-FINANCIAL STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES
Staff Report: Police Chief Ron Goodpaster and Assistant to the City Manager Liz
Newton briefed Council on upcoming non-financial ballot measures.
e Ballot Measure 3 - Conviction before Property Forfeiture
Chief Goodpaster explained that this measure amends the Constitution and
would make the following changes to current procedures.
a. Changes by tying the seizure and forfeiture of property to a conviction.
Currently the two processes are separate. Property can be seized (with
probable cause) and forfeiture occurs through a civil process prior to a
criminal court conviction. This measure would require a conviction
before property could be seized, and would give alleged criminals time
to hide or dispose of items which may, under current law, be subject to
seizure.
b. Changes how proceeds from property forfeiture may be used.
Currently, monies obtained through the forfeiture process are used to
fund:
- Drug treatment programs
- Drug prevention education
- Crime prevention
- Investigation of crime
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 3
Purchase of police equipment
This amendment would restrict the use of forfeiture monies solely to
drug treatment programs.
C. Changes by capping administrative costs at 25 percent. Currently there
is no cap on administrative costs. Administrative costs include such
items as Storage fees (for seized vehicles), attorney costs, court
processing and appearances.
Ballot Measure 7 - Compensation If Government Regulation Reduces Property
Value
Ms. Newton explained that this measure amends the Constitution and would
require local municipalities to reimburse property owners whose property value
was reduced as a result of a government regulation. The measure does not
apply to federal regulations or nuisance laws. In response to questions from
Council, Ms. Newton explained that this measure could make the local
municipalities financially responsible for reduced property values resulting from
State regulations. The estimated cost of the measure is $3.8 billion.
♦ Ballot Measure 87 - Regulation of Sexually-Oriented Businesses through Zoning
Ms. Newton explained that this measure would bring the Oregon Constitution
more in line with the federal Constitution. The amendment changes the
Oregon Constitution to allow regulation of sexually-oriented businesses through
content. Councilor Patton pointed out that the measure was referred by the
State Legislature.
6. DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND
COMMITTEES AND CONSIDER PROPOSED REVISIONS
Staff Report and Discussion: This change was proposed by City Manager Monahan.
Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton discussed the proposed revision of
increasing the role of the staff liaison by having him/her assist in the selection of
interviewees, and participate in the interview process. Since the staff liaison is aware of
the committee's/board's issues, and existing member composition, his/her
participation may offer additional insight into the committee's/board's membership
needs.
Councilor Scheckla commented that the current process seems to work well and he
didn't support the change. He indicated that he likes to interview all candidates that
apply for a vacancy.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 4
Mayor Griffith suggested that the staff liaison might serve as an advisory resource.
tbuncilor Patton said that although it may be fitting for the staff liaison to "sit In" on
the interview, she didn't think it appropriate for him/her to ask questions of the
candidates. Ms. Newton stated the Council's direction would be reflected in the
upcoming revisions.
7. BRIEFING ON THE SCOPE OF WORK AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
PLAN
Staff Report and Discussion: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx
reminded Council of the last action taken on the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan where Council adopted the Plan with delayed implementation. John Spencer of
Spencer and Kupper and Kirsten Greene of Cogan Owens Cogan also attended. With
regard to the scope of work and citizen Involvement plan request for proposal,
Planning Manager Nadine Smith stated that the firm of Spencer and Kupper was the
sole bidder on the project. Mr. Hendryx stated that since this is the second phase of a
complex project, it would be difficult for firms other than those that have already
worked on the project to "step In" at this point. The actual work will be a
collaborative effort between Spencer and Kupper, Cogan Owens Cogan, a wetland
firm, and other consultants.
Ms. Smith stated that Cogan Owens Cogan prepared the public involvement plan and
has suggested reconvening the previous task force to work on this phase of the
project. The new task force will focus on the details of implementation such as
transportation, wetlands, etc. Along with previous task force members, the task force
will add consultants to provide expertise on specific areas of the implementation.
Public events and opportunities for community involvement and input will be included
in the process.
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Hendryx discussed the
funding for the project. The City has allocated $115,000 and Oregon Department of
Transportation is adding an additional $80,000.
i
1
Mayor Griffith inquired how the proposed commuter rail line, now turned over to the
County, is affected by the Plan. Ms. Smith stated that commuter rail funding was not
included in the project. Councilor Patton explained that the Plan and commuter rail
are linked. Mayor Griffith emphasized that the Washington Square implementation
must coordinate its efforts with commuter rail.
s
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 5
1111110118M 1111 00011111 E"
Mr. Hendryx stated that when the City undertakes a planning effort such as this, the
Council's direction and support is needed. He stated that he wanted Council to be
comfortable with this approach and the citizen involvement opportunities that will be
offered. Councilor Patton was in favor of enlisting previous task force members as
well as new members. She stressed technical experts and progressive science and
information were essential to the successful implementation of the Plan.
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Hendryx and Ms. Smith
stated that neither Tri-Met nor Metro had committed funds to the project.
John Spencer reiterated that Spencer and Kupper had maintained the same core team
that had worked on phase one of the project. The Kittleson firm will handle overall
transportation. Cogan Owens Cogan will be responsible for public involvement.
Three firms have been added,to the collaborative effort of phase two: BRW, Mason,
Bruce and Gerrard, and Kadama.
Kirsten Greene briefly described Cogan Owens Cogan's plans for public involvement.
Councilor Scheckla suggested that some of the task force meetings should be held in
the evening.
Council Direction: Mayor Griffith sought final input and consensus from the Council.
The Council directed staff to proceed with the scope of work and public involvement
plan for the implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
8. BRIEFING ON ALLOWING THE TEMPORARY USE OF AN AREA ON CITY
PROPERTY AS A DOG OFF-LEASH AREA
Staff Report and Discussion: Property Manager John Roy and Public Works Director
Ed Wegner updated Council on the dog off leash issue. Mr. Roy described the
progress he and the newly-created task force have made toward the establishment of a
temporary and permanent dog off-leash park or parks. Topics covered in Mr. Roy's
presentation included:
® Siting criteria
e Necessary and desirable dog-park components
o Potential temporary sites
® Potential permanent sites
s Other sites to be considered
o Staff recommendation
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 6
0
A copy of Mr. Roy's PowerPoint presentation is available at the 70tyRecorder's
office.
Task force members Aileen Cord, Jim Garbarino, Larry Gallizzio, Jeff Miller and
Christie Smith entered into a discussion with Council. Ms. Smith had gathered
information from other cities with dog parks and described their experiences. Mr.
Gallizzio said that other dog parks had few liability issues and that the parks helped to
promote a sense of community and responsible dog ownership.
Mayor Griffith asked how dog parks were funded in other cities. Ms. Smith said
funding. was typically through the parks department, but in Tigard's situation, the task
force was considering many funding sources. Mr. Roy said that the task force was
considering issuing special use permits whereby the City could charge non-city
residents a higher fee for dog park usage.
Councilor Moore inquired about the City's liability. Mr. Roy explained that if dog
parks are fenced, liability rests with the pet guardian. Without fencing, the City could
be held liable. Councilor Moore asked who would be responsible for pet waste clean-
up if dog park users were not. Mr. Wegner indicated that park staff would be
responsible. Mr. Roy stated that the task force had discussed the option of creating
volunteer groups that would perform dog park clean-up. Councilor Moore supported
the use of volunteers and stated that he would have reservations about the use of park
staff and resources for pet waste clean-up. Councilor Moore confirmed that fencing of
dog park areas could come from the parks budget or from donations. Mr. Roy
pointed out that the task force was requesting Council to authorize up to $5,000 as
"seed money" for initial dog park startup funding. Councilor Patton concurred with
Councilor Moore's concern about City liability and emphasized that the site must be
fenced. Councilor Hunt stated that people have their dogs off-leash whether or not it's
permitted. He supported the use of "underutilized" areas as potential dog park sites.
Mr. Wegner identified the following staff recommendations:
® Approve the use of the Ash Avenue area as a temporary dog park.
o Apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the creation of a dog park at the
1251 and Bull Mountain Road site. This will require a public hearing and will also
need to go before the Intergovernmental Water Board.
m Continue to work with the citizen task force for the siting of a permanent dog park
or parks.
o Start-up funding not-to-exceed $5,000 from the parks department budget.
Council Decision: Councilor Hunt moved to accept the above staff recommendations.
Councilor Moore seconded the motion. Mayor Griffith asked if all Council members
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 7
were in favor of the staff recommendations. Council members indicated that they
were in favor. The direction to support the staff recommendations was unanimous.
9. DISCUSSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIES
Staff Report and Discussion: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave a
presentation on the "Top Ten Affordable Housing Strategies." Topics covered in Mr.
Hendryx's presentation included:
Density Bonus
o Transfer of Development Rights
o System Development Charges
e Permit Fees
♦ Property Tax Exemption
♦ Land Cost and Availability
♦ Local Regulatory Constraints and Discrepancies in Planning and Zoning
Codes/Local Permitting or Approval Process
s Parking
♦ Enterprise Foundation Regional Acquisition Fund
e Real Estate Transfer Tax
A copy of Mr. Hendryx's PowerPoint presentation is available at the City Recorder's
office.
Councilor Scheckla asked how quickly the Council needed to act on the
recommendations to promote affordable housing. Mr. Hendryx responded that
Finance Director Craig Prosser suggested that the Council wait until the November
election results were available, since some of the issues on the ballot may impact the
City. Councilor Scheckla suggested the Council revisit the issue after election results
are known. Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton proposed that Mr. Hendryx
return to the Council with a list of prioritized recommendations in late November or
early December. Councilor Scheckla stated that he would like to know the budgetary
impact of the recommendations.
Mr. Hendryx introduced Shelia Greenlaw-Fink from Community Partners for
Affordable Housing (CPAH). Ms. Greenlaw-Fink stated that she hoped the Council
would not delay action on the affordable housing incentives until the November
election. She stated that C.PAH needed to move forward on projects now or
opportunities may be lost. She identified some limited cost items such as: tax
abatement, permit fee incentives, and advocating for affordable housing at the County
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 99, 2000 - PAGE 8
level. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink pointed out that the financial impact of many of the options
was nominal.
Councilor Patton asked if CPAH had a specific project in mind that will be coming
before the Council prior to the November election. Councilor Patton pointed out that
the State and County will also be affected by the November elections. She stated that
this was an inopportune time to try to influence these jurisdictions. She continued by
saying that although supportive of affordable housing, the Council has to take into
account the potential repercussions to the City. Councilor Scheckla and Mayor
Griffith concurred with Councilor Patton.
Mr. Hendryx concluded by saying that the goal of the presentation was to get Council
direction. Ms. Newton summarized by confirming that Mr. Hendryx would return to
Council with a list of prioritized recommendations, along with the cost impact and a
description of the process involved in implementing each recommendation.
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None
11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None
12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:54 p.m.
Attest: Greer A. Gaston, Deputy City Recorder
All / I ;V ) i~
cv-
ayor, City i ar
ate: ~ O, d 0(O
1 AADM\CATFMCCAW00919. DDC
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 9
1111101E1 M I 11'i
AGENDA ITEM # CD b
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project, Phase 2, Contract w/ Montgomery
Watson
PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK J0 CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Award of contract to Montgomery Watson, not to exceed $425,000, to complete Phase 2, The Pilot Study, of our
three phase Aquifer Storage and Recovery project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached scope of work and authorizing the City Manager to execute an
Engineering Services Contract with Montgomery Watson.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Aquifer Storage and Recovery is one option of several alternatives identified to improve Tigard's water supply
system. ASR has both short term and long term benefits to the City. In the short term, the City's current water
supplies do not provide additional water above our current peak day demands of 13 MGD. In the long term ASR
can be a means of lowering costs for peak season supplies.
The City has proceeded into ASR application by designing a three-phase process. Phase 1, the Feasibility Study, is
now complete and recommends proceeding with Phase 2, the Pilot Test. The feasibility study found no fatal flaws
and suggests that a 6 MGD ASR wellfield can be successfully constructed and operated. Phase 2 will construct the
first of these wells and allow us to obtain further data to confirm the finding in Phase 1.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
4
1
Abandonment or postponement of ASR development in Tigard.
c
.4 VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Urban and Public Services, Goal 4, Strategy 2: Develop plans for surface water production and supply and
Strategy 3, Action Plan states: Develop ways to control access to water which will not allow growth to outgrow
water supply.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Scope of Work, Phase 2, dated July 11, 2001, between City of Tigard and Montgomery Watson
FISCAL NOTES
City Council approved the Phase 2 budget of $210,500 in the FY 2001-02 budget. Project cost exceeds this
amount due to the discovery of damage on the existing well #1, beyond practical repair during the inspection
portion of Phase 1. Replacement of well #1 is estimated to cost $233,000, which is included in this contract.
By postponing the construction of two approved CIP projects (Pipeline extension - 550' reservoir supply feed,
Menlor Reservoir to Sunrise Drive and Sunrise Drive pipeline extension to proposed reservoir site) totaling
$342,000 and shifting other approved CIP projects between funds we will be able to cover the increased costs of
$214,500. These postponed projects will be re-budgeted in future years.
CITY OF TIGARD
ASR PROJECT
SCOPE OF WORK
PHASE 2 - PILOT TESTING
TASK 2.1 PERMITTING AN WATER RIGHTS
Montgomery Watson will prepare the application for an ASR Limited License from
Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD). A formal preapplication conference will
be held with WRD to review application requirements as required under WRD rules. The
application will contain all information required under OAR 590-350-020, including:
• WRD ASR Pilot Test requirements and cross references to appropriate sections of the
plan.
s The project description.
• Source water
• License Duration
• Land use approval.
• Preliminary hydrogeologic information, including geology, a conceptual
hyrdogeologic model, a description of the aquifer targeted for storage, estimated flow
direction and rate of movement, and other information.
• Location of all facilities, including proposed groundwater monitoring well locations,
with well location map and tabulated construction details for the recharge well and
monitoring wells.
• Proposed ASR Test Program with testing objectives, rationale for the type and
duration of testing to be performed (cyclic or single phase recharge), and proposed
injection rates and duration of each injection, storage and recovery cycle for the City
wells.
• Proposed System Design.
• Groundwater level monitoring procedures for all wells during the pilot test.
• Groundwater quality sampling procedures and testing program for all wells during the
pilot test.
• Receiving water quality information.
• Source water quality, quantity, and water rights information.
• Surface water monitoring procedures for the pilot test.
• Water quality monitoring during the disposal of stored recharge water.
• Water right holder agreement
o Program schedule, and
• Contingency measures.
Since the City does not hold any surface water rights to any of three potential sources, a
water right holder agreement will be needed from the appropriate water provider(s). The
agreement shall indicate permission for use of the water for ASR testing. Early contact
with potential source water providers will be required to facilitate the permitting process.
City of Tigard 1 ASR Project
Scope of Work Phase U
It is assumed that the City will pay any permit application fees directly and sign and
formally deliver the application to WRD. It is also assumed that the public comment
period will not raise issues that require additional work beyond needed to address
previously identified issues by regulatory agencies. We also assume that we can permit
discharge of any pilot test water through an existing NPDES permit at the pilot test well
site. Our team will make every effort, through ongoing contact with WRD, DEQ and
OHD, to expedite the permit approval process so that it is accomplished in the minimum
time allotted under WRD rules.
TASK 2.2 SOURCE WATER NEGOTIATIONS
During the Pilot Test, source water will be needed for injection. Potential source supplies
include City of Portland, Joint Water Commission or Tualatin Valley Water District
(TVWD). One meeting with the appropriate supplier(s) and the City will be held to
discuss purchasing surplus water at winter rates.
TASK 2.3 WELLHEAD MODIFICATIONS
Task 2.3.1 COT-1 Well Conversion
In its current state, the City of Tigard well No. 1 (COT-1) does not meet current
WRD well construction standards. A leak in the casing was discovered during the
Phase I - Feasibility Study. As a result, it is proposed to convert the existing COT-1
well to a multi-level monitoring well and to construct a new production well at the
site. The conversion of the COT-1 well involves the following modifications:
• Remove pump from well. Steam clean prior to storage on site;
• Disable check valves and cap distribution line;
• Disable and remove chlorination system to be transferred to new well;
• Install two 2-inch diameter water level monitoring tubes in the modified well which
are sealed in isolated zones within the basalt such that these can be used to identify
any depth variation in the response of the system to pilot testing;
• Install within each of the 2-inch wells a pressure transducer and data logger to record
the water level response to pilot testing.
The conversion of the COT-1 into a dual completion monitoring well assumes that
OWRD will grant a variance to perform the work. If a variance cannot be granted, a
single completion monitoring well will be constructed.
Conceptual and preliminary design drawings for the wellhead modifications will be
prepared. The design drawings will be submitted to the City for review and approval.
Record drawings of all wellhead modifications will be provided to the City following
completion of the works.
Task 2.3.2 ASR Well Construction
The new ASR-1 well will be designed to enable:
City of Tigard 2 ASR Project
Scope of Work Phase 11
gill 111111 _~M 111111ME
• groundwater production at the Canterbury Lane site
• the proposed ASR pilot testing
The well will be constructed within the grounds of the Canterbury Lane site, at the
opposite end of the storage building to the existing COT-1 well. The well will be
completed at a nominal diameter of 12 inches to a depth of approximately 600 ft bgl, with
a permanent 12 inch diameter casing set grouted into position from surface to 300 ft bgl.
The well will be pump tested for 24 hours and based upon the pump test, a permanent
pump will be specified. A water quality sample will be collected from the well at the end
of the pump test and analyzed for drinking water parameters. Presently, we are
estimating a pump capable of producing from 500 to 1000 gpm will be installed in the
well. This installation will also enable up to 1000 gpm of water to be injected into the
basalt via the pump column. A PVC monitoring tube will be installed in the well: this
will house a pressure transducer and datalogger. The wellhead will be housed in a CMU
structure of approximate size 15 X 20 feet. In addition, a tie-in to the existing distribution
and storm-water piping on the site will be engineered. The associated pipe-work will
include 2-way flow meter(s), a sampling tap, a pressure gauge and a pump to waste
connection or other means of disposing of the recovered water.
Conceptual and preliminary design drawings for the new well will be prepared. The
design drawings will be submitted to the City for review and approval. On-site
monitoring of the drilling of the well and modifications to the COT-1 well and to pump
test the new production well will occur. Record drawings of all wellhead modifications
will be provided to the City following completion of the works.
TASK 2.4 ASR PILOT TESTING
General
The proposed ASR pilot testing is designed to enable (a) the feasibility of ASR at the site
to be evaluated, and (b) to generate the information that will be submitted to OWRD as
part of the process of obtaining a permanent ASR license. To achieve these objectives,
two phases of testing will be performed:
• Small-scale system checks designed to confirm that the new well and related
engineering are functioning as designed:
• Single, large-scale cycle test designed to generate the data that is required to evaluate
ASR feasibility and submit an application for a permanent ASR license.
System Checks
The system checks will include checking the operation of the pump trial followed by a
stepped rate injection test. The pump check will involve pumping the well at a series of
different rates and monitoring the water level response. Following completion of the
pump check, a stepped rate injection test will be perfomed. This will confirm that the
injection is performing satisfactorily and enable the recharge efficiency of the well to be
estimated.
City of Tigard 3 ASR Project
Scope of Work Phase II
Cycle Test
On completion of the system checks, a single large-scale cycle test will be undertaken.
This will be based on injection at the maximum possible injection rate for 120 days;
storage for a period of 60 days and recovery of the stored water over the following 180
days. The test would begin in early November 2001, to take advantage of the availability
of water for injection and would be completed in October 2002. This strategy is
recommended as a means of enabling the test objectives to be combined with beneficial
use of the estimated 170 million gallons of treated water that will be purchased and used
during the course of the test. Beneficial use, in this instance, is anticipated to be helping
meet peak demands during the 2002 summer period.
Management of Testing Related Risks
Testing related risks that have been identified during preparation of the limited license
application include the following:
• Clogging of the new well by low levels of suspended sediment that may be contained
in the injected water - with risk'of a permanent reduction in the future performance
(available yield) of the well;
• Recovery of non-potable water or water that is likely to be considered unacceptable
for supply - with a risk that all of the stored water would have to be pumped to waste,
during which time the production available from the new well would be lost.
To manage the well-performance risks, injection operations will be periodically
suspended and the new well pumped to waste. By using a stepped rate pumping
operation in which pumping is increased beyond the long term sustainable yield (a) a
large proportion of the suspended sediment introduced into the well is likely to be
removed, and (b) any changes in the efficiency of the well can be tracked. It is proposed
that pump to waste operations are conducted at a varying frequency to enable the
significance of any changes in well efficiency to be evaluated in a timely manner. In the
event that any significant, non-recoverable, reductions in efficiency are identified,
changes will be made to the injection rate, the pump to waste frequency or both.
To manage the risks associated with producing water of an unacceptable quality, the
quality of the stored water will be monitored using a sampling and analysis program that
is initiated during the early stages of the storage period. In addition to being submitted
j for analysis, the recovered water will be made available for flavor profile testing.
Prior to the distribution of the stored water, a camera-ready flyer will be prepared about
the ASR project for the City of print and distribute. The flyer will include an
announcement for a neighborhood meeting on the project, at which our team members
will attend.
In addition to measuring water levels in the ASR well and on-site monitoring wells,
consultant team will also try to secure access to obtain water level measurements in
several domestic wells and irrigation wells in proximity to the ASR well. Well owners
City of Tigard 4 ASR Project
Scope of Work Phase 11
will be contacted and their permission requested to allow access to measure water levels
in their wells on a regular basis during the testing.
TASK 2.5 PILOT TEST REPORT
The results of the pilot testing will be analyzed and incorporated into a pilot test report.
The pilot test report will meet the requirements for reporting to OWRD on the results of
the pilot test under the Limited License.
The following analyses will be performed:
• Estimation of aquifer transmissivity, storativity, leakage and boundary conditions;
• Evaluation of well performance (efficiency) prior to, during and following recharge;
• Estimation of the spread of recharge water within the aquifer;
• Evaluation of the changes in groundwater flow patterns that occurred during
recharge;
• Evaluation of the changes in the hydrochemistry of the aquifer waters that occurred
during recharge; and
• Estimation of the overall capacity of the aquifer to accept and store recharge water.
The pilot test report will be prepared to document the pilot test. The pilot test report will
include the following:
• Pilot testing procedures;
• Water level hydrographs and aquifer hydraulic analysis for wells prior to, during and
following recharge;
• Summary of aquifer hydraulic properties and aquifer conditions;
• Evaluation of well performance (well efficiency) prior to and following recharge;
• Estimation of the spread of recharge water within the aquifer and the changes in
groundwater elevations and flow patterns and surface water discharge (springs)
during recharge;
• Diagrams illustrating the changes in the composition of groundwater during and
following recharge;
• Diagrams illustrating the proportion of recharge water recovered following storage;
Contaminanted site search for the area that could be affected by ASR to identify
potetential sources of groundwater contamination. The sites would be ranked in
terms of their potential to affect ASR; and
• Recommendations for full-scale ASR implementation, including system capacity
expansion, ASR implementation and operations strategy, and updated cost estimates
for full-scale implementation.
Five copies of the Draft of the Pilot Test and Project Report would be provided to the
City for review and comments received would be incorporated into the Final Report.
Results of the Pilot Test Phase will be presented to the IWB and the City Council.
City of Tigard 5 ASR Project
Scope of Work Phase H
1111111 IN M
TASK 2.6 GROUNDWATER MODEL (OPTIONAL TASK)
As part of the Limited License, WRD may require a groundwater model as a condition of
the permit. The model would help to determine the boundaries of the aquifer and flow
characteristics as well as mixing potential of source water and groundwater. If it is
deemed necessary by WRD, a more detailed scope of work and separate authorization for
this task would be initiated. Project budget includes the estimated cost for this optional
task.
City of Tigard 6 ASR Project
Scope of Worts Phase II
AGENDA ITEM # 3. C .
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Rejection of Bid Proposals for the Construction of Bonita Road Sanit Sewer
Im rovements-
PREPARED BY: Vannie N tt e DEPT HEAD OK: A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board reject all bid proposals for the construction of Bonita Road
Sanitary Sewer Improvements?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject all bid proposals for the
construction of Bonita Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements due to high bids submitted at the bid opening.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The existing sanitary sewer system on Bonita Road that begins approximately 500 feet west of 76th
Avenue runs in an easterly direction and connects to the USA 60-inch interceptor at Milton Court. The
existing 8-inch asbestos cement pipe between manhole no. 46 and manhole no. 44 has poor grade and is
sagging at several locations along the line. This line has required monthly cleaning for many years. This
section of pipe is approximately 250 feet long and is encased in a 12-inch steel pipe when it crosses
Fanno Creek.
This project proposes to replace the existing 8-inch pipe with a 10-inch pipe at a moderate slope to
provide a better flow line between the two existing manholes. The new pipe, which consists of a 10-inch
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) carrier pipe inside an 18-inch steel casing, will be bored under the
creek. The Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permits
have been obtained. There is no construction easement required for the project. Also included in the
project is the installation of wetland mitigation work required by the permits.
This project was first advertised for bids on August 31, 2000. However, there were only two high bids
submitted at the bid opening on September 14, 2000. After the bid opening, staff interviewed contractors
to get an explanation for high bids. The original bid specified a 15-inch casing. Their explanation is that
they would want to use either an 18-inch or a 24-inch casing because it would be easier to bore and it
would give them more room to maneuver. Consequentially, a bigger casing would create a higher cost
for the project. In the Council meeting of September 26, 2001, the Local Contract Review Board rejected
all bid proposals.
In order to prevent possible overflows and backs up in the winter last year, a temporary pipe was
installed in November 2000 to bypass the damaged section of the existing pipe.
11111 Rol 111 1111,111111011 IME11mi
Recently, this project was re-designed to include an 18-inch casing for boring. Other items such as
carrier pipe, pipe alignment and location of connection remain the same.
The project was re-bid on June 26, 2001. The bid opening was conducted on July 10, 2001. The bid
results are:
Oregon Siteworks Aloha, OR $158,010.00
Canby Excavating Canby, OR $189,809.00
Engineer's Estimate $115,790
The difference between the lowest bid from Oregon Siteworks and the Engineer's estimate is
approximately $42,000. Oregon Siteworks indicated that their sub-contractor, Gonzala Tunneling,
submitted the boring work of $550 per linear foot for 185 feet of pipe in comparison with the Engineer's
estimate of $450 per linear foot. Please note that the same subcontractor submitted a bid of $416.20 per
linear foot last year, which resulted in rejection of bids. Another pay item that makes up the difference of
$42,000 between the Engineer's estimate and the lowest bid is "Mobilization". This item was bid at
$25,500 in comparison with the estimate of $6,000. However, the 2"6 lowest bidder bid this item at only
$5,000.
Because there were only two bids that were both extremely high, staff recommends rejection of the bids.
Upon approval of rejection of these bid proposals, staff intends to re-bid the project in the spring next
year. The bypass pipe that was installed temporarily should be strong enough to cant' flow for at least
another two years. Bidding in the spring should provide better competition and hopefully much lower
bids.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
Project location map
FISCAL NOTES
This project is funded in the amount of $125,000 in the FY 2001-02 CIP Sanitary Sewer System
Program.
k%citywidelsumlapenda summary for bonlta road sewer project-2nd bid rejectlon,doc
kwid diono3S
Z r
o
m
c
3AV ONZL 3ny ONZL
O
G~F~G VOP
O~,~N~RN p P
5
OREGON ELECTRIC RAILROAD
P~
p PG~~\G end Nib L
ov~N~F,N
G
O
Q
I-
zo 3nb H19L
.s g
Z
3A`d H16L
Zip 2JD ONNVJ
T 1 ~
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGA.RD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Rejection of Bid Proposals for the Construction of FY 2001-2002 Pavement Major
Maintenance Program (PMMP) and Embedded Crosswalk Lighting System Proiect _
PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen DEPT HEAD OK: A.P~Du as CITY MGR OK: Bill Montan
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board reject all bid proposals for the construction of FY 2001-2002 Pavement
Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) and Embedded Crosswalk Lighting System?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject all bid proposals for the
construction of FY 2001-2002 Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) and Embedded Crosswalk
Lighting System project due to high bids submitted at the bid opening.
INFORMATION SAY
The City of Tigard's Pavement Overlay Backlog list identifies streets that need corrective overlays/inlays and
slurry seals. The backlog has been reduced gradually. However, due to limited funding, only a few streets from
the list can be addressed this fiscal year. The proposed project for FY 2001-02 includes Kable Street (between
Naeve Street and 103`d Avenue), 121" Avenue and North Dakota Street (between Scholls Ferry Road and
Springwood Drive). These streets will receive a combination of pavement inlay and slurry seal treatment. Ash
Avenue (between Scoffins and Commercial Street) and Meadow Street (east of Tiedeman Avenue) will receive
inlay treatment. Also included in the proposed project is slurry seal treatment for the following streets in
Washington County: 157`h Avenue and 1580' Terrace (north of Roshak Road) and Baker Lane (east of 158'
Terrace).
Last year's Capital Improvement Program proposed the installation of crosswalk lights at three locations.
However, the funding was only enough for construction at two locations: Main Street (at bridge) and Walnut
Street (at Grant Avenue). This year's project is the installation of embedded crosswalk lights at the intersection
of 121St Avenue and Springwood Drive. Although the lighting system project is typically bid separately, we
combined the work with the PMMP project because of the close coordination needed with the inlay work to
avoid unnecessary damage to the new pavement.
The project was advertised for bids in late June 2001 and the bid opening was conducted on July 10, 2001. The
bid results are:
Morse Brothers Tualatin, OR $175,957.55
Eagle Elsner Sherwood, OR $190,645.60
Engineer's Estimate $162,185
s
For this project all bidders were required to submit a bid bond in the form of postal money order or cashier's
check in the amount of ten percent of the bid as security. Morse Brothers did not include a money order or
cashier's check in their bid, hence that bid was considered non-responsive. Eagle Elsner is determined to be the
lowest responsive bidder for the project.
The difference between Eagle Elsner's bid and the Engineer's Estimate is approximately $28,500. Out of
$28,500, $19,500 was included in the bid item for the embedded crosswalk lighting system. Eagle Elsner
submitted their bid at $42,500 for this item. Last year, this item was bid at approximately $23,000 per location.
Since lighting installation is a specialty item, which has to be performed by an electrical contractor, prime
contractors normally subcontract their work and mark up the price. This indicates to us that it would probably
be best to bid and award the crosswalk lighting system as a separate project.
Because there were only two bids that were both well over the Engineer's Estimate, staff recommends rejection
of the bids. Staff intends to re-bid the work immediately after approval of rejection of these bid proposals. The
work will be separated into two projects: Pavement Major Maintenance Program, which includes slurry seal and
inlay work on City and County Roads, and the Embedded Crosswalk Lighting Installation. Separating the work
into two projects should provide lower bids and better competition.
It is possible to award the lowest responsive bid, but at the expense of the traffic calming program. Should the
Local Contract Review Board decide to award the contract now, construction would begin approximately
August 20, 2001 and the project would be completed by October 31, 2001. If the project is re-bid following
approval of bid rejection, construction would begin around September 24, 2001 and the project would be
completed by the end of November. Therefore, re-bidding of the project would delay the completion date about
one month.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
Project location map
FISCAL NOTES
The amount in the bid for the City streets is approximately $182,000. The amounts of $130,000 and $40,000 have
been allocated in FY 2001-2002 from the State Gas Tax revenue for the PMMP and the Embedded Crosswalk
Lighting projects respectively. These two amounts are insufficient to award the lowest responsive bid without
drastically reducing the amount available for the City's traffic calming program. Funding for the County Roads is
provided by the County in accordance with the Urban Services Area IGA. The County's portion of the work is
approximately $9,000.
I:\dbWde\sum\Agenda Summary for 2001-02 PMMP-bid rejecUon.doc
-on 11111=~J
9 tE
CT ~OCA~ppN N ~ ON
pRpJE A~KUE _ WuY CT LoCA
too
SLU
l
r ~ ' ~ Qp ~ J ~ yl
TION
S, A~QIUE - A" UK SpgWGWOGO BULL YiY RD A~
pR CT LpCA a
sr
LOCATIpN
PROJECT RoJECT j.OCATI
r
ST _ nau
~ st
T
ot;
sr U,pr ~usua+
N s
sfHERWE St N H~II pR <
N
St
L peA.~o
S' N ~
PROJ
C OUR? ~pN
T " pJECT LpCA
RO - WuY a %URRY SUL
I
5l
ST
W
NN~µ ST
WAtNUl Mk g mom
AGENDA ITEM # 3.7
FOR AGENDA OF July 24.2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adopt the OPEU Collective Bargaining Agreement and Authorize the City Manager
to Sign the Final Draft ~p,~& 1,
PREPARED BY: Sandy Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK M _ - - ITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council adopt the OPEU collective bargaining agreement for the period of July 1, 2001 to June 30,
2004, and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the bargaining agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City and OPEU reached a tentative agreement for a new labor contract at a July 16th mediation session. This
proposed new agreement is a three (3) year contract which will become effective July 1, 2001. Maior highlights of
the agreement include: a 3.5% cost of living adjustment retroactive to July 1, 2001, with 2nd and 3rd year increases
based on the CPI-W, West Index, annual average, with a minimum 2.5%, maximum 5%; selective adjustments for
the job classifications of Library Assistant job class series (50/o), Utility Worker job class series (2.5%) and
Network Technician job class series (10%); same insurance coverage for domestic partners as currently provided
for Management; change from 4 to 6 months period of time allowed to retain compensatory time; and change to
new Blue Cross health insurance plans including preventative Well Baby/Physicals, with addition to current
insurance reopener language providing 90 day mid term bargaining period under statute and non-application of
Article 7 in the contract should no agreement be reached after that time.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
ATTACHMENT LIST
Mill ==1111110
FISCAL NOTES
Funds are available and budgeted for FY01-02
I',
Agenda Item No.
Meeting of `l la q D I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
RE: Agenda Item 3.7
DATE: July 17, 2001
Council meeting packet materials for Agenda Item 3.7, Adopt the OPEU Collective
Bargaining Agreement and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Final Draft, will be
forwarded to the City Council in its weekly newsletter mail envelope.
IM M OTY COUNCIUMEMO - OPEU CONTRACTMOC
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM'. SIRV viAM'
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Presentation by PGE on recent civic responsibility and energy issues polls
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK _CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Informational briefing only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action required.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Portland General Electric recently commissioned polls by Davis & Hibbitts on statewide attitudes towards civic
responsibility and energy issues. Karen Lee for the Portland General Electric Government Affairs Office will
present the results of that survey to the City Council and will be available to respond to any questions.
The Civic Responsibility portion of the survey tested the attitudes of frequent, occasional and non-voters towards
voting and community involvement. This information may be instructive as the Council considers placing
measures on the ballot.
The Energy Issues portion of the survey tested public perceptions of various electrical energy issues, including
electrical shortages, the need for conservation, and price.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Informational packet (hard copy only)
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
f
studlep%',
eie o s
1311 an' ener9V
sibilitV
Civic ekn
inc.
avis
Stu&es ®n
pavis & Hibbitts, ln~
Suice 434
Morrison Avenue,
92A SW pregon 97245
~,o~land, 0575
~503~ 220_
_ ail: dhi~dh~research.CC,m
em
gesponsibilaty
C1 ide Su~eY
Stet
CWIC ResPOTISIVIVIty
e
ultation with pCC
Metj3odolOgy ~libbitts,lnc• in c°ns
sire pesi9n ' ned by Dais &
® ~~estiQnr° aire de g
_ Quest'onn inutes in length d
AVeraged 2o-22, 040 November 10 an
Conducted between
garnpie ®es61911 . of Epp nearly all elections'
® samples in all or
Total voters (vote some elections)
200 ireVent vote in s0 to vote)
voters ~ or not registered
200 occaslonal do not vote
2pp non-Voters ~
• Oregon
Statewide aged 18 and older
_ Oregonians
i it Dialing ~RDD~
Random ®g E-,Vide 3
--.MMM MINNOMW
Dill
mom one should
we everl d
G',nS beVie r
e%,c7Ke
n0L
Oregon% hen they
ote even'w s or can&dates
it
issue
,bout Sao°~°
2 on't knovj sa°~
e/o D
. • ust not that 60°I°
doting is any moCe,
ir~portan ood 406
n be
people c ro gh other
citizens th 20%
unity activities
C~ vfithout voting 00/0 p seonal 140n voters
Frequent c VOWS
voters
is a basic
of being
vo~s biMY should
rasp f_veryone
they are
citizen. when
vote even wd about the Slide 4
not el-cited didates
issues or can
IRMO
Reasons why Oregonians don't t
Q8. Over the past few years, the percentage of eligible citizens who are voting has steadily declined. Which one of the
following reasons do you think is the most likely reason for the decline in voting?
People don't believe politicians will do what they 27%
say
People do not have same sense of citizen 20%
responsibility
There are too many confusing issues to vote on 14%
these days
People don't see real differences between the two 130
major parties anymore
Times are good so people don't see importance to 11%
vote
It is difficult for people to find time to study up on 8%
candidates and issues
Registering to vote or returning ballots can be too 4%
confusing and complicated
0% 20% 40% 60% 60% 100%
DHI slide 5
Statements bout major
int of viewolvical Po
i
tell me which statement is closer to your
. please
0110
r Don't know
1aa0
The major
$W/O political parties
still have
6a°~ distinct
differences and
ao~a st,Ind for
different goals
ao°f
a ®r politics!
'
a leS d®nt
a0 occasiorla, Non-votens The
kequent p for much
voters stand
voters
other than raising
money and
getting re-elected
slide 6
D
m ~
Witty have
se tell me ►f You
plea
o
C;om-
our commun~tY
volvement In r activity
ent In
olvem qu4l0s about Your in that Vartticula
some been j.olved or don
ou p
like to ask Yeen
Would e Q
Q2~ 1
77 68 78
7q 0
65 5&
71
home v+nthm the last month 63°f0
friends at 55 52 44
Entertained
arityW'thin the last month
5w/6 51 43
donated to ch • es W~th►n the 53
or religious se,rv►c &90/0
Wended church last month 35 27
last three 43
event Within the
ended a sporting months 3 °!o .35 29
or ic organzaLi on 35
a club meeting pitended meeting in the last 330
month 0°/° 80°/° 100%
roject vuWhin the last o►ved
00 20°/0 4WIon~ents who Were inv 7
community project"
wor6ced on t of resP slide
percen t
Agree ® disagree statements
Q21. Please tell me if you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly with that statement.
Percent Agree
Agree Disagree F ® N
stronglylsomewhat stronglylsomewhat
I'm pretty interested in following state and local 85 80 53
politics
Most politicians in Oregon are honest and work
hard for the public 78 75 56
More changes occur in Oregon from ballot
measures than from the candidates we elect 58 69 62
I can accomplish more through volunteering in my
community than through the political process 516 64 67
1 usually vote for the lesser of two evils rather than
voting for a candidate I really like 50 53 57
It makes little difference who is elected, nothing
changes much because of what politicians do 34 35 49
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DHI Slide 8
Issues
Energy Survey
StateWide
SUae
I'
r+`
yy a
iN
. usy
yy
00,00
. Y
Meti3odO109V ,
Ration with PGS
buts, 'no. %n cons
. nna°re j)esI9n d by Oa`Jis & N►b
s~ des~gne
juest'
® Questionnajre length and
in
Av 14, 2001
eraged 20 mi"U'esFebruarl 12
_ Gonducted between
SaMPIe ®e§'g'n a 01 60()
~ sample siz
_ Total de Oregon
5tatew~ aged 18 and older
Oreg°n1ans ialing ~RDO)
Random 51- D glide AR%
Now-
~~y y
t
000 re90"
. I not concerned abou
arec of the folbwiN.
()means Vol'
0"Gerv, of 'C , here
please rate e
S p w,
a scale ° issue no
con9 about that
on*
d Rat"
s fac~n o Uare verl concerne perCg
at y nt
sk you I
uld like b°ut ~can th tAean
Q2 1 wo t' a and ►n BOO
issue at all now 10
that 53%
Issues ~ acing Oreg°n 7.2 5V10
7.1
price 01 electricity 470/0
education g.9
Quality o~ Pudic 3g%
e of electricity 6.5
possible sh°rtag WIo
g.3
Grime in Oregon 350/0
vironment 6.3
Quality of the en 32%
of Oregon 6.4
The economy and h,ghways
n 01 Ore9on s roads slide
Gond~t~o
o s
es ihave
w
t'
e n in
v
belie t
mpete
OregovilaIns d
shortlast issues ed posslble thl
It is consider
bee Ing en er t month t 01 vlew.
is over the Pas to your pom
ctricity bla' ements is closes,
mana
r of rolling ele following star
had a numbs which one °f the
of californla hen in Oregon 100°/0
Q5 The state also hapP
otricount11
8ao/o Oww, valley Energy State;
Rest of
shortage is Don't know
b 6Q% 45°/° 43%
manufactured Y
tllltles to 38°/°
VaC10US U 30%
,,,,,-,Se rates 40010
t~~tement Al
~s°lo2o% 20%
20%
C
0% A B
Utilities and those
a who regulate them
Er1ergy shO 9We t have been short
etent
real prOblem• ng dlin ng energy 12
has been growi and in sighte manag ~►id~
put a strain
that has issues
on our power sources
~gtatement Cl
patement
customers with favorable
,
Util t
r
,
® of their elev%- Ic
unfavorable, or very
favorable, somewhat favorable, . utiluty?l' somewhat
r
say that you have a very cession of your electric
Q7. Would you unfavorable imp
100%
100%
73%
80% 69%
80% 66%
60%
60%
40%
t
40%
20%
20%
0% 18-34 3s-54 65+
Neutral Respondent Age Groups
0% Unfavorable
Favorable
Slide 13
DI
the same over the
COnc
' "ges ~ n, or stayed
u gone dow
one p~
m rces g • ity?
pr electrEC
most about
Iw raktIe Cn dowt have your e1eastctnc rNaO ate Yeats?
r Wu
tility,
p nts concerns you the
about your electr+c
one of the following stateme
Q7b. Shirking
Q9 Which
Don't know
Don't
know u
5°l0 for
prices here may could
Decreased
a ular elec~~e so nigh
be f e f becom
disruptions that it will be a
of electric Serious budget
power problem for MY
Service household
out electric rates
concern ow r disruptions
and P glide J&
increased'
eiectric pri stayed the the same
~a~ ~
or
decreased
mom
have a° ~
PGE prices red stably
10
,o
9
9 ® 8
8
7
a ® 6
6 m ■ o
e 5 . Q. 4 l
n
Dl 7 tea: ~ 9 m• c`E a,--;~s. ~
CL 4 K s C I
v+ 3
v 3 ~
2
;
1 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001
0 1985 1990 1995 2000
Slide 5
D
e
® serv,
lff lectr
WMtV icity service
elec~ reliab►I►ty of e
ding the
° ot n
to happe most?
what regar
ikely the
pwiiab
ears, do you tin in the is t state of Oregon of electr►c►ty
Looking ahead two Y an your household reduce its use
Q$ where c
Q11.1n your opinion,
s they can
indents provide Way tion-
ty consume
Resp electrici
reduce
Don't know
500 Turn lights off
21% Reduce heat at home
otReduce appliance use
6o
30/o Use less hot water
The problems 20/o or less
will be solved shortages of ones
will ell other rasp
and no serious electricity
electrical continue, and, maY
w
get worse ver
shortages ill
occur the next few Years
Slide 16
Statements about conservation
Q12. Which one of the following do you think best describes your household.
Don't know
Our household would like to
conserve and be more energy
efficient, but we are not sure
of the best things we can do to
conserve and be more energy
efficient. We need basic
information in that area. Our household has done just
about everything we can in the
areas of conservation of
ectricity and energy efficiency.
We need some new ideas to
become more energy efficient
and conserve more electricity.
I would be motivated to
conserve electricity and be
energy efficient if I believed it
would make a long term
difference for the environment
by limiting the use and
construction of new electric
DHI power plants.
Slide 17
NEW
y~yy y ~yy~~
A , . .
deregulation
~ VamiliaritY 'on
t~
® electric'16 ula
the issue of dereg
Structuring of at a11 famitiar with
somewhat, not too, or n t "
the electricity Industry in Oregon
Very
Q,19~b. Would You say that you are very,
Don't familiar
Very know g%
I)on't familiar 41/6
know 13%
1°Io
Not at all Not at all Somewhat
familiar familiar familiar
20% 240/° 29%
Somewhat
familiar
34%
Nottoo
familiar
Not too 34%
familiar-' ~eStructWr~nt~
32%
®~reg~l2sti®~
Slide 18
MEMO
DIU
electricity
el jor
SU131port lev 0 Amb, regon
ulaflon ucturl ose Oregon s Plan to
or strongly opp
oppose,
t favor, srestr)mvjjat
industry
efectric~ty
ewha
dereg ?
You strongly favor, som
Q2aa<h Would Y deregulatelrestructure the strongly
favor
8%
Strongly
favor Somewhat
4% fav or Don't know Somewhat 12% 37% favor
Don't know 300/6
24%
Somewhat
oppose
19%
Somewhat
Strongly oppose oppose ° f015%
Strongly R~stgucturing
oppose
41% ulati®n
®e~~9 Slide `19
-Dili
.uL' U1.1711J11 L711L11
Trust Indivi I, Cu. or Group
e Individual/Group/Co. Great Deal Fair Amount Just Some A ittl Not
® Gov. Kiitzhaber 23% 26% 20% 11% \-14%
0 0 0 0 \
® Mayor 15% 23% 23% 12% 17 0
\
Utility Spokesperson 12% 25% 28% 15% 7 \
m County Commissioners 9% 26% 29% 14% 13%
i
* Citizen's Utility Board 12% 23% 26% 8% 8%
e OPUC 8% 26% 34% 14% 9%
o Ralph Nader 12% 19% 20% 13% 26%
• BPA Spokesperson 6% 22% 30% 16% 15%
s Davis & Hibbitfs, Inc.-PGE Survey
DHI Slide 0
The End ~I
Portland General Electric DM Slide
l
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Executive Staff
FROM: Bill Monaha
DATE: July 6, 2001
SUBJECT: PGE Questions & Answers on Current Rotating Outage Plan
Attached is a letter from Karen Lee, PGE Government Affairs Representative, for our area.
Karen has provided us with a copy of PGE's question and answer document on rotating
outages. As Karen points out, rotating outages would be an extraordinary occurrence in
our area, however, the possibility always exists.
Karen will be attending a council meeting on July 24, 2001. Should you have any
questions regarding the information, you may wish to pose questions to Karen at that time.
aft
VADWILLVAEMOS"YOR 8 CWGE ROTATM OUTAGE WOAOC
/PGROM Portland (ieneral Electric Company
121 SW Salmon Street • Portland, Oregon 97204
July 2, 2001
Bill Monahan RECEIVED C.O.T.
City Manager
City of Tigard J u L 0 6 2001
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223 Administration
The subject of "being prepared" for power outages is of particular interest lately because
of stories from California about rotating power outages. At Portland General Electric
(PGE), we're taking steps to prevent such a scenario, but wanted you to be aware of the
potential for rotating outages and the implications they may have for your facilities and
your community.
Rotating outages would be an extraordinary occurrence here, but the possibility for
outages always exists. With this in mind, PGE is currently refining our Rotating Outage
Plan that would involve interrupting power to our customers on a controlled, rotating
basis for a limited amount of time. The plan also includes excluding critical load
facilities, such as hospitals and 911 emergency centers. Please be advised that we will
attempt to give local governments and emergency management organizations as much
advanced notice as possible before interrupting power, but unexpected circumstances
could make this difficult.
Please find attached a Q & A on PGE's current Rotating Outage Plan for additional
information. You can also visit our web site at www.portlandgeneral.com. Feel free to
call your PGE Account Manager, or me in Government Affairs, 503-464-7894, if you
have further questions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
d. P1.1 3e-A~
Karen Lee
PGE Government Affairs Representative
Connecting People, Power and Possibilities
all
f
Rotating Outages PGE
June 2001
Contact: Kregg Arntson, Corporate Communications (503) 464-7695
PGE's number one priority is to ensure our customers have safe and reliable
electricity supplies at stable prices - a commitment that has become more
challenging in today's energy market. Our current power supply forecast indicates
we have enough power production capacity at our own generation facilities and
enough forward wholesale power purchases to cover our customers' needs under
currently anticipated circumstances this summer and winter. Rotating outages in
PGE's service territory would be an extraordinary occurrence, but the possibility
for outages always exists.
w WLatl iiid h Ig!outagge?, A rotating outage is a temporary, controlled outage that occurs when there is not
2j~ejS Yr t'Tyr. i'x-j?i. P.ld`S rih tF,,~1tint KS
enough electrical supply available on the system to meet customer demand. A
f f ~,x 7 t'• utility initiates outages on a rotating basis to balance demand with supply and
protect the integrity of the overall electric system. Controlled, rotating power
outages on a relatively small-scale help to prevent a widespread, uncontrolled
disturbance to the entire electrical grid.
. 4
. tf , Sf rY:( y Y.
Why would PGE ~esortto PGE has planned ahead to cover our customers' power needs, but given the tight
a rotating outage? power supply scenario in the Northwest, unexpected plant outages, transmission
system failures, extreme temperatures, or drastic drops in hydro supplies could put
the balance between supply and demand at any or all Northwest utilities at risk.
' S ? Before resorting to rotating outages, PGE would work with the region and our
customers to exhaust available avenues to reduce power demand and boost supply.
If we still fall short and there is no power available on the market or one of PGE's
suppliers is not able to deliver, PGE is prepared to initiate our rotating outage plan.
How does a rotating' PGE has arranged major power lines, typically serving 1,000 - 3,000 residential
outage wrk?`;':' = and/or business customers, into 32 groups or "blocks," comprising approximately
100 megawatts of electricity usage per block. The amount of power that PGE is
short would determine the number of blocks that are interrupted at any one time.
For example, if we determine that we'll be 400 megawatts short, we would
interrupt service to four blocks for approximately one hour. At the end of the
hour, service will be restored to the affected blocks and the next set of blocks on
the list will be interrupted. Once a block is used in a rotating outage, it is moved
to the bottom of the list.
How are the power, lines Protecting the public safety is PGE's top priority during any type of power outage
selected? situation. A team of engineers carefully evaluated PGE's system to determine how
best to reduce electrical load while maintaining a safe environment, protecting the
integrity of the overall system, and minimizing disruption to our customers. The
selected lines are dispersed throughout PGE's 3,150-square-mile service area.
Rotating Outages
Page 2 of 5
Are some customers For public health and safety reasons, critical load customers including large
exempt from rotating hospitals, large water and sewage treatment plants, police and fire stations,
outages? and emergency centers are excluded from rotating outages. Due to safety and
system design considerations, the downtown Portland and Salem core areas
would also be excluded from rotating outages.
How much advance notice Our goal is to give customers as much advance notice as possible before interrupt-
will PGE give me before ing service, but, unfortunately, it is not always possible for PGE to determine exactly
turning off the power? when and which customers will be affected in advance of actually implementing a
rotating outage. We will provide as much information as possible to our customers
through the media, PGE's Web site and our customer service center. PGE's
commercial/industrial account representatives will work directly with our large
business customers to give them as much advance notice as possible.
How long will my power At this time, PGE estimates that power would be interrupted for approximately
be out? one hour.
If the region is short on Each utility is responsible for managing its own power supply to best meet the
power, will PGE have to needs of its customers. It is possible that a utility could be forced to implement
interrupt power too? rotating outages without other utilities in the region following suit.
If other utilities encounter shortfalls and fail to properly manage any related
supply problems, their actions could impact the region - including PGE. That's
because our power grid is interconnected with the rest of the Northwest, and we
are not immune to power supply problems caused by other utilities or power
suppliers.
Why is there an electricity The region's surplus of energy has dwindled. The robust economy and population
shortage in the West? growth has pushed demand for electricity up and the development of new energy
supplies has not kept pace. Due to low prices over the past several years and
uncertainties in the power industry, many companies have not been making
investments in new large-scale power plants. Efforts to protect endangered
fish species, which PGE supports, have also restricted some water flows to
hydroelectric plants.
Does PGE have enough In the utility business, we routinely develop contingency plans for responding to
power supply? unusual circumstances. PGE has planned ahead and purchased power to meet the
needs of our customers for the next several years. However, low water conditions,
tight supply and increased demand combined with other unexpected factors like
a major equipment breakdown or extreme temperatures in the West could create
a shortage.
PGE's own plants generate about half the power we need to meet customer
demand; the other half is purchased on the wholesale market. Most of that is
11111111 Jim 1111 gimilli
Rotating Outages
Page 3 of 5
purchased well in advance to assure a reliable supply, plus an extra cushion.
Keep in mind that PGE's supply comes from many sources throughout the region
and can be impacted by factors outside of our control. We can't guarantee there
won't be a shortage, but we're prepared to take the necessary steps to serve our
customers with adequate levels of power.
How do i prepare for a PGE customers should prepare for a rotating outage just as they would for any
rotating outage? other power outage caused by a storm or equipment failure. Prepare an emergency
kit containing a flashlight, extra batteries, wind-up or battery-powered alarm clock,
battery-powered radio, and other items to keep you as comfortable as possible
during an outage. It is also important to protect your electronic equipment by
investing in surge protection equipment. More information about being prepared
for a power outage can be found at www.PortlandGeneral.com or by calling PGE
customer service at 503-228-6322 or 1-800-542-8818.
Will a person on life PGE cannot guarantee uninterrupted service to any customer. However, we do
support or other medical make special efforts to educate our customers on life support equipment through
equipment have his/her PGE's Life Line program. It's important for our customers who rely on life-sus-
power switched off? taining medical equipment to plan ahead and take responsibility for having the
backup equipment needed to keep life support systems operating in the event of
a power outage or other emergency. Once customers have a backup plan, we
encourage them to register with our Life Line program by calling 1-800-542-8818.
Should I buy a generator? PGE does not advise its customers on making investments in backup generation,
since each customer has their own unique budget and reliability needs. PGE does
offer information and services that can help residential and business customers
make informed decisions about investing in backup generation. Customers can
visit www.PortlandGeneral.com or call PGE's Power Quality Hotline at
503-612-4677 or 1-800-270-7016.
What can be done to If PGE anticipates a potential system emergency, we are prepared to take the nec-
help avert or minimize essary steps to reduce demand and boost supply in order to maintain a safe and
the impact of a rotating reliable supply of electricity for our customers. We can increase our power pur-
outage? chases several days in advance of a possible shortage, increase operating capacity
at our generating facilities, encourage some commercial/industrial customers to
reduce electricity use through PGE's Demand Buyback program and tap into
standby generators to put additional load on the system.
In addition to these steps, PGE may ask residential and business customers to
drastically reduce power usage, particularly during peak demand times. If these
steps fail to meet load requirements, PGE will initiate the rotating outage plan.
L
L~iii=
Rotatirig Outages
Page 4 of 5
Why can't PGE just turn If PGE has to interrupt electrical service, it will most likely be during traditional
the power off in the mid- peak demand times. During the summer, energy use is at its highest between 4
dle of the night when and 8 p.m. when more air conditioners are operating. During the winter months,
most people are sleeping? peak demand times are typically during morning and early evening hours with
the increase in residential heating.
How do I conserve energy? At PGE, we've been a leader in developing energy efficiency programs - ranging
from free home energy evaluations to rebates to extensive energy efficiency infor-
mation on PGE's Web site - that help customers save money and increase comfort.
There may be times when the region experiences the threat of a power shortage
and issues a short-term warning. In this situation, the region's energy community
may ask customers to pay extra attention to managing electrical load and reducing
demand at peak usage hours. Residential customers would be asked to reduce
energy consumption between the peak hours of 6 and 10 a.m. and between 4 and
8 p.m. Easy steps customers can take to reduce energy demand are:
® Manage thermostat temperatures carefully. Reduce air conditioning use
during summer months.
® Avoid using large electrical appliances like dishwashers and washing
machines during peak morning and early evening periods.
® Turn off all unnecessary electrical equipment like computers, copiers and
lights when not in use.
® Set lights on timers or turn them on after 8 p.m. in the summer. Avoid
leaving lights on all night.
® Ease electric water heating by taking shorter showers, using low-flow
showerheads and conserving hot water through other measures.
Residential and business customers can get more money saving tips by visiting
www.PortlandGeneral.com or by calling PGE's Energy Experts at 1-800-722-9287.
Who makes the decision to Depending on the type of shortage, either the utility or the State of Oregon is
initiate rotating outages? responsible for initiating rotating outages. If there is a system emergency specific
to PGE's service area, we will implement rotating outages on our own. If the state
orders a mandatory power reduction during a state or regional shortage, PGE
will immediately comply by initiating our rotating outage plan.
Who do I call if I have For general customer inquiries, please call PGE customer service at 503-228-6322
questions about rotating or 1-800-542-8818. Commercial and industrial business customers should contact
outages? their dedicated account representative. Local governments and municipalities
should contact their PGE government affairs representative.
Rotating Outages
Page 5 of 5
Would PGE ever interrupt Delivering safe and reliable power is PGE's number one priority. Therefore, we
power for economic have established a policy that we would not initiate a system emergency and
reasons? interrupt power to avoid purchasing high priced power on the open market.
Interestingly, a May 2001 survey done of PGE's residential customers showed
that 78 percent of those surveyed supported accepting the probability of rotating
outages in order to hold down electric rates. With this in mind, PGE is currently
evaluating our policy related to balancing power reliability and economic
considerations.
Is PGE still selling power to PGE always meets its own customers' needs first. Then, and only then, if the
California? company has surplus power, will it sell small quantities on the wholesale market
to trading partners in California and other states. PGE is not selling power
directly to California utilities, but rather to creditworthy power marketers
through California's Independent System Operator (ISO).
i
lp
Ge
Y
Rotating Outages PGE 0000
r r June 2001
• Contact: Kregg Arntson, Corporate Communications (503) 464-7695
PGE's number one priority is to ensure our customers have safe and reliable
electricity supplies at stable prices - a commitment that has become more
~g,~ xrr # .,~F K challenging in today's energy market. Our current power supply forecast indicates
+ 4~~E tuP~ ,a M~.ijxti ism j Y kc§~. "Fyr
rJ'F F~s~ we have enough power production capacity at our own generation facilities and
' r r enough forward wholesale power purchases to cover our customers' needs under
s I currently anticipated circumstances this summer and winter. Rotating outages in
PGE's service territory would be an extraordinary occurrence, but the possibility
for outages always exists.
What is a rotating outage? A rotating outage is a temporary, controlled outage that occurs when there is not
enough electrical supply available on the system to meet customer demand. A
utility initiates outages on a rotating basis to balance demand with supply and
protect the integrity of the overall electric system. Controlled, rotating power
outages on a relatively small-scale help to prevent a widespread, uncontrolled
disturbance to the entire electrical grid.
Why would PGE resort to PGE has planned ahead to cover our customers' power needs, but given the tight
a rotating outage? power supply scenario in the Northwest, unexpected plant outages, transmission
system failures, extreme temperatures, or drastic drops in hydro supplies could put
the balance between supply and demand at any or all Northwest utilities at risk.
Before resorting to rotating outages, PGE would work with the region and our
customers to exhaust available avenues to reduce power demand and boost supply.
If we still fall short and there is no power available on the market or one of PGE's
suppliers is not able to deliver, PGE is prepared to initiate our rotating outage plan.
How does a rotating PGE has arranged major power lines, typically serving 1,000 - 3,000 residential
a outage work? and/or business customers, into 32 groups or "blocks," comprising approximately
100 megawatts of electricity usage per block. The amount of power that PGE is
short would determine the number of blocks that are interrupted at any one time.
For example, if we determine that we'll be 400 megawatts short, we would
{ interrupt service to four blocks for approximately one hour. At the end of the
hour, service will be restored to the affected blocks and the next set of blocks on
the list will be interrupted. Once a block is used in a rotating outage, it is moved
s to the bottom of the list.
I
i
How are the power lines Protecting the public safety is PGE's top priority during any type of power outage
selected? situation. A team of engineers carefully evaluated PGE's system to determine how
best to reduce electrical load while maintaining a safe environment, protecting the
integrity of the overall system, and minimizing disruption to our customers. The
selected lines are dispersed throughout PGE's 3,150-square-mile service area.
i
Rotating Ot[tages
Page 2 of 5
Are some customers For public health and safety reasons, critical load customers including large
exempt from rotating hospitals, large water and sewage treatment plants, police and fire stations,
outages? and emergency centers are excluded from rotating outages. Due to safety and
system design considerations, the downtown Portland and Salem core areas
would also be excluded from rotating outages.
How much advance notice Our goal is to give customers as much advance notice as possible before interrupt-
will PGE give me before ing service, but, unfortunately, it is not always possible for PGE to determine exactly
turning off the power? when and which customers will be affected in advance of actually implementing a
rotating outage. We will provide as much information as possible to our customers
through the media, PGE's Web site and our customer service center. PGE's
commercial/industrial account representatives will work directly with our large
business customers to give them as much advance notice as possible.
How long will my power At this time, PGE estimates that power would be interrupted for approximately
be out? one hour.
If the region is short on Each utility is responsible for managing its own power supply to best meet the
power, will PGE have to needs of its customers. It is possible that a utility could be forced to implement
interrupt power too? rotating outages without other utilities in the region following suit.
If other utilities encounter shortfalls and fail to properly manage any related
supply problems, their actions could impact the region - including PGE. That's
because our power grid is interconnected with the rest of the Northwest, and we
are not immune to power supply problems caused by other utilities or power
suppliers.
Why is there an electricity The region's surplus of energy has dwindled. The robust economy and population
shortage in the West? growth has pushed demand for electricity up and the development of new energy
supplies has not kept pace. Due to low prices over the past several years and
uncertainties in the power industry, many companies have not been making
investments in new large-scale power plants. Efforts to protect endangered
fish species, which PGE supports, have also restricted some water flows to
hydroelectric plants.
Does PGE have enough In the utility business, we routinely develop contingency plans for responding to
power supply? unusual circumstances. PGE has planned ahead and purchased power to meet the
needs of our customers for the next several years. However, low water conditions,
tight supply anti increased demand combined with other unexpected factors like
a major equipment breakdown or extreme temperatures in the West could create
a shortage.
PGE's own plants generate about half the power we need to meet customer
demand; the other half is purchased on the wholesale market. Most of that is
i
Rotating Outages
Page 3 of 5
purchased well in advance to assure a reliable supply, plus an extra cushion.
Keep in mind that PGE's supply comes from many sources throughout the region
and can be impacted by factors outside of our control. We can't guarantee there
won't be a shortage, but we're prepared to take the necessary steps to serve our
customers with adequate levels of power.
How do 1 prepare for a PGE customers should prepare for a rotating outage just as they would for any
rotating outage? other power outage caused by a storm or equipment failure. Prepare an emergency
kit containing a flashlight, extra batteries, wind-up or battery-powered alarm clock,
battery-powered radio, and other items to keep you as comfortable as possible
during an outage. It is also important to protect your electronic equipment by
investing in surge protection equipment. More information about being prepared
for a power outage can be found at www.PortlandGeneral.com or by calling PGE
customer service at 503-228-6322 or 1-800-542-8818.
Will a person on life PGE cannot guarantee uninterrupted service to any customer. However, we do
support or other medical make special efforts to educate our customers on life support equipment through
equipment have his/her PGE's Life Line program. It's important for our customers who rely on life-sus-
power switched off? twining medical equipment to plan ahead and take responsibility for having the
backup equipment needed to keep life support systems operating in the event of
a power outage or other emergency. Once customers have a backup plan, we
encourage them to register with our Life Line program by calling 1-800-542-8818.
Should 1 buy a generator? PGE does not advise its customers on making investments in backup generation,
since each customer has their own unique budget and reliability needs. PGE does
offer information and services that can help residential and business customers
make informed decisions about investing in backup generation. Customers can
visit www.PortlandGeneral.com or call PGE's Power Quality Hotline at
503-612-4677 or 1-800-270-7016.
What can be done to If PGE anticipates a potential system emergency, we are prepared to take the nec-
help avert or minimize essary steps to reduce demand and boost supply in order to maintain a safe and
the impact of a rotating reliable supply of electricity for our customers. We can increase our power pur-
outage? chases several days in advance of a possible shortage, increase operating capacity
at our generating facilities, encourage some commercial /industrial customers to
reduce electricity use through PGE's Demand Buyback program and tap into
standby generators to put additional load on the system.
In addition to these steps, PGE may ask residential and business customers to
drastically reduce power usage, particularly during peak demand times. If these
steps fail to meet load requirements, PGE will initiate the rotating outage plan.
Rotating O:etages
Page 4 of 5
Why can't PGE just turn If PGE has to interrupt electrical service, it will most likely be during traditional
the power off in the mid- peak demand times. During the summer, energy use is at its highest between 4
dle of the night when and 8 p.m. when more air conditioners are operating. During the winter months,
most people are sleeping? peak demand times are typically during morning and early evening hours with
the increase in residential heating.
How do 1 conserve energy? At PGE, we've been a leader in developing energy efficiency programs - ranging
from free home energy evaluations to rebates to extensive energy efficiency infor-
mation on PGE's Web site - that help customers save money and increase comfort.
There may be times when the region experiences the threat of a power shortage
and issues a short-term warning. In this situation, the region's energy community
may ask customers to pay extra attention to managing electrical load and reducing
demand at peak usage hours. Residential customers would be asked to reduce
energy consumption between the peak hours of 6 and 10 a.m. and between 4 and
8 p.m. Easy steps customers can take to reduce energy demand are:
® Manage thermostat temperatures carefully. Reduce air conditioning use
during summer months.
® Avoid using large electrical appliances like dishwashers and washing
machines during peak morning and early evening periods.
® Turn off all unnecessary electrical equipment like computers, copiers and
lights when not in use.
e Set lights on timers or turn them on after 8 p.m. in the summer. Avoid
leaving lights on all night.
® Ease electric water heating by taking shorter showers, using low-flow
showerheads and conserving hot water through other measures.
Residential and business customers can get more money saving tips by visiting
www.PortlandGeneral.com or by calling PGE's Energy Experts at 1-800-722-9287.
Who makes the decision to Depending on the type of shortage, either the utility or the State of Oregon is
initiate rotating outages? responsible for initiating rotating outages. If there is a system emergency specific
to PGE's service area, we will implement rotating outages on our own. If the state
i orders a mandatory power reduction during a state or regional shortage, PGE
1 will immediately comply by initiating our rotating outage plan.
Who do I call if I have For general customer inquiries, please call PGE customer service at 503-228-6322
questions about rotating or 1-800-542-8818. Commercial and industrial business customers should contact
outages? their dedicated account representative. Local governments and municipalities
should contact their PGE government affairs representative.
IN 111111 i I
Rotating Outages
Page 5 of 5
Would PGE ever interrupt Delivering safe and reliable power is PGE's number one priority. Therefore, we
power for economic have established a policy that we would not initiate a system emergency and
reasons? interrupt power to avoid purchasing high priced power on the open market.
Interestingly, a May 2001 survey done of PGE's residential customers showed
that 78 percent of those surveyed supported accepting the probability of rotating
outages in order to hold down electric rates. With this in mind, PGE is currently
evaluating our policy related to balancing power reliability and economic
considerations.
Is PGE still selling power to PGE always meets its own customers' needs first. Then, and only then, if the
California? company has surplus power, will it sell small quantities on the wholesale market
to trading partners in California and other states. PGE is not selling power
directly to California utilities, but rather to creditworthy power marketers
through California's Independent System Operator (ISO).
what to-do?
ood answerson
uy ~,y~' ` t
just need some 900
Energy Experts should
K of H°me years of
pGE s team
~ o v They ve Sot d
i; q A firs oice.
be your t customes derstan- omfort.
y t experience helPing
r ~
use and c
:,af rove home energy
a. a~1aC s'. and imp
ca 722-4287
%a c'L r; all at 1-800 f
=ci
` Fµ. i ~ Z t, ~ q ~'1 L"i-'~. a -.r~ Give them a
c is bypGE
u r.s i : , s , r } y is not provided other
z,= A Lt E your heating as, hea °d or heating
r oiar natural g on
energy look to Y provider for iT+forn'at1On
Vlomee I~ll°r home fuel p
and sealing heating and weathedyation assistance
insulating
ents suchVI, heating Similar rebates animprovem doors and
. ce
does sx!gs` nt.
start at home drafts in walls, big financial investme
re ui a
effi ency really States the often q k . can help offset some
Energy the United ducts
i s
ow that in Generlectr c
Did you kn ough poorly Portlandr` Y
wasted thr of those costs. _
amount of energy doors alone is
heat their homes
tows and Who
insulated win eline -ago
the Alaskan PIP PGE_ tomers w
et from o First to a 25` (o
are eligible for uP
about as we g `4
lect citY
with e st 6loan. V1leatheriz►n9 a
each year! or a low-interecash re drafty and poorly-
oa might benefit from
tt°i'1( - t To out if y ' GE Home insulated home
5 i ~ S 6"1 Iweathenzarion, call a PWhile
~,g £i~~i'~~~d3~a. 0-722-9287 can significantly
~3 can dO tO save a = pert at 1- eating
things you GE's free dome reduce h I _4P .
There are a lot of To achieve the greatest 1e at it. about P
energy , +u
°und home. S on cooling; rfi acr ,
fora Evaluation
a pest
energy and economy, ithelps to usage. Th
}EnergS' PGE 7 r ii, ,
comfort most energy acting uP reduce
use a new,
l►ir►gs that the a. water heater
hose t Electric to usage
c urchasing !cooling erior i
bate on P heating in ext
insulate and seal air ►eaks floors and
umbeT one h1 F offers a $25 rec `,,rater heater.
clot surprisingly` then cooling QciencY electri is tO
' ceilin9- Walls,
,,,,,,y use for heating and hrY Expert for a list of doors,
a PGE Energy windows,
r heating
. foUowedbYwa g and a'pIp : _ .I participatimg dealers. heating dui' ia1
*ien elecbir dV for 'O r c16-
'11 find use.
brocl"~ you nO
inside of this vten
and ideas that address
dat_y~U fps ur energY saving ti
each of these meas. Lrt
RI 1-7 Ulm
Lasy,,,
I I PS to bave
Thermostat or-, your electric water
heater too high? Turn it down. Uiera
r" 0 Money.,
Each 10 degrees reduction in water
temperature generally saves 3 to
5 percent on water heating costs.
Savings: 9-$15 per year*
Install exterior wall switch and Uplifting gays to save energy
Steps { outlet gaskets to prevent air loss with your clothes washer.
a. Turn off the electricity Y x5 and infiltration. Cost Free
to the electric water t `
Savings: Varies
heater at the main Cost: $1-$2 each . t , y
Savings: Varies a-' • Use the cold or warm wash/cold rinse option on you
electrical panel. washing machine.
b . Remove the water Steps. Wash full loads.
1:i •
heater thermostat covers.
a. Make sure the power t7 ' • Buying a new clothes washer. Horizontal-axis washers
c. Use a screwdriver to reset both top and bottom is off to any electricals- ~7 - use less water and energy.
thermostats to 120 degrees, the optimum temperature outlet or switch you for water heating comfort and efficiency. (Set to 140 are workin on.=! rs _
9 14 Serve up savings with your
degrees if you have an automatic dishwasher that does b. Remove the cover plate
not preheat its own water - but be aware that 140 with a screwdriver. k" dish washer!
de ree water can scald. '
9 ) c. Insert gasket(s) Cost Free
d. Replace the insulation and the thermostat panel per instructions. Savings: Varies
covers and restore power. d. Replace cover plate and restore power at breaker. • Run full dishwasher loads
• Use the "energy saver" selection on your dishwasher.
2 7 Fix leaky hot wager Don't let the loot water run • Air dry dishes when you can (unless your home has
mold or mildew problems.)
tallCl?t5• while shaving. •Dishwashers useless water than hand washing.
(And don't forget to fix cold water fixtures as Cost: Free
well to eliminate wasted water.) Savings: Varies Al 111Z. ,
Cost .50 to $1.00 + Talk about money down the drain. Fill up the sink, Give your refrigerator coils
Savings: Up to $1 per month (basad on a leak plug and shave. Or, try an electric shaver to save a clean sweep.
of 60 drops per minute.) money (either battery or plug-in type). Cost Free
Steps: Savings: Varies
Fixtures vary so check handyman guides or your • Clean the condenser coils behind or under your
hardware supplier to confirm steps. 8 Dust light l]LllbS and fixtures. refrigerator several times a year. Use a vacuum
a. Turn off water to the faucet. cleaner or a soft brush to remove dust.
b. Remove the faucet handle. (The screw may be hidden Cost: Free
under a cap.) Savings: Varies
c. Remove the packing nut by turning it counterclockwise • Alright. It's not going to save the world, but
with a wrench and pull out the spindle and washer. dusting bulbs can improve overall light output 16 Keep a cool fridge.
d. Replace the worn washer (it'll look flat, misshapen and the fixture's efficiency. Cost Not much.
and hard). Always use a brass screw to install washer. Savings: Varies
e. Reassemble and turn the water back on. 9 Use fans instead of the air
Steps:
3install high performance, conditioner in warm weather, a. Don't keep your fridge too cold. Recommended:
p 37 to 40 degrees for fresh food and 5 degrees in
water-saving shower heads. when you can do so without the freezer section.
Cost $10-$20 sacrificing comfort. b. Regularly defrost.
Savings: $36 to $60 per year. Cost: Negligible. c. Check for gaps in your refrigerator door seats. Make
Savings: $5-6 per month. sure they close tightly. If they don't, replace them.
Steps: r d. K purchasing a new refrigerator, look for a model
a. Wrap a cloth around the with the EnergytStar label.
joint of the old shower 0 Caulk and.' N,1 €
head and pipe. seal holes
Close fireplace and wood stove
b. Gently unscrew the shower 47
dampers when not
head with a wrench. r' I In exterior Vti
OR I
c. Following package ; walls.
in use.
instructions, apply
pipe Cost: $6 to $10
compound or T f!on tapeSavings: Varies de endin Cost Free
on application. P 9 eh Savings: Could be a lot!
to pipe threads. Screw the V
water-saving showerhead on to the Steps: ~TM • Warmed air rises, right
pipe until it fits snugly. Do not overt!9hten. up l open chimney. It's
a. Check around plumbing pipes, telephone
like leaving afour-foot t
wires, exhaust fans, dryer vents, sink and window in your home
Check furnace filters every three bathtub drains, around fireplaces, and under wide open. " " -
countertops for small holes and cracks.
months and replace when dirty. b. Expanding foam or caulking will seal holes.
Cost: $3-$6
Savings: Varies Use compact fluorescent Freeze in some savings.
Check your furnace owner's manual
to determine the location and light bulbs. Cost Free
size of replacement filters that Cost: $8 to $30 per bulb. _ Savings: Varies
s a. Defrost your freezer before frost builds beyond
you need. The size will also be Savings:Up to 50% of your one quarter inch.
indicated on the old filter. lighting energy bill. b. A full freezer performs better than one nearly empty.
Steps:
s Steps. c. Freezer temps: Between 0-5 degrees. Keeping
t a. Simply slide the old filter a.Take an inventory of your temperatures lower increases energy use.
out and the new filter in. home's lighting needs for \
b. If your furnace filter is size and wattage
reusable, clean and replace. requirements. GLA
b. Purchase compact Don't Cully at the door!
fluorescent light bulbs
Turn down home-heating as your budget allows. Cost: Free
Savings: Varies
thermostats at night. • Take care not to linger at the refrigerator, freezer
Cost Nothing or oven with the door open. Losing all that cooled
Savings: Generally, you'll save 2% of your heating Make cents of lighting. or heated air costs you money! The same goes for
bill for each degree lowered. your home entry doors.
Cost: Nothing (except buying the bulbs)
Steps: Savings: Varies
a. Exercise careful thermostat control. It's a matter Small changes in lighting can help save energy. Call PGE at 1-800-722-9287 for
of personal preference, but 68 degrees during • Higher wattage incandescent light bulbs are a Home Energy Evaluation.
the day and 55 at night is more efficient than lower-wattage bulbs.
recommended. • Use the lowest wattage light bulb to accomplish • a your home is electrically heated, you may qualify for
b. If you have a heat the task at hand. In other words, why use a on free selectPGE ed wHome Energy Evaluation Evaluation and special rebates
pump, turn the 100-watt light bulb when a 60-watt will do. o improvements.
thermostat down • Whatever bulb you use, be careful to not
no more than exceed the fixture rating.
10 degrees at night. • Use task lighting where possible.
• And the old standby: Turn off the lights when
you leave the room! Portland General Electric
costs and savings estimate for these tips are intended as a general guide. Based on typical usage and typical installations, individual savings and results will
vary depending on weather, usage patterns, housing stock, family size, product use and other factors.
i_' t 1Y 5~4 ~1 ' '
I
We know 1
how to heap you
wave energy and money, .
Let us help.?
Call Portland General Electric's Energy
Experts at (503) 464-2511 in the Pound
area or, toll-free outside Portland metro, -
1-800-722-9287
PGE
ideas fork ,
Click i or more 'aft Aft
vl 11 mg wn If
smart savings. P®rdandGeneral.cen
Visit PGE's on-line A handy
warehouse of - great home
a . ~
bp'-o»ude to sm
energy
efficiency
s save;/
ideas. We've got tips, examples, t
energy- ney
and quizzes aimed at helping you
trim energy cost and increase comfort, around home
ome
Get online
n find new t
Wa GE r:
Ys to saveo /
121 SW Salmon + Portland, Ores '
wwwl'ortiandGeneral.comn 97204 I
1-800-722-9287
r r,ew
Printed on recycled paper. Please recycle. 0
w
PGE OPERATING OFFICERS ~ortland General Electric's dynamic service
Peggy Y. Fowler - CEO and President territory, which covers 3,150 square miles,
contains about 45 percent of the state's
Alvin L. Alexanderson - Senior Vice President, population and includes 60 percent of the
General Counsel and Secretary state's economic base. At year-end 2000, PGE
Fred D. Miller - Senior Vice President, served 725,027 retail customers.
Public Policy and Administrative Services PGE's diverse fuel mix, which includes low-cost
Arleen N. Barnett - Vice President, water power, coal and gas combustion and
Human Resources renewable energy allows flexibility to meet the
area's growing demand. Also, PGE owns major Quick
David K. Carboneau - Vice President, transmission rights to the Pacific Northwest
Retail Services Intertie to California, allowing the purchase and
Stephen R. Hawke - Vice President, sale of bulk power.
Delivery System Planning and Engineering Rids
Ronald W. Johnson - Vice President, a
Pmier Supply/Resource Development and
Engineering Services WASHINGTON
OREGON
Stephen M. Quennoz - Vice President, C'-"-'
IMOMa y,
Polver Supply/Generation `11-9 a '
Mary K. Turin - Vice President,
Porter Supply/Pomer Operations
ew,ama~ laa,a~,a
Coyote Sp qt
Pamela G. Lesh - Vice President, 41 1
Rates and Regulatory Affairs
~vas
Joe A. McArthur - Vice President, ~z
Distribution
O k Gro e
James J. Piro -Vice President, * saJan
Chid Financial Officer and Treasurer
MowM Butte . (MaOrar)
Christopher D. Ryder - Vice President, Portland General Electric
Customer Service Delivery
Carl B. Talton - Vice President,
Government Affairs and Economic Development Portland General Electric
121 SW Salmon Street • Portland, Oregon 47:44
Web site: www.PortlandGencral.com
ZO~~ SOURCES OE ENERGY Al-
Ener9Y Sources
mom PGE POWER PLANTS
Net kW to Meet
Location Capability Retail load
LOO'(' AT Hydroelectric (Rivers) 22,000
A QUICK ELECTRIC Plants Bull Run 44 000
pORTLANp GENERAL Bull Run Clackamas 54,O0
ear-end 7000 , •1,500,p00 Faraday Clackamas 44,000
Figures as of y North Fork Clackamas Gsst►
5 11000
ulation of service area , ..3,150 chutes 25,E
Pop les) • . • . . Pak Grove Deschutes s•=,;' .
Service area (square mi „51 pelton Clackamas 3p0,000 ~o
11 utes
Riverivli peso 16N
Cities served • • 725,()27 Butte Willamette
tourers 637;539 Round 615,Q~ er from the
ber of retail cus 87,461 Sullivan note wh,d Pvv cif
Total num Net kW w cnP°
Residential . 227 Total Met pu,c)wses 11 Wind re(24.9M
Commercial Capability Wind Farm
~d~trial 2,781 Thermal Location 500 000 Vansude Ridge
OR
s Plants Clatskanie,' OR 361
of emp10yee.$112,389,68 Beaver Gas Turbine Boardm 296,0M*
Total numbe1 Coal Colstrip, r Retail er
~ardman.OR 242 NStntn
Operating payroll ......53,422,721,715 Bop Coal sales tkwhl
1,399,900
Utility plant assets • . $2,253,390,345 Co •ote S rin s
19,784,821,0 Total ectirei9•of net kilowatt
• • , . l resp
Revenues d
1d (retail) fe,ents 65°%o all 20ea Cants, Owl
Kilowatt hours so ' "Pa omtly p
owatt_hours .11,595
annual. tPabddu of j
kit
Average • ~ ' :
tourer
Per residental cus NUMBERS (503) 4~
ual revenue • .5703.12 TELEPHONE
Average aru` customer 6.06¢ Headquarters . . (503) 2542-8S18
Pe residential Business nr}Ce/lnforrnation (800) ` 8
r rice per kilowatthour Customer `je Friday 7a.11 _7p.m• (503) 460777 s wholesale ,nnrket activities.
Residential p 8.46¢ Monday' a (800) 422-5231
gg,, outage . Does not inctude PGE'
National residenhour (199) price Emergency andaired Phone Line .
per kilowatt "e6119 IMP
eak load • •4,073,000 ktl°`vatis
"istooll . 21 1998 .
DeC
Portland General Electric
121 SW Satmon St.,1WTC0301
P ~ Port(arrrf, On;~orr 97204
Karen Lee (.503)464-7894
Cawrnmcnt Affairsl Fax (503) 464-2354
Public Policy karen_lee ftn.com
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF July 24, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update from the New Tigard Library Construction Committee
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK A z;- CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Presentation by the New Tigard Library Construction Committee to update the City Council on the status of the
work of the Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is for the City Council to provide the Construction Committee further direction to
continue its work.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The New Tigard Library Construction Committee met with the City Council in April and June of 2001. At these
meetings, the Committee reviewed the recommendations from the "Needs Analysis Report for a new Tigard
Library" and presented preliminary information about three potential sites. The Committee also presented
information supporting the recommendation that the new library be a two-story structure. The Committee was
directed to continue the current process and at this time is prepared to give an update to Council on the work of the
Committee.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue with this process and look at placing a bond measure on the ballot in May or November 2002.
Complete the current process and wait until a later date for the question to be placed before the voters.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
i
z Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all
ages.
Strategy #1: Form a construction committee to explore the feasibility of new library space.
Action Items:
Construction Committee reviews possible sites for new library space.
Construction Committee recommends to the City Council a short list of potential sites.
Strategy #2: Construction Committee reviews the "Needs Analysis Report" and the "Building Programming
Report" and presents recommendations to City Council.
1'~Jljjlm 11111111110
ATTACHMENT LIST
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
The preliminary estimated cost for this project is between $14,000,000 and $17,000,000.
n
N
:7
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 7/24/01
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appeal of Blue Heron Park Subdivision (SUB2001-00001, PDR2001-00001,
ZON2001-00002 SLR2001-00003 VAR2001-00002 .
PREPARED BY Kevin Young DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's denial of the Blue Heron Park Subdivision?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Reverse the Planning Commission's denial of the Blue Heron Park Subdivision.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On June 11, 2001 the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application for an 18-lot
subdivision and planned development on 4.15 acres of land. The property is located at 12450 SW Walnut Street,
opposite the intersection of 124' Avenue and Walnut Street. The development proposal is for attached, single
family homes on individual lots. Through the flexibility allowed under planned development regulations, the size
of individual lots averages approximately 3,800 square feet. Development is to be clustered on the west side of the
development site, allowing for the preservation and enhancement of the pond, wetland, and stream area on the
eastern portion of the property. A sensitive lands review is required for the development due to the presence of
steep slopes, a wetland, and a natural drainageway on the site. The Planning Commission denied the application,
based on the finding that the development would adversely affect the welfare of the City.
The applicants filed an appeal on June 22, 2001 of the Planning Commission's decision, based on the assertion that
the Planning Commission failed to: explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, state the
facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and explain the justification for the decision based on the criteria,
standards, and facts set forth. Staff have reviewed the applicable decision criteria and find there is no criterion
regarding the effect of development on the welfare of the City. This is a broad, subjective standard. The purpose
statement for subdivisions (Section 18.430.010.A of the Tigard Development Code) includes a statement that the
provisions of the chapter are intended to "promote the public, health, safety, and general welfare." However,
purpose statements are not decision criteria.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the application. If this option is chosen, staff requests that the
findings for the decision be clearly linked to applicable code criteria.
2. Reverse the Planning Commission's denial of the application and approve the proposed development,
subject to additional conditions of approval as deemed necessary by the City Council.
o .
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Draft City Council Resolutions.
2. Memorandum dated July 10, 2001 from Associate Planner Kevin Young regarding staff analysis of the
appeal.
3. Copy of Appeal application and written statement, submitted by Matthew Sprague on behalf of the Urban
Development Corporation.
4. Copy of Final Order No. 2001-02 PC, which includes the staff report and subsequent Planning Commission
action on the subdivision application.
5. Draft minutes of Planning Commission's June 11, 2001 Public Hearing regarding the Blue Heron Park
Subdivision. Attached are copies of all written materials submitted at the hearing.
6. Additional written comments received after the issuance of the Planning Commission's Final Order and
prior to the City Council public hearing.
7. Application Materials.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
1:\curpln\kevinlsubdivision\blue heron AIS.doc
nil III
Attachment 1A
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL ORDER FOR A SUBDIVISION, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND VARIANCE (BLUE
HERON PARK SUBDIVISION - SUB2001-00001/PDR2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/SLR2001-
00003/VAR2001-00002).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of June 11, 2001; and
t
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the application (Planning Commission Final Order No.
01-02 PC); and
WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the application on
June 22, 2001, and
WHEREAS, a new public hearing with new testimony was provided on July 24, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the Planning Commission final order failed to explain the
criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, state the facts relied upon in rendering a decision,
and explain the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards, and facts set forth, as required
in Section 18.390.050.E of the Tigard Development Code, and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff' report and found that, as conditioned, the proposed
development would be in compliance with all applicable decision criteria,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby approves SUB2001-00001/PDR2001-00001/ZON2001-
00002/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION,
subject to conditions of approval, based on the information provided in the public
record. The Final Order approved by the City Council is hereby made a part of the
permanent record.
PASSED: This day of 2001.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO.01- BLUE HERON PARK SUBDMSION
Page 1 of 1 I:\CURPLN\Kevin\Subdivision\Btue Heron ros.dot
Attachment 1 B
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL ORDER FOR A SUBDIVISION, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND VARIANCE (BLUE
HERON PARK SUBDIVISION - SUB2001-00001/PDR2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/SLR2001-
00003/VAR2001-00002).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of June 11, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the application (Planning Commission Final Order No.
01-02 PC); and
WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the application on
June 22, 2001, and
WHEREAS, a new public hearing with new testimony was provided on July 24, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that
WHEREAS, the City Council
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby denies SUB2001-00001/PDR2001-00001/ZON2001-
00002/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION,
based on the preceding findings. The Final Order approved by the City Council is
hereby made a part of the permanent record.
PASSED: This day of 2001.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO.01- BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Page 1 of 1 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\CURPLN\Kcvin\Subdivision\Blue Heron resS.dot
Attachment 2
~i City of Tigard
M 0 R A N D U M Community evment
Shapin/jf7 (Better Community
CITTOFTIGARDAREGON
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Fax 684-7297
TO: City Council
FROM: Kevin Young, Associate Planner
DATE: July 10, 2001
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Blue Heron Park
Subdivision
On June 11, 2001, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
an application for an 18-lot subdivision and planned development on 4.15 acres of land.
The property is located at 12450 SW Walnut Street, opposite the intersection of 124th
Avenue and Walnut Street. The development proposal is for attached, single family
homes on individual lots. Through the flexibility allowed under planned development
regulations, the size of individual lots averages approximately 3,800 square feet.
Development is to be clustered on the west side of the development site, allowing for the
preservation and enhancement of the pond, wetland, and stream area on the eastern
portion of the property. A sensitive lands review is required for the development due to the
presence of steep slopes, a wetland, and a natural drainageway on the site.
The Planning Commission denied the application with a finding that the development
would adversely affect the welfare of the City, based on the testimony heard at the
hearing, opinions expressed by the Planning Commissioners during deliberations, and
answers to questions from staff. In appealing the decision, the appellants note that
Section 18.390.050.E of the Tigard Development Code requires the Planning Commission
to make findings and conclusions "based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that
explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts
relied upon in rendering a decision and explains the justification for the decision based on
the criteria, standards, and facts set forth." The appellants state that the Planning
Commission's decision "is not based on findings of fact or evidence related to specific
code criteria, is not accompanied by a brief statement explaining the criteria and standards
considered relevant to the decision and does not state the facts relied upon in rendering
the decision nor explain the justification for the decision based on criteria, standards, or
facts."
7/10/01 Council Memo Page 1 of 2
Re: Blue Heron Park Subdivision Appeal
MINE
Staff has analyzed the applicable criteria and determined that there is no specific criterion
regarding the effect of development on the welfare of the City. A number of criteria
certainly have a bearing on the welfare of the City, but none are written this broadly. The
purpose statement for subdivisions (Section 18.430.010.A of the Tigard Development
Code) includes a statement that the provisions of the chapter are intended to "promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare." However, purpose statements are not
applicable decision criteria. In some circumstances, where guidance is sought concerning
the intent of decision criteria that are unclear, purpose statements may be referenced to
indicate general policy direction. This is not the case in this instance.
Staff's analysis of the proceeding did not find any factual basis for the denial. Although
members of the Planning Commission objected to the density of the development, staff
finds that the project is within the acceptable density range. Approval of the requested
density bonuses is discretionary. The applicant has requested density bonuses that would
allow the placement of two additional dwelling units on the site, thereby increasing the
density of the project from 16 to 18 dwelling units. It is staffs opinion that the proposed
design merits granting of the density bonuses; however, if the Council determines that the
amenities and tree preservation measures proposed by the applicant do not merit the
requested density bonuses, the Council may deny the density bonuses without denying
the project. Based on this analysis, and the attached staff report, which analyzes the
compliance of the proposed development with applicable decision criteria, staff
recommends that the Council reverse the Planning Commission's denial of the subdivision
application, and approve the proposal, subject to the recommended conditions of approval
in the staff report.
7/10/01 Council Memo Page 2 of 2
Re: Blue Heron Park Subdivision Appeal
111111 11111W Isis MWOMMi
Attachment 3
APPEAL FILING FORM
AMMUMFOR LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE II
CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 6847297
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 phoneffax listed at the top of this form.
GENERAL INFORMATION
S
Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Applica I eing
Appealed: 12y So S W 1rJ A\ n u }-Si-
W e-^AQf3e\ ~~1
How Do You Qualify As A Party?: J4 011 L.Qy1 a- civ~
~r.
t~ vt ~ o
..eel. ' ;
Appellant's Address: 5 l~J 5v Z
City/State: }\0&A 10-v, Zip: _ °17 1'-I® `ie o r u A F )
Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(5r63) 4442-- 80V3
Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: -JvY1e 2°J ZDO
Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: _ -Juh,-- I L~ z6o 1
Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: S 0~ 61 CQ REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS
✓ Application Elements Submitted:
ppeal Filing Form (completed)
Filing Fee (based on criteria below)
D Director's Decision to Hearings Officer $ 250.00
D Expedited Review (deposit) $ 300.00
O - ➢ Hearing Referee $ 500,00
N ➢ Planning Commissfon/Hearing's Officer to City Council $1.745.00
i I+ Transcript)
-i
It-
Signature ) o p 1 nt(s):
J
APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS I: c rplnvMstem%appeat IOVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE!
PAGE 1 OF 1
101 101111111111 11 111111
APPEAL PURPOSE & INFORMATION
The Planning Commission denied the Blue Heron Park project on a 4 to 3 vote based on the
finding that the development would adversely effect the welfare of the City. After that vote, a
minority opinion was expressed by a commissioner who strongly disagreed with the denial and
was of the opinion that the project would not adversely effect the welfare of the City.
In making their decision, the Planning Commission, according to City Code Chapter 18.390.050
E., must make findings and conclusions "based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that
explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts relied
upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based on the
criteria, standards, and facts set forth. "
The specific grounds for this appeal are as follows. The Planning Commission's Conclusion is
not based on findings of fact or evidence related to specific Code criteria, is not accompanied by
a brief statement explaining the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision and
does not state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision nor explain the justification for the
decision based on criteria, standards or facts.
Attachment 4
120 DAYS = 8/28/2001 CITY OF TIOARD
Community Deveropment
CITY OF TICARD Shaping Better Community
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Case Numbers: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2001-00001
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2001-00001
ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2001-00002
SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2001-00003
VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00002
Case Name: BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Name of Owner: Erro I Hawley
Name of Applicant: Urban Development Corp - Attn: Al Jeck / Applicant's Rep.: Matthew Sprague
Address of Applicant: 9600 SW Oak Street. Suite 230 Portland Oregon 97223
Address of Property: 12450 SW Walnut Street S. of Walnut St. opposite 124 Ave. west of 121 Avg e.
Tax Ma /Lot Nos.: Washington Coun Tax Assessor's Ma No. 2S103BC, Tax Lot 3900.
A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZONE CHANGE,
SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND VARIANCE. THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS,
COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL
IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 1 ! 2001 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER.
Request: A Approval of an 18-lot subdivision on 4.15 awes. The lots are to be developed with attached single-
family homes. Lot sizes within the development average just over 3,800 square feet. Development is
to be clustered on the west side of the development site, allowing for the preservation and
enhancement of the pond, wetland, and stream area on the eastern portion of the property. A
sensitive lands review is required for the development due to the presence of steep slopes, a wetland,
and a natural drainageway on the site.
Zoning Designation: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. Applicable Review Criteria:
Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705,
18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810.
Action: A ❑ Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions Ell Denial
Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to:
ID Owners of Record Within the Required Distance Cl Affected Government Agencies
IA The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator D The Applicants and Owners
The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community
Development Department at the City of Tigard City Hall.
Final Decision:
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JUNE 14, 2001 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 29, 2001 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.G.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 Hail Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 20, 2001.
Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ComCmunity Development
ShapingA Better Community
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = 8/28/2001
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: BLUE HERON PART( SUBDIVISION
CASE NOS.: Subdivision SUB) SUB200140001
Zone Change (ZON) ZON2001-00002
Planned Development Review (PDR) PDR2001-00001
Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) SLR2001-00003
Adjustment (VAR) VAR2001-00002
PROPOSAL: Approval of an 18-lot subdivision on 4.15 acres. The lots are to be developed with
attached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development average dust over
3,800 square feet. Develo ment is to be clustered on the west side of the
development site, allowing for the preservation and enhancement of the pond,
wetland, and stream area on the eastern portion of the property. A sensitive lands
review is required for the development due to the presence of steep slopes, a
wetland, and a natural drainageway on the site. The applicant has also requested
an adjustment to the maximum allowed cul-de-sac length to allow for a cul-de-sac
length of approximately 500 feet.
APPLICANT: Urban Development Corporation OWNER: Erroyl Hawley
Attn: Al Jeck 9055 SW 91 , #7
9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223
Portland, OR 97223
APPLICANT'S
REP: Alpha Engineering, Inc.
Matthew Sprague, Project Planner
9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230
Portland, OR 97223
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory
residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and
attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
LOCATION: 12450 SW Walnut Street; WCTM 2S103BC, Tax Lot 3900. The project site is
located on the sputh side of SW Walnut Street, opposite of SW 124 Avenue and
west of SW 1215 Avenue.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430,
18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790,
18.795, 18.797 and 18.810.
SECTION 11. DECISION
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Planning Commission has DENIED the above request
based on the finding that the development would adversely effect the welfare of the City.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001.00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES:
Submit tote Engineering Department roan ages, 639-4171, ext. or review an
approval:
1. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a public improvement permit and compliance
agreement is required for this project to cover all public improvements, including the construction
of the private street and storm drainage facilities, and any other work in the public right-of-way.
Seven (7) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the
Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required b the
Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public
improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which
are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us).
2. 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.
3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the
City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public
improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No
construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public
streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in
the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include
the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project.
4. The applicant's construction plans shall show a new private street entrance from SW Walnut
Street. The entrance shall be established with a standard commercial driveway apron.
5. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the
proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street.
6. The applicant's construction plans shall indicate that they will construct a pedestrian/bike path to
the western boundary of this site. The pathway shall be lighted, and shall be placed in a tract to
be dedicated to the City on the final plat. The sidewalk portion along the private street shall be
five feet in width. The portion from the end of the private street to the western property line shall
be eight feet in width.
7. The applicant's construction plans shall show "No Parking" signs placed along both sides of the
new private street.
8. The applicant's construction plans shall show the new 8-inch public sanitary sewer line extending
to the western boundary of this site.
9. The applicant's construction plans shall provide for back yard private storm lines to pick up any
flows that may develop from existing parcels uphill of this site.
10. Prior to construction, the applicant shall demonstrate that their construction plans meet the
pertinent requirements from their USA Service Provider Letter.
11. The applicant's construction plans shall indicate they will remove necessary vegetation in the
right-of-way of SW Walnut Street, to improve the sight distance east of the new private street
entrance.
12. The applicant's construction plans shall show an advaDced intersection sign (MUTCD W2-1) to
alert westbound motorists of the intersection at SW 124 Avenue and the new private street.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003IVAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
13. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement
construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a
part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system
costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement
plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines.
14. Prior to construction, the Public Works Department shall review and approve the applicant's water
distribution plan: The Public Works Department may require a master meter with backflow
protection to be installed at the private street entrance at SW Walnut Street. With that scenario,
the onsite water line(s) and individual meters would be private.
15. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be
submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement
plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan and maintenance plan.
16. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan
shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual,
December 2000 edition."
17. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan
shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to
insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved
by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a
street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to
sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot.
18. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted geotechnical report by
GeoPacific Engineerin ,dated March 6, 2001, into the fins( grading plan; The geotechnical
engineer shall be employed by the applicant throughout the en ire construction period to ensure
that all grading, including cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and
Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the
Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits.
19. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have
reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading
plan at the end of the project.
20. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes
between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This
information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be
necessary when the lots develop.
Submit to the Planning Department (Kevin Young, 639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval:
21. The applicant shall use appropriate Best Management Practices for Erosion Control, as
required in the USA service provider letter.
22. The applicant shall be required to meet all conditions of the USA service provider letter, at the
appropriate stages of the development process.
23. The applicant shall redesign the proposed stormwater facility so that it does not result in
grading or filling within the wetland areas on the site. The stormwater facility may be located
within the 50-foot vegetated corridor, but may not be located within the wetland or
drainageway.
24. The applicant shall abide by all Tree Protection Standards included in the arborist's report
prepared by Walter H. Knapp, dated February 20, 2001. Required tree preservation fencing
shall be installed prior to site grading or clearing and shall remain in place until final occupancy
permits are issued for the proposed Domes.
25. The applicant shall revise their erosion control plan to address and include all requirements
noted in Sections 18.797.080 (Subsections J and K).
26. No site grading or clearing will be allowed until all necessary erosion control measures are in
place.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-000031VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
27. The applicant shall prepare tree mitigation materials to indicate the total number of caliper
inches of trees to be removed. The applicant shall indicate how they intend to mitigate for 50%
of the total number of caliper inches to be removed.
28. The applicant shall submit a bond to provide for the planting of the required caliper inches of
trees. An approximate figure for the cost of purchasing, transporting, planting, and maintainingg a
2-inch caliper tree is $200. The applicant shall specify how they propose to mitigate for the
required caliper inches to be mitigated. All mitigation trees shall be a minimum of 2-inch capper
size. If the applicant intends to mitigate on-site by planting trees, a revised landscaping plan all
be required that indicates which trees are to be counted towards the mitigation total. Street trees
and trees required to meet the buffer and parking lot tree requirements shall not be counted
toward the mitigation trees.
29. The applicant shall revise the tree preservation plan to indicate which trees to be removed, if anyy
are located within sensitive land areas on the site. If trees of 12 inch caliper size or greater are to
be removed from sensitive land areas, a tree removal permit shall be required to authorize their
removal.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO, APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT:
Submit tote Engineering Department 113-rian ager, 639-4171, ext. or review an
approval:
30. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of
$540.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Kit Church, Engineering).
31. The face of the final plat shall show a right-of-way dedication for SW Walnut Street to provide a
total of 33 feet from the centerline.
32. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed
private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and
take access from it.
33. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a
maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the
private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure
regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the
Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat.
34. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and
incorporated a homeowner's association.
35. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Walnut Street
underground as a part of this project, or they sall 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
Fer lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 1,238.00 and it shall be paid prior
o approval of the final plat.
36. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed
private water quality/detention facility will be jointly owned and maintained by the developer or by
the future homeowners within the subdivision.
37. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a
maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private water quality/detention facility. The
CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's
association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the facility.. The applicant shall submit a copy
of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat.
38. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to
the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network. These monuments shall be
on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary.
Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 -BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates
can be established by:
• GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey.
• By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
39. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor
licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative.
B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by
the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
C. The right-of-way dedication for SW Walnut Street shall be made on the final plat.
D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a
letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City has reviewed the
final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant
has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least
obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work.
E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final
plat for City Engineer's signature.
Submit to the Planning Department (Kevin Young, 639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval:
40. The applicant shall provide a landscape buffer in compliance with the requirements of the
landscape buffer C standard in Table 18.745.2 along the western edge of Lot 13. The
applicant shall revise the landscape plan to comply with this requirement.
41. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed open
space area in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.350.110.A.2.15 of the Tigard
Development Code.
42. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants, and
Restrictions (CC & R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly set out the
requirement that native plantings that do not survive the first two years must be replaced, and
that replacement plants must be maintained for two years following replacement. The CC &
R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's
association to ensure that the plantings are maintained. The applicant shall submit a copy of
the CC & R's to the Planning Department (Kevin Young) prior to approval of the final plat.
43. Per the requirements of Section 18.790.040.6, the applicant shall record a deed restriction for all
trees designated to be preserved to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies
or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. A copy of the deed restriction documentation
shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final plat approval.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian alter, 639-4171, ext. or review an
approval:
44. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with
a mylar copy of the recorded final plat.
45. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a
construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems
such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits.
46. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the
public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities
are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential
streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are
substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE:
model home permits may be issued by the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with
the City's model home policy).
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-000021PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
11111111 11111.1mil 1@11111 11 ME
Submit to the Planning Department (Kevin Young, 639.4171, ext. 407) for review and approval:
47. Prior to foundation inspections for individual homes, erosion control measures shall be in
place.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE RESOLVED
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
Submit to the Planning Department (Kevin Young, 639-4171, ext. 407) for review and approval:
48 The applicant shall re-vegetate all affected areas in compliance with Section 18.745.060 after
construction activities are completed and prior to removal of erosion control measures.
IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS
OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST:
18.430.080 Improvement Agreement:
Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by
the City, the Subdivider shall:
1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all
required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and
2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified,
the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider.
The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may
also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under
specific conditions therein stated in the contract.
18.430.090 Bond:
As required by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of
performance supported by one of the following:
1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in
the State of Oregon;
2. A surety bond executed b a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of
Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it
may be terminated; or
3. Cash.
The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a
registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance
assurance.
The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first
secured written authorization from the City.
18.430.100 Filing and Recording:
Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for
signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92.
Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded
final plat.
18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and
necessary data or narrative.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 0 OF 38 IIM
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Centerline Monumentation
In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and
roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement.
The following centerline monuments shall be set:
1. All centerline-centerline intersection points;
2. All cul-de-sac center points; and
3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's).
All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement.
Monument Boxes Required
Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points,
cul-de-sac center points, and curve points.
The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finish pavement grade.
18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards:
18.810.120 Utilities
All utility lines including, 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.
18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required
All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a
period of one year following acceptance by the City.
Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the
improvements as set by the City Engineer.
The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180.
18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite
No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs,
lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved
by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued.
18.810.180 Notice to Citv Required
Work shall not begin unti the City has been notified in advance.
i
i
If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified.
i
18.810.200 Engineer's Certification
The an dividers engineers all provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all
improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and
1 construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's
' improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 -BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
SECTION Ill. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site History:
The property currently contains a single-family residence and outbuildings. All buildings currently on
site are proposed to be removed. A search of city records found no previous land use cases
associated with this parcel.
_Vicinity Information:
The site is located on the south side of SW Walnut Street, west of SW 121St Avenue across from SW
124th Avenue. Access to the site occurs via a 40-foot-wide "panhandle" from Walnut to the main body
of the parcel. The panhandle is approximately 115 feet long. The site is bordered by
underdeveloped property to the west and south, and by the Fyrestone subdivision to the east. Little
development opportunity exists to the north, where single-family homes are currently developed along
Walnut Street.
Site Information:
The subject site consists of approximately 4.15 acres and is currently zoned R-4.5. The western half
of the site contains a creek, pond (heavily silted in), and associated wetlands. In general, the site
slopes downhill from west to east reaching the bottom of a drainageway, which flows from south to
north. Slopes on the east side of the drainageway are uphill from west to east. Slopes on the
property range from 2% to 29%, with the western portion, where development is proposed, having the
more gentle slopes.
SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE
Use Classification: Section 18.130.020
Lists the Use Categories.
The applicant is proposing to construct 18 attached single-family dwelling units each on separate lots.
This use is classified in Code Chapter 18.130 (Use Classifications) as Household Living The site is
located within the R-4.5, Low Density Residential District. Table 18.510.1 lists Household Living as a
permitted use in the R-4.5 zone. Table 18.510.1 also states that attached single units are permitted in
R-4.5 zones only as part of an approved planned development. The applicant has applied for planned
development approval in conjunction with the subdivision.
Summa Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310
Defines he decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned.
This is a Planned Development/Subdivision, which is defined as a Type III-PC Application.
Decision Making Procedures: Chapter 18.390
Describes the decision-making procedures.
Type III procedures apply to quasi-Judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly
discretionary approval criteria. Type Ili-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with
appeals to or review by the City Council.
SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the
subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral
testimony prior to a decision bein made. In addition, the applicant is required to post the site with
notice of the public hearing. Staff has verified that the site is posted. Other than a request to be
notified when the staff report is completed, no comments have been received from neighbors or other
interested parties.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001.00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
EM illilloillimillill
SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A zone chap.ge is necessary to add a Planned Development overlay designation to the subject site,
per the requirements of Section 18.350.020. The requested zone change. is classified as a quasi-
Judicial zoning map amendment. The requested zone change does not require a comprehensive plan
mapp amendment, and therefore may be determined by the Planning Commission through the Type
III-PC decision process.
A. Zone Change: Standards for Making Quasi-Judicial Decisions: Chapter 18.380
A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a
quasi-judicial zoning map amendment shall be based on all of the following standards:
1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map
designations;
The proposed change is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies and map designations
because the comprehensive plan sppecifically recommends the use of the planned development
process for development adjacent to sensitive land areas. Policy 3.2.4 of the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan states, in part, that "Development on property adjacent to significant wetlands
shall be allowed under the planned development section of the code."
.2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code
or other applicable implementing ordinance; and
The proposed zone change is in compliance with the requirements for planned development (PD) in
Section 18.350.020, which require the establishment of a PD overlay zone. The proposed zone
change is in compliance with all other applicable requirements.
3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in
the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject
of the development application.
The developer has recognized that flexibility will be required to develop the subject parcel, due to the
ppresence of sensitive land areas on the subject site. The PD process provides the needed flexibility
to allow development to be clustered on the developable portion of the property. The base R-4.5
zoning was applied to a large area, which included this site. The adoption of the PD overlay zone will
allow for a refinement of applicable zoning requirements based on the unique site constraints of the
development site.
Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the requested planned development overlay
zone for the parcel identified as WCTM 2S10313C, Tax Lot 3900.
B. GENERAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject
property. The PD overlay requires developers to follow the Planned Development process for any
proposal on affected sites. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development
design and allows deviation from certain standards of the base zone. The following addresses
compliance with the process and applicable base zone standards.
The Planned Development Process:
Section 18.350.030 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval
process, as follows:
The'approval of the planned development overlay zone;
The approval of the planned development concept plan; and
The approval of the detailed development plan.
This application is for all three elements of the planned development process, overlay zone, concept
plan, and detailed plan.
Applicability Of The Base Zone Development Standards:
Section 18. 50.070 requires com iance to specific evelopment standards: The provisions of
the base zone are applicable as follows:
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-000031VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
1. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards
shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715;
The proposed lots utilize allowed flexibility in the lot dimensional standards. As discussed later in this
report, the project complies with density requirements.
2. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply;
There is no site coverage requirement in the R-4.5 zone; therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
3. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and
Although the height restriction does not apply, all proposed homes will be less than the 30-foot
maximum height allowed in the R-4.5 zone.
4. Structure setback provisions:
a. Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be
the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter
18.380;
Buildings on Lots 7-12 maintain the required 15-foot rear yard setback in the R-4.5 zone. All other
proposed homes will maintain at least a 10-foot side yard setback along the perimeter of the project.
This is twice the required 5-foot side yard setback required in the R-4.5 zone.
b. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures
shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls;
The applicant has shown side yard setbacks within the project of 4 feet, which is in excess of the
UBC setback requirement of 3 feet from the property line. The applicant has also shown 10-foot
street side setbacks for homes on corner lots within the project. This setback complies with UBC
standards as well.
C. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply
to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback
of 20 feet is required for any garagge structure which opens facing a street; (2) A
minimum front yard setback of ei"ht feet is required for any garage opening for an
attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street
parking spaces are provided
All homes will be provided with a garage setback of at least 20 feet, which is in excess of the
minimum requirement from a private street.
Other provisions of the base zone:
All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter.
Any additional provisions of the base zone are discussed within the body of this report or will be
reviewed during the building permit phase.
FINDING: The planned development standards, and their applicability to the base zone standards
are fully met.
PD Approval Criteria: 18.350.100
B. Specific planned development app v criteria. The Commission shall make findings
P that t following criteria arsatisfied when approving or approving with conditions,
a the concept plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not
satisfied when denying an a plication.
1. All the provisions of t e land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 and
18.430, shall be met;
The applicant has applied to subdivide the property concurrently. with the planned development
approval; therefore, all subdivision criteria must be satisfied. Following is an analysis of compliance
with the subdivision approval criteria in Section 18.430:
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001.00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval Criteria: 18.430.040
A. Arproval criteria. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions or
deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria:
1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other
applicable ordinances and regulations;
The proposed plat complies with the zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and
regulations.
2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of OILS
Chapter 92;
The applicant has reserved the name "Blue Heron Park" with Washington County. The name
reservation is good for two years and was received on January 17, 2001.
3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and
maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general
direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest
to modify the street or road pattern; and
There are no street stubs to this property from adjacent properties. The applicant has provided
arguments for why public street connections are not needed to adjacent parcels from their
development. These arguments are evaluated later in this report under discussion of the requested
adjustment to the maximum allowed cul-de-sac length.
4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements.
The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements.
FINDING: The proposed development complies with all preliminary subdivision criteria.
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 des!c~ns and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose
of this section. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to ustify the modification of
the standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 below. The ~eveloper may choose to
provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of
additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting.
a. Chapter 18.715, (Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below,
density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district.
The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10 /o as an
incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site
variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a substantial
contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of distinctiveness
and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase
which the Commission may approve according to the following:
1 A maximum of 3% is allowed for the provision of undeveloped common space;
~2; A maximum of 3% is allowed for landscaping; streetscape development; developed
open spaces, plazas and pedestrian pathways and related amenities; recreation area
development; and/or retention of existing vegetation;
(3) A maximum of 3% is allowed for creation of visual focal points; use of existing physical
amenities such as topograpphy, view, and sun/wind orientation;
(4) A maximum of 3% uality of architectural quality and style; harmonious use of
materials; innovative building orientation or building grouping; and/or varied use of
housing types.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-000011SLR2001-00003IVAR2001-00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
=11811E111111 I
The applicant has requested density bonuses in the following amounts:
.49 dwelling units 3% for the undeveloped common space
.16 dwelling units 1 % for streetsca a development & the retention of existing vegetation.
.32 dwelling units 2% for the use of existing topograph and views
.16 dwelling units I% for architectural auallty and build ng grouping.
1.13 dwelling units density onus reques e
The applicant has proposed to preserve and enhance over 50,000 square feet of the site as open
space in Tract C, as well as providing water quality and detention facilities in an enhanced natural
area of approximately 40,000 square feet. These two open space tracts comprise approximately half
of the development sites 180,74 square feet. Staff concurs with granting a 3% density bonus for
their open space provision.
The applicant's private street design creates two "islands" within the street, which will contain 4 large
Douglas Fir trees and a 20-inch diameter Western Red Cedar. This feature will serve to slow traffic
and provide a pleasant streetscape that will be friendly to the pedestrian. Staff recommends granting
the requested 1 % density bonus for the proposed streetscape development.
The project's design "clusters" development on the less sensitive portion of the site and utilizes and
enhances the sensitive area as an amenity for residents and neighbors. The natural topography is
used to create views of the wetlands from some of the homes. Staff recommends granting the 2%
density bonus for topography and views.
The proposed design nestles proposed homes into the wooded area, and orients buildings to
minimize the "footprint" of development while serving to highlight the natural features of the site. The
submitted building elevations will be harmonious with the natural setting of the site and will create a
harmonious style within the development. Staff recommends granting the 1% density bonus for
architectural quality and building grouping.
The requested density bonuses under the PD provisions do not exceed the 10% allowed (7% is
requested). Granting these density bonuses would bring the allowed density on the site up to 17.31
dwelling units (16.18 + 1.13). The applicant has also requested a 4.3% density bonus for the
retention of tree canopy as allowed under the provisions of Chapter 18.790. As scussed in that
section, Staff recommends approval of the requested density bonus, allowing for the development of
18 dwelling units on the development site. Staff notes that if the site were not constrained with
sensitive land areas, the maximum density allowed on the site would be approximately 21 dwelling
units.
b. Chapter 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards;
None apply. This criterion is not applicable.
C. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas;
The applicant has proposed planting one Corpus Nuttallii tree within the vision clearance area to the
east of the intersection of the private street and Walnut Street. The tree is not anticipated to create a
vision clearance problem, but must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
18.795.
There is an existing 36 inch diameter fir tree within the right-of-way, but outside the paved width of
Walnut Street that does not currently interfere with vision clearance for the intersection. Staff
believes that the proposed improvements to the intersection would not result in a vision clearance
conflict. However, if the proposed improvements do result in a configuration which is determined to
be unsafe,- the applicant will need to remove the tree. Tree mitigation for 50% of the total caliper
inches of the tree will be required if the tree is removed. Staff will determine if there is a vision
clearance problem during the public improvement process.
d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening;
The applicant has proposed locating street trees on the individual lots within the subdivision and
along the edge of the street. Twelve Red Sunset Maples and 12 Pacific Dogwoods are proposed.
These will satisfy the street tree planting requirements.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Typically, for attached single-family development abutting existing . detached single-family
development, buffer standard A" is required, which constitutes a 10-foot setback covered with lawn
or living groundcover. The proposed design provides a 10-foot minimum separation from building to
property line. Individual yards will be landscaped with lawn or living groundcover. This standard will
be met without need of a condition.
e. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Narking and Loading Requirements;
The applicant has proposed that all homes will be provided with 2-car garages and at least 20 feet in
front of the garages, which will more than adequately provide for the 1.75 parking spaces required for
attached 3-bedroom, single-family dwellings. The parking spaces comply with applicable dimensional
requirements.
f. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; and
Each dwelling will be served by a driveway that is at least the 10-foot minimum required width. The
proposed private street improvements are evaluated under discussion of compliance with street and
utility standards in Section 18.810 later in this report.
g. Chapter 18.780, Signs.
No signs are proposed in conjunction with this development. Any future signage will be subject to the
sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780.
FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the guidelines listed in the
Planned Development Section 18.350.100.6.2.
2. In addition, the following criteria shall be met:
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 site elements are designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural
drainage to the greatest degree possible. Approximately 74% of the trees on the site over 12 inches
in diameter will be preserved. As discussed in the sensitive lands analysis, on-site grading is limited,
given the topography of the site. The proposed development will preserve and enhance the natural
drainage function on the site.
(2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping
and sliding;
The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report, which is discussed in more detail in the sensitive
lands review analysis later in this report. The geotechnical report finds that structures may be located
as proposed without danger of ground slumping or sliding, ifthe recommendations of the report are
followed. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report is a recommended
condition of the sensitive lands analysis.
(3) There shall be adequate 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;
Buildings along the perimeter of the development are at least 10 feet from the property line. The side
yard setback reduction to 4 feet provides more than the 3-foot separation required for building
code/fire separation purposes. The buildings are clustered in units of two, which will allow for
adequate light and air circulation.
(4) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind
directions, where possible; and
Eight dwelling units are oriented well for sun exposure, 4 units are oriented for the predominant
southwest wind direction. Site constraints do not allow further building orientation for sun and wind.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 13 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
(5) Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the
requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal.
"frees are preserved to the maximum extent possible, given the density and infrastructure needs of
the developable portion of the site. For a more complete discussion of this issue, refer to the
discussion of compliance with the requirements of Chapter 18.790. Findings from that analysis are
hereby incorporated by reference as findings under this criterion.
b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
(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;
As discussed previously, the proposed development is in compliance with the standard landscaped
buffer requirement between detached single-family and attached single-family dwellings.
(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 extent 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 he direction(s) from which buffering is needed;
d The required density of the buffering; and
e Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile.
The nearest abutting development is the single-family dwellings located northwest of the development
site. Clusters of trees will be preserved in this area. Because of the proximity of the proposed home
on Lot 13 to the existing single-family dwelling to the west, staff recommends the following condition
to enhance the buffering and screening in that location:
CONDITION: Staff recommends that the applicant provide a landscape buffer in compliance with the
requirements of the landscape buffer C standard in Table 18.745.2 along the western
edge of Lot 13. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to comply with this
requirement.
(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 screenin (a) What needs to be screened;
(b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c Whether the screening needs to
be year- round.
The street and driveway will be contained within the center of the development site. There are no
proposed storage areas or other proposed activities that would require screening under this criterion.
c. Privacyy and noise: Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings
shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree
possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise;
d. Private outdoor area multi-family use:
e. Shared outdoor recreation areas multi-family use:
These criteria relate to non-residential or multi-family structures and are not applicable to the
proposed attached single-family development.
f. Access and circulation:
(1) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in
Chapter 18.705;
The proposed development complies with the access standards in Chapter 18.705.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 14 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-000021PDR200 1-000011SLR2001-000031VAR2001-00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
(2) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate
emergency vehicles; and
Referral comments from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue indicate that the proposed circulation
system for the development is acceptable if their conditions are addressed. See Section VIII of this
report for more details.
(3) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are
shown on an adopted plan.
No pedestrian or bicycle ways are shown on an adopted plan; however, the project is providing a
Fedestrian/bicycle way at the terminus of the private street to facilitate pedestrian/bicycle circulation
o future development to the west.
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 20 percent of the site shall
be landscaped;
35% of the development site will be landscaped.
h. Public transit:
(1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit
route. The required facilities shall be based on:
The development does not abut a public transit route. The nearest transit route is at the corner of
121St and Walnut. Tri-Met officials have been notified of the proposed development and have not
indicated a need for transit facilities at this location.
i. Signs:
No signage is proposed with this application.
j. Parking:
(1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 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. -
Parking will comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 18.765. Please refer to the previous
discussion of compliance with parking standards in Section 18.350.100.B.2.e. No parking lots are
proposed in conjunction with the proposed development.
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;
Storm drainage complies, or will be conditioned to comply with applicable City of Tigard and USA
requirements. For a more detailed discussion of storm drainage, see the discussion of compliance
with the requirement of Chapter 18.775 later 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.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 15 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/POR2001 00001/SLR2001 00003NAR2001-00002 -BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
No areas within the 100-year floodplain exist on the site. This criterion is not applicable.
FINDING: The proposed development complies, or can be conditioned to comply with all planned
development approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.100 of the Tigard
Development Code.
18.350.110 Shared Open Space
A. Requirements for shared open space. Where the open space is designated on the plan
as common open space the following applies:
1. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded with the
Director; and
2. The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following
methods:
a. By dedication to the City as publicly-owned and maintained as open space.
Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it
with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and
maintenance limitations;
b. By leasing or conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a
corporation, home association or other legal entity, with the City retaining
the development rights to the property. The terms of such lease or other
instrument of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City
Att i for guaranteeing the following:
III T e continued use of such land for the intended purposes;
2 Continuity of property maintenance;
3 When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such
maintenance;
~41 Adequate insurance protection; and
5Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or
otherwise.
C. By any method which achieves the objectives set forth in Subsection 2
above of this section.
The applicant has indicated that the open space areas on the site will be conveyed to the
developments' Homeowner's Association. To ensure compliance with City of Tigard standards, the
following conditions shall apply:
CONDITION: Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed
open space area in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.350.110.A.2.b of
the Tigard Development Code.
18.370.20 Adjustments
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances:
1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required
development standards within proscribed limits. Becaute such adjustments are
granted using "clear and objective standards," these can be granted by means of
a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and
Eaveecial ocedure for variances.
2. adjustments" which are variances from development standards which
their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for
variances contained in Section 18.370.010C.
18.370.020.C.9. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (.Chapter 18.810). By
means of a Type II procedure, as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve: approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements,
based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards
will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed
development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees.
In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential
adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards.
The applicant has requested an adjustment to the maximum allowed cul-de-sac length of 200 feet,
per Table 18.810.1. The proposed private cul-de-sac is approximately 500 feet in length. The
applicant has argued that providing a public street connection through the proposed development
would result in fewer trees preserved on the site and further impacts to sensitive areas on the site.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 16 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-0000-WAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
M7
Accommodating the required street width and turning radius for a public street would require that a
greater portion of the developable area of the site be devoted to streets than would be allowed for a
private street. The proposed private street is 30 feet wide, with a 24-foot paved width. The narrowest
possible public street would be 42 feet wide, with a 24-foot paved width. The curve radius for a public
street would also require more of the site to be devoted to the roadway. The panhandle portion of the
site is only 40 feet wide, which would not fully accommodate the narrowest public street. The
applicant has also provided a circulation plan that shows how access may be provided to adjacent
undeveloped properties in the future without the need for a public street connection through the
development site.
Staff finds that requiring a public street connection to the property to the west rather than a private
cul-de-sac in excess of the 200-foot cul-de-sac standard would result in adverse impacts to existing
development, including the removal of additional healthy trees on the development site, and
additional traffic and noise impacts that would result from a through street connection in this location.
Staff finds that granting the adjustment would result in reduced impacts to trees on the site, and
would allow development to occur at a greater separation from the sensitive areas of the site. The
applicant has amply demonstrated that access to adjacent underdeveloped parcels can be provided
by other means.
FINDING: Based on the preceding analysis, staff recommends that the requested adjustment to
the cul-de-sac length be approved. The street will serve no more than 20 dwelling units
and will be constructed with a 24-foot paved width, as required for streets with less than
200 average daily trips.
DESIGN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.720
Applicability o Provisions: Section 18.720.020
These provisions apply to all multi-family and attached single-family residential projects in zoning
districts R-4.5 through R-40 that abut property zoned for single-family residential development, k_1
through R-4.5. These standards are applicable to this site because the property abuts existing single-
family development.
DESIGN STANDARDS: 18.720.030.
A. Density Transition
1. Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property line or
three stories or 35 feet within 50 feet of the property line.
The submitted elevations show that building height, as measured per Figure 18.120.1, will not exceed 25
feet within 30 feet of the property line. All proposed homes will be 25 feet tall or less.
2. Building planes for multi-family dwellings within 50 feet of the common property line(s)
and abutting public rights of way shall be subject to the following standards...
This criterion is not applicable to the proposed attached single-family dwelling development.
B. Front facades. All primary ground floor common entries or individual unit entries of street
front-age units shall be oriented to the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. The
front elevation of large structures must be divided into smaller areas or planes of 500
square feet or less. Projecting features such as porches, balconies, bays and dormer
windows and roof pediments are encourages for structures facing a street to create visual
interest.
The front facades of the proposed homes will face the private street. They will contain projecting
features, as desired.
C. Main entrance. Primary structures must be oriented with their main entrance facing the
street upon which the project fronts. If the site is on a corner, it may have its main
entrance oriented to either street or at the corner.
All main entrances will face the private street.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 17 OF 38
SU82001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
D. Unit definition. Each dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a roof dormer or bay
windows oro t e street-facing elevation, or by providing a roof gable or porch that faces the
street. Ground-level dwelling units shall include porches that shall be at least 48 square
feet in area with no dimension less than six feet.
All dwelling units will incorporate street facing gables and porches as required. Proposed porches
exceed the required 48 square foot minimum size and 6-foot minimum dimensional requirements.
E. Roof lines. Roof-line offsets shall be provided at intervals of 40 feet or less to create
variety in the massing of structures and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof
line offsets shall be a minimum 4-foot variation either vertically from the gutter line or
horizontally.
Roof line offsets are provided, as required.
F. Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors
that are on a primary structure's street facing elevation(s).
This requirement is met.
G. Mechanical a ui ment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, other than vents or
ventilators, shall be located and constructed so as to be screened from ground-level view.
Screening shall be integrated with exterior building design.
No roof-mounted mechanical equipment is proposed.
H. Parkin . Parkin and loading areas may not be located between the primary structure(s1
and the street upon which the structure fronts. It there is no alley and motor vehicle
access is from the street, parking must be provided:
1. In a garage that is attached to the primary structure;
2. In a detached accessory structure located at least 50 feet from the front property
line; or
3. In a parking area at the side or rear of the site.
Parking will be provided in attached garages, which is one of the acceptable options for compliance.
1. Pedestrian circulation.
1. The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be continuous and connect the
ground-level entrances of primary structure(s) to the following:
a. Streets abutting the site;
b. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities;
C. Parking areas;
d. Shared open space and play areas;
e. Abutting transit stops; and
f. Any pedestrian amenity such as plazas, resting areas and viewpoints.
2. There shall be at least one pedestrian connection to an abutting street frontage for
each 200 linear feet of street frontage.
Pedestrian connections will be provided from every home to the abutting private street. The sidewalk
along one side of the street will provide access to Walnut Street to the north, as well as to the open
space area.
FINDING: - The proposed development complies with all design compatibility requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.725
These standards require that federal and 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.
Noise. For theppurposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210
of the Tigard Muriiapal Code shall apply.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 18 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Visible Emissions.
Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is
permitte in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property
line of the use concerned.
Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readilyy
detectable at an PPoint beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ
rules for odors (y340-028-090) apply.
Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high
temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be
permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is
discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or
floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or
excavation work otherwise permitted by this title.
Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be
maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or
create a health hazard.
As this is an attached single-family project, which is permitted within planned developments in the R-
4.5 zone, the applicable performance standards are Considered to be met; however, ongoing
maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained.
FINDING: This standard is met.
SENSITIVE LANDS: CHAPTER 18.775
C. Sensitive lands permits issued b the Director.
1. The Director shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the
following areas by means of a Type 11 procedure, as governed in Section
18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070 C-E:
a. Drainageways;
b. Slopes that are 25% or greater or unstable ground; and
c. Wetland areas which are not regulated by other local, state, or federal
agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the Comprehensive
Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map.
2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas in Section 18.775.020 D1
above when any of the following circumstances apply:
a. Ground disturbance(s) or land form alterations involving more than 50 cubic
yards of material;
b. Repair reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the
cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure
prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction;
C. Residential and non-residential structures intended for human habitation; and
d. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside
floodway areas.
18.775.50 General Provisions for Wetlands
A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas meeting the
definition of wetland in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code, areas
meeting Division of State Lands wetland criteria and to land adjacent to and within 25
feet of a wetland. Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas
identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard,
Oregon," Fishman Environmental Services, 1994.
B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on
wetland maps* specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland
delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense.
The development site contains sensitive land areas, including areas with slopes of 25% or greater,
wetlands, and dralnageways.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 19 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Sensitive Lands Permits: 18.775.070
With excessive s o es. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25%
or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have
been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will
not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use;
The applicant's grading plan indicates that grading on site will be limited to adding fill to build-up Lots
4, 5, 6 and 7, as well as excavating the series of stormwater detention basins. Areas of proposed
grading are outside of steep slope areas. The applicant's submitted geotechnical report, prepared by
eaPaclfic Engineeringg, indicates that the fill will adequately support the proposed development if the
recommendations of We report are followed. As discussed later in this report in relation to the
requirements of Chapter 18.810, the applicant shall be required to abide by the recommendations of
the geotechnical report. The proposed grading is necessary to allow for development of the less
sensitive area of the site, as well as to best accommodate and treat stormwater from the
development. The proposed development plan minimizes site disturbances as much as possible,
while allowing for development on the site.
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion,
stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site
effects or hazards to life or property;
The app!icant's ggeotechnical report includes recommendations regarding erosion control and ground
stabilization in NI areas. The report finds that if these recommendations are followed, erosion and
ground instability will not result. Additionally, the service provider letter from the Unified Sewerage
Agency (USA) requires the use of a propriate Best Management Practices for Erosion Control. If
required, these measures will ensure that the above criterion is met.
3. The structures are appro riately sited and designed to ensure structural stability
and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with
any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell
capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and
The recommendations of the geotechnical report include detailed requirements for the placement of
fill and the construction of building foundations on the development site. The report specifically
mentions compressible/organic soil conditions on a portion of the site, but states that the proposed
development can be constructed if the engineer's recommendations are followed.
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or
development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be
replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and
Screening.
The service provider letter from USA requires re-vegetation with native species within the vegetated
corridor around the drainageway and associated wetlands. In other areas, the requirements of
Section 18.745.060 will need to be imposed to ensure that the necessary replanting occurs.
FINDING: The development proposal will comply with the above excessive slopes criteria if the
following conditions are imposed, and if the recommendations of the geotechnical report
i are followed, as is recommended elsewhere in this report:
CONDITIONS:
I e The applicant shall use appropriate Best Management Practices for Erosion
Control, as required in the USA service provider letter.
e The applicant shall re-vegetate all affected areas in compliance with Section
18.745.060 after construction activities are completed and prior to removal of
erosion control measures.
E. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within
drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 20 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/POR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003IVAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will
not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use;
The applicant has proposed creating a series of stormwater detention basins within the 50-foot
wetland buffer established by USA. No encroachment is proposed within the drainageway itself,
which flows through the center of the wetland area.
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion,
stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site
effects or hazards to life or property;
This criterion has been adequately addressed under the discussion of Criterion 18.775.070.C.2
above.
3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased;
The proposed development will not alter the water flow capacity of the existing drainageway.
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or
development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be
replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and
Screening;
Conditions of the USA's service provider letter require that all non-native and invasive vegetation
within the 50-foot vegetated corridor around the wetland/drainageway be removed. The service
provider letter also requires the applicant to enhance and restore native vegetation within the
vegetated corridor. To begin to address this requirement, the applicant has submitted a mitigation
planting plan that has been reviewed and approved by USA staff.
5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to
accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master
Drainage Plan;
The drainageway will remain intact. No replacement is necessary.
f. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,
Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained;
The USA service provider letter requires a concurrence of wetland boundaries from the Division of
State Lands and/or the Army Corps of Engineers. The letter also requires that the applicant gain
approval for all work within sensitive areas from DSL and USACOE.
1111121
7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent
to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of
sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation
for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in
accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan.
1
The site does not contain a 100-year floodplain. This criterion is not applicable.
i FINDINGS: All applicable sensitive lands criteria for development in drainageway areas are met, or
can a conditioned to be met, as follows:
3 CONDITION:The applicant shall be required to meet all conditions of the USA service provider letter,
at the appropriate stages of the development process.
F. Within wetlands. The Director shall approver approve with conditions or deny an
application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings
that all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an
area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain
and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland;
a
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 21 OF 38
SUB2001-000011ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002- BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
1=111111 EW on
As discussed in the analysis of compliance with water resources criteria, which follows this section,
the drainageway and wetland areas on the development site are classified as a minor stream and
adjacent/isolated wetland. As such, there is no water resources standard riparian setback applied
under water resources requirements, as indicated in Table 18.797.1. USA has indicated the need for
a 50-foot water quality buffer/vegetated corridor around the wetland and drainageway, but has
indicated that the placement of stormwater treatment facilities within the 50-foot buffer is the preferred
alternative of the three options presented to them.
The applicant has proposed a limited amount of grading to create the stormwater treatment facility
within the 50-foot buffer and within a small portion of the wetland area. No other encroachment is
proposed within the 50-font buffer area. USA comments indicate that the proposed work will result in
the enhancement of the currently marginal and degraded condition of the vegetated corridor
surrounding the stream and wetland. Since the drainageway and wetland are classified as a minor
stream and isolated wetland, the City of Tigard does not apply the 25-foot setback from the wetland
that is imposed for more significant water features. The proposed stormwater facility is allowed as
long as it remains outside of the wetland itself. This issue is discussed in more detail under the
following discussion of compliance with Water Resources requirements.
2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will
not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for
the use;
Of the 3 options presented to USA staff for stormwater treatment facilities on the site, this option was
chosen as the preferred option; The applicant has included the details of the alternatives analysis
required by USA in the submittal materials. The proposal does the best job of minimizing the
disturbances to the sensitive area.
3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would
adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated;
The proposed water quality and detention system, as well as enhancement and re-planting within the
vegetated corridor, will result in the improvement of wetland characteristics on the site.
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or
development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management
program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures
or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance
with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening;
This criterion has been adequately addressed in the preceding discussion of criterion 18.775.070.D.4
and will be met with the requirement of compliance with all conditions of the USA service provider
letter.
5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met;
All other sensitive land requirements have been met, or shall be conditioned to be met, as discussed
in this section.
f. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, shall be met;
As discussed later in this report, all provisions of Chapter 18.790 shall be met.
7. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural
Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive
Plan have been satisfied.
The proposed development is consistent with the cited Comprehensive Plan Policies.
FINDING: The applicant's proposal complies, or has been previously conditioned to comply, with
all applicable requirements for development in wetland areas.
WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT CHAPTER 18.79
18.797.30 Applicability and Generalized Mapping
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 22 OF 38
SUB2001.0000120N2001-000021PDR2001-000011SLR2001-00003IVAR2D01-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
A. WR overlay district application. The WR overlay district applies to all significant
wet an s an streams, an appp rcable riparian setback and water quality buffer areas
that appear on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The standards ana
procedures of this chapter:
1. Apply to all development proposed on property located within, or partially within,
the WR overlay district;
2. Are in addition to the standards of the underlying zone; and
3. In cases of conflict, supersede the standards of the underlying zone.
B. The Ti and wetlands and stream corridors ma D. The Tigard wetlands and stream
corridors map identifies, general y, the tops -o - an k, wetland ages, riparian setbacks
and water quality buffers for the following significant water resources:
1. The Tualatin River riparian corridor;
2. Major stream riparian corridors;
3. Minor streams; and
4. Isolated wetlands.
C. Standard riparian setbacks and USA water uali buffers. The applicant shall be
responsible or surveying and ma ping the precise location of the top-of-bank, wetland
edge, riparian setback and/or U~A water quality buffer at the time of application
submittal.
The water resources overlay district standards are applicable to the proposed development because
the wetland area on the site is shown on the Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map, as
referenced in Section 18.797.030.A. The map shows the wetland area in the northeast corner of the
development site, in the appproximate location of the wetland survey conducted by the applicant. The
wetland survey conducted by the applicant found two very small wetland areas Just to the northwest
of the large wetland pond feature on the site. The survey also found that a "finger" of the wetland
extends to the southwest from the main body of the wetland/pond area.
The applicant has proposed developing a series of stormwater detention basins with the 50-foot
vegetated corridor surrounding the stream and wetland, in association with wetland enhancement
plantings. Because the proposed enhancement and replanting will occur within 10 feet of the edge of
the wetland and drainageway boundaries, a Type II Water Resources review is required, per Table
18.797.2.
The applicant has proposed a limited amount of grading within the "finger" portion of the wetland area
(1,890 square feet) to accommodate one of the detention basins. Table 18.797.2 indicates that
grading and the placement of fill is prohibited within a minor stream and/or isolated wetland. The
applicant has been notified of this concern and has argued that the "finger' portion of the wetland is
not indicated on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. However, as indicated in Section
18.797.030, Subsections A, B, and C above, the map is intended to show only generalized locations
for significant wetlands and streams within Tigard. The applicant is responsible for surveying and
mapping the precise locations of specific wetlands and streams. The fact that the "finger" portion of
the wetland is contiguous with the larger wetland feature makes it difficult for staff to find that this
portion of the wetland is not subject to the provisions of the Water Resources Overlay District. The
applicant has also argued that the "finger" portion of the wetland is a relatively recent development
I and should not be considered part of the historic wetland map ed in the Fishman Study. Staff finds
that the Water Resources code requirements do not allow for differentiation between recent and
i historic wetland areas. The proposed grading within the "finger" portion of the wetland area does not
comply with this prohibition, therefore, the following condition shall apply:
CONDITION: The applicant shall redesign the proposed stormwater facility so that it does not
result in grading or filling within the wetland areas on the site. The stormwater
facility may be located within the 50-foot vegetated corridor, but may not be
located within the wetland or drainageway.
18.797.80 Development Standards
The following, shall appl to all development, including native vegetation removal and
excavation, within the WR overlay district. No application for a use identified in Section
18.797.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each of these
standards in writing.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 23 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
A. Alternatives considered. Except for stream corridor enhancement, most Type II and Ili
uses are expecte to eve op outside of water resource and riparian setback areas.
Therefore, Type II and III development applications must carefully examine upland alternatives
for the proposed use, and explain the reasons why the proposed development cannot
reasonably occur outside of the water resource or riparian setback area.
The applicant submitted three altemative designs to USA. USA staff chose the proposed design as
the best alternative. The des'gn minimizes impacts to sensitive areas, while providing enhancements
to the quality of wetland and stream areas. For the most part, the proposed design will locate
develo ment outside of the water resource area, as is desired. The proposed work within the
vegetated corridor will serve to enhance the resource value of the degraded wetland area and will be
accompanied by enhancement of additional areas outside of the vegetated corridor.
B. Minimize siting impacts. The proposed use shall be designed, located and constructed
to minimize excavation, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and adverse hydrological
impacts on water resources.
1. For Type 11 and III uses, the civil engineer with experience in water quality must certify
that any adverse water quality impacts of the development proposal will be minimized
consistent with best management practices;
The applicant has submitted a letter from the project civil engineer certifying that any adverse water
quality impacts will be minimized consistent with best management practices.
2. For all uses, the development shall be located as far from the water resource, and use
as little of the water resource or riparian setback area, as possible, recognizing the
operational needs of the proposed development.
As conditioned above, no part of the development will intrude into wetland or stream areas. Water
quality buffers are not applied to minor streams and isolated wetlands, per Table 18.797.1. The
stormwater detention facility within USA's 50-foot vegetated corridor has been reviewed and
approved by USA. The greatest impact of the development, including all 18 dwelling units, will be
located on the western side of the site away from the sensitive land areas.
C. Construction materials and methods. Where development within the. riparian area is
unavoidable, construction materials or methods used within the riparian setback area
shall minimize damage to water quality and native vegetation.
Although there is no riparian setback area applied to this development, USA's service provider letter
requires that best management practices be utilized to minimize damage to water quality and native
vegetation.
D. Minimize flood damage. Above-ground residential structures shall not be permitted
within the R overlay district, where such land is also within-the 100-year floodplain.
On-site flood storage capacity shall not decrease as a result of development. The
cumulative effects of any proposed development shall not reduce flood storage
capacity or raise base flood elevations on- or off-site. Any new commercial or industrial
land development proposed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed consistent
with Chapter 18.775, Sensitive Lands.
This criterion is not applicable, as no portion of the site is within the 100-year floodplain. However,
on-site flood storage capacity on site will increase as a result of the construction of the stormwater
detention facility.
E. Avoid steep slopes. Within 50 feet of any water resource excavation and vegetation
removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25 /o or greater ana in areas with high erosion
potential (as shown on SCS maps), except where necessary to construct public
facilities or to ensure slope stability.
Sheet 2 of the applicant's submittal indicates the location of steep slope areas on the site, as well as
the location of the 50-foot buffer line. As shown, most of the steeply sloped areas are outside the 50-
foot buffer zone. The proposed grading avoids the steeply sloped areas on the site. The
geotechnical report submitted by the applicant did not indicate any potential erosion problems that
could not be accommodated with standard erosion control measures, which will be required.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 24 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-000031VAR2001-00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
F. Minimize impacts on existing vegetation. The following standards shall apply when
construction activity is propose in areas where vegetation is to be preserved.
1. Temporary measures used for initial erosion control shall not be left in place
permanently;
2. Work areas on the immediate site shall be carefully identified and marked to reduce
potential damage to trees and vegetation;
3. Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment. During clearing
operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to fall or be placed outside the
work area;
4. In areas designated for selective cutting or clearing, care in falling and removing trees
and brush shall be taken to avoid injuring trees and shrubs to be left in lace;
5. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on a permanent
basis.
The applicant has submitted an arborist's report indicating which trees will be preserved and which
will be removed from the site. Much of the other vegetation within the 50-foot buffer line is non-
native, invasive vegetation, which USA requires to be replaced with native species, as indicated on
the submitted mitigation planting plan. Tree Protection Standards from the arborists report include
the measures required under this criterion. Therefore, the following condition shall apply:
CONDITION: The applicant shall abide by all Tree Protection Standards included in the
arborist s report prepared by Walter H. Knapp, dated February 20, 2001.
Required tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to site grading or
clearing and shall remain in place until final occupancy permits are issued for the
proposed homes.
G. Vegetation mitigation plan. If a Type 11 or III use is proposed within a water resource site
or riparian setback area, or mitigation is proposed as a method to reduce the riparian
setback in accordance with Section 18.797.100, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and
implemented.
1. The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily disturbed by
excavation on a 1:1 basis;
The applicant has provided a mitigation planting plan that has met with the approval of USA and
which meets this standard.
2. Where apppproval is granted to reduce the riparian setback area, the applicant shall be
responsible for mitigating for the reduced setback by replacing non-native vegetation
within the remaining, protected riparian setback area on a 1.5:1 basis. That is, for each
100 square feet of riparian setback that is lost to development, at least 150 square feet
of existing disturbed area within the riparian setback or wetland shall be re-planted with
native plant species;
This criterion is not applicable because the applicant has not requested to reduce a riparian setback
area.
3. The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of native plant
species designed to achieve pre-disturbance conditions. The applicant shall be
responsible for replacing any native plant species that do not survive the first two years
after planting, and for ensuring the survival of any replacement plants for an additional
two years after their replacement.
The submitted planting plan will achieve this purpose. To ensure that the planting plan is followed,
the following condition shall apply:
CONDITION: Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions,
Covenants, and Restrictions (CC & R's) for this project, to be recorded with the
final. plat, that clearly set out the requirement that native plantings that do not
survive the first two years must be replaced, and that replacement plants must be
maintained for two years following replacement. The CC & R's shall obligate the
private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 25 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001.00003NAR2001-00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
association to ensure that the plantings are maintained. The applicant shall
submit a copy of the CC & R's to the Planning Department (Kevin Young) prior to
approval of the final plat.
H. )Water and sewer infiltration and discharge. Water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be
designed, located and constructed to avoid infiltration of floodwaters into the system, and
to avoid discharges from such facilities to streams and wetlands.
No water or sewer is proposed near the water resource area.
1. On-site systems. On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited within the
IVR overlay district.
No septic systems are proposed within this development.
J. Erosion control plan. If a Type I! or III use is proposed within a water resource site or
riparian setback area, the following erosion control standards shall apply within the WR
overlay district:
1. Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used during
construction to minimize visible and measurable erosion;
2. The land area to be grubbed, stripped, used for temporary placement of soil, or to
otherwise expose soil shall be confined to the immediate construction site only;
3. Construction activity will take place during the dry season (June-October), whenever
feasible, and the duration of exposure of soils shall be kept to a minimum during
construction;
4. Exposed soils shall be covered by mulch, sheeting, temporary seeding or other suitable
material following grading or construction, until soils are stabilized. During the rainy
season (November through May), soils shall not be exposed for more than 7 calendar
days. All disturbed land areas which will remain unworked for 21 days or more during
construction, shall be mulched and seeded;
5. During construction, runoff from the site shall be controlled, and increased runoff and
sediment resulting from soil disturbance shall be retained on-site. Temporary
diversions, sediment basins, barriers, check dams, or other methods shall be provided
as necessary to hold sediment and runoff;
6. A stabilized pad of gravel shall be constructed at all entrances and exists to the
construction site. The stabilized gravel pad shall be the only allowable entrance or exit
to the site;
7. Topsoil removal for development shall be stockpiled and reused on-site to the degree
necessary to restore disturbed areas to their original or enhanced condition, or to
assure sufficient stable topsoil, for re-vegetation. Additional soil shall be provided if
necessary to support re-vegetation;
8. The removal of all sediments which are carried into the streets, water resources or on to
adjacent property, are the responsibility of the applicant. - The applicant shall be
responsible for cleaning up and repairing streets, catch basins, water resource areas
and adjacent properties, where such properties are affected by sediments or mud. In no
case shall sediments be washed into storm drains, ditches or drainageways;
9. Any other relevant provisions of the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans
Technical Guidance Handbook (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and
Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, Revised February 1994), required by
the Planning Director.
K. Plan implementation. A schedule of planned erosion control and re-vegetation
measures shall be provided, which sets forth the progress of construction activities,
Re-
and- mitigating erosion control measures. An approved Erosion Control of
vegetation Plan shall be implemented and maintained as follows:
1. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any stdppingor excavation work.
2. The applicant shall implement the measures and construct facilities contained in the
approved Erosion Control Plan in a timely manner. During active construction, the
applicant shall inspect erosion control measures daily, and maintain, adjust, repair or
replace erosion control measures to ensure that they are functioning properly.
3. Eroded sediment shall be removed immediately from pavement surfaces, off-site areas,
and from 'the surface water management system, including storm drainage inlets,
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 26 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00WI/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
WMWMMn0MNW__ 11,11,011 111111111111
ditches and culverts.
4. Water containing sediment shall not be flushed into the surface water management
system, wetlands or streams without first passing through an approved sediment
filtering facility or device.
5. In addition, the applicant shall call for City inspection, prior to the foundation inspection
for any building, to certify that erosion control measures are installed in accordance
with the erosion control plan.
To ensure compliance with the requirements of these criteria, the following conditions shall apply:
CONDITIONS:
The applicant shall revise their erosion control plan to address and include all
requirements noted in Sections 18.797.080 (Subsections J and K).
No site grading or clearing will be allowed until all necessary erosion control
measures are in place.
e Prior to foundation inspections for individual homes, erosion control measures
shall be in place.
FINDING: Subject to the satisfaction of the recommended conditions, the requirements of the
Water Resources Overlay District will be met.
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.
The applicant has submitted an arborist's report and a tree preservation plan per the requirements of
Chapter 18.790. The report states that there are 162 trees on the site that are 12 inches in diameter
or larger. Of these, 15 are identified as hazardous trees, 114 are designated to be preserved, and 33
trees are slated for removal. Based on these figures, the arborist concludes that no tree mitigation is
required for the trees to be removed, because the retention of 75% or more of the existing trees over
12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation, per Section 18.790.030.B.2.d. The City Forester has
provided the following comments regarding the arborist's report:
I am concerned about eight trees that are included in the tree inventory that have a
classification of Dead, Dying, Diseased, or Dangerous. According to the report, these eight
trees (numbers 661, 662, 663, 684, 685, 686, 693, and 704) are considered dangerous due to
their susceptibility to wind damage based on their live crown ratios. For the most part, I do
agree with the live crown ratio assessments, but I disagree with the trees susceptibili!y to wind
damage in their current state and growing conditions. These eight trees are intermediate trees
or over-topped. They are located within a stand of larger trees, which provide protection from
heavy winds. I would agree, however, that wind damage is a major threat to the trees if they
remain standing while the larger adjacent trees are removed. Although there are certainly no
guarantees that the trees' tops cannot break out as the currently exist, I believe that the trees
should not be omitted from the mitigation requirements due to possible wind damage.
Planning staff agrees with the City Forester that if the trees are currently healthy, but would be
rendered a hazard through the development process, the loss of the trees should be mitigated.
Section 18.790.020.A of the Tree Removal standards defines a "hazardous tree" as a tree which, "by
reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to
persons or- to public or private property." The hazard posed by the aforementioned trees is not
'immediate", but would be created after surrounding trees are removed. Based on the City Forester's
comments, of the 162 trees on the site, 7 should be considered diseased or hazardous, 114 are
designated to be preserved, and 41 will need to be removed (and mitigated for Thus, approximately
7401, of the trees over 12 inch caliper will be retained on site. Per Section 1 .790.030.B.2.c., if 50-
75% of the trees on site are retained, 50% of the trees to be removed must be mitigated. The
applicant has not prepared a tree mitigation plan because their analysis indicated that mitigation
would not be required. To ensure that the mitigation requirements are fulfilled, the following
conditions should be applied:
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 27 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-000031VAR2001.00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS:
0 The applicant shall prepare tree mitigation materials to indicate the total number of
caliper inches of trees to be removed. The applicant shall indicate how they intend
to mitigate for 50% of the total number of caliper inches to be removed.
It The applicant shall submit a bond to provide for the planting of the required caliper
inches of trees. An approximate figure for the cost of purchasing, transportingg
planting, and maintaining a 2-inch caliper tree is $200. The applicant shall specifji
how they propose to mitigate for the required caliper inches to be mitigated. All
mitigation trees shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper size. If the applicant intends to
mitigate on-site by planting trees, a revised landscaping plan shall be required that
indicates which trees are to be counted towards the mitigation total. Street trees
and trees required to meet the buffer and parking lot tree requirements shall not be
counted toward the mitigation trees.
• Per the requirements of Section 18.790.040.6, the applicant shall record a deed
restriction for all trees designated to be preserved to the effect that such tree mayy
be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. A
copy of the deed restriction documentation shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to final plat approval.
• The applicant shall revise the tree preservation plan to indicate which trees to be
removed, if any, are located within sensitive land areas on the site. If trees of 12
inch caliper size or ggreater are to be removed from sensitive land areas, a tree
removal permit shall be required to authorize their removal.
18.790.40 Incentives for Tree Retention
A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may
apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and
the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030:
1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12
inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development pan, a 1% bonus
may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus
may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied
to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone;
The arborist's report indicates that 71% of the existing canopy cover provided by trees over 12 inches
in diameter will be preserved on the site. Based on this figure, the applicant could request a density
bonus up to the maximum allowed of 20%. The applicant is requesting a 4.3% density bonus under
these provisions to bring the total allowed density on the site up to 18 dwelling units. Staff
recommends that the requested density bonus be granted.
G. IMPACT STUDY: SECTION 18.390.040.B.e
Requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a
minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks
system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For
each public facility system and type of 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 property interests, the applicant shall either
specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or provide evidence which
supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly
Rroportional to the projected impacts of the development.
The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above.
ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS
Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy
Expansion/Dolan/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of
new development. Presently, the TIF for each residential trip that is generated is $213.
According to the Washington County TIF ordinance, 32 percent of a projects impacts are met by its TIF
assessment in Tigard. This leaves 68% unmitigated. The actual cost of system improvements per trip
enerated by new development on the Tigard street system can be determined by the following equation
arson, Mackenzie Engineering, Dolan Findings, June 1995):
213 divided by .32 equals $665.6
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 28 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
($213 is the residential use trip rate per trip TIF assessment according to the Washington County TIF
ordinance effective July 1, 2000).
According to the ITE manual figures and the TIF ordinance, a single-family residential unit generates 10
average weekday trips per dwelling unit per day. As there are eighteen units proposed , 180 trips are
generated per day for this site.
Less mitigated costs
The applicant is required to dedicate an additional 3-feet of right-of-way along the project's 45-feet of
frontage along Walnut Street. At an approximate cost of $3 per square foot, this is valued at
approximately $400. The applicant is also required to dedicate the sidewalk and bicycle path connecting
Walnut Street to the property to the west. The value of this property is estimated to be approximately
$7,230.
Estimate of Unmitigated Impacts
Full Impact ..........................................................180 x $665.6= $119,808
Less TIF Assessment ..........................................180 x $213= $38,340
Less mitigated costs 7'230
sttmate o Unmitigated impacts $74,238
FINDING: Using the above cost factors, it can be determined that the unmitigated impacts exceed
the casts of the conditions imposed and, therefore, the conditions are roughly proportional
and justified.
Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810):
Unapter provides construction standards Tor one 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 he TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a major collector
street to have a 60 to 80-foot right-of-way width and 44 foot paved section. Other improvements
required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street
lighting, storm drainage, and street trees.
This site lies adjacent to SW Walnut Street, which is classified as a major collector on the City of
Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 30 feet of ROW from centerline,
according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW
adjacent to this site to provide 33 feet from the centerline.
SW Walnut Street is currently paved, but not improved to current City standards. A traffic study was
prepared by Stein Engineering to address the existing sag vertical curve to the east of this site.
Detailed discussion of the sight distance issue, as well as other issues, will be discussed in that
section.
The site has a narrow frontage on SW Walnut Street, approximately 45 feet. This width is just wide
enough to accommodate the proposed private street entrance. The proposed location of the new
private street intersection is across from the existing SW 124 h Avenue. There will be more
discussion about the proposed private street in a later section.
The applicant's plans show the private street will extend into the development and terminate near the
western boundary. Sheet 7 is a future street plan that shows that a pedestrian/bike path could be
constructed to the western boundary to tie into a future pedestrian/bike path. Significant discussion
between the applicant and staff took place regarding whether or not a public street should be
extended through this site and stub to the west. Sheet 7 shows that a public street is really not
needed. The parcels to the west and south could be adequately developed with other public streets,
and a public street stub from this property is not necessary.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 29 OF 38
SUB2001.0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002-BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(F) states that a future street
plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the
boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to
give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to
the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of
the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since
they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is
developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners
which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be
included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-
sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length.
As was stated previously, a future street plan (Sheet 7) was provided that shows how lands to the west
and south can be developed without a public street extending from this development. The applicant has
applied for an adjustment to this standard in accordance with 18.370.030. The applicant states that
extension of a public street would have adverse impacts on the existing trees and the wetland area. In
addition, the orientation and width of the flagpole of this parcel would make construction of a standard
public street very difficult. Based upon the fact that the adjacent parcels can be developed without a
public street extending from this parcel, Staff agrees that a public street is not needed.
Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.K states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not
provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or
topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other
standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation:
o All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other
than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and
The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from
the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac.
o If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a ligghted direct pathway to an adjacent street
may be required to be provided and dedicated-to the City.
The proposed private street extends into this site approximatel 510 feet, which exceeds the 200-foot
length standard. The applicant has also requested an ad1'usQnt to this standard. They cite the
same reasons associated with the preclusion of a public street. Based upon the previous findings,
Staff agrees that a public street connection is not needed, thereby creating the need for a dead-end
street. Since a public street is not required, a dead-end private street is acceptable. The applicant's
plan shows that the street will terminate in a hammerhead turnaround, which will meet fire code
requirements.
Since this private street will be over 300 feet long, and since it is very likely that the adjacent parcels
will eventually be develo ed, the applicant should construct a pedestrian/bike path to the western
boundary of this site, to facilitate future connection and extension. This pedestrian/bike path should
be lighted and placed in a tract to be dedicated to the City.
Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a
development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not
precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict
adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it
is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In
the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not
sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the
constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
There are no existing public streets stubbin into this site, and there is no need for a public street to
be extended (based upon previous findings . The private street will not be extended to the western
boundarryy, but the applicant should cons ruct a pedestrian/bike path to that boundary as per
18.810.030.x.
Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.M states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on
arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential
access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250
feet), and:
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 30 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-000021PDR2001.00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
1. Centerline radii of curves shall not be less than 700 feet on arterials, 500 feet on major
collectors, 350 feet on minor collectors, or 100 feet on other streets; and
2. Streets intersecting with a minor collector or greater functional classification street or
streets intended to be posted with a stop sign or, signalization, shall provide a landing
averaging five percent or less. Landings are that portion of the street within 20 feet of the
edge of the intersecting street at full improvement.
The new private street will have a maximum gradient of approximately 2.89%, which will meet this
standard.
Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.P states that where a
development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or major collector street,
the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall
separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design
shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following:
o A parallel access street along the arterial or major collector;
o Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or major collector to provide adequate
buffering with frontage along another street;
o Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess
reservation along the arterial or major collector; or
+ Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
+ If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be
from the lower classification street.
Walnut Street is classified as a major collector street. Although the development site has frontage on
Walnut Street, the area of frontage must be used to accommodate the proposed private street
connection. No lots or residences are proposed that would directly abut Walnut Street. No access to
the new lots is proposed, or would be permitted, directly onto SW Walnut Street.
Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.S states that design standards for private streets shall be
established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued
maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets
serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile
home parks, and multi-family residential developments.
As was stated previously, a private street is proposed to serve this development. The total number of
units to be developed in this project is 18. However, this development will be a common wall
development, which by their nature, take on a different appearance than a typical single-family
detached subdivision. Because of this, the City Council determined that common wall developments
could be served from private streets. Therefore, a private street is acceptable.
The proposed width of the private street is 24 feet, curb-to-curb. Traffic generation from the proposed
development is estimated to be below 200 average daily trips; therefore, per Table 18.810.1, a 24-
foot paved width will adequately accommodate traffic from the development. This width is
appropriate for 18 units but parking will not be allowed on either side of the street. The applicant
must install ,No Parking signs on both sides of this street.
The applicant is attempting.to save five larger fir and cedar trees along the private street entrance by
incorporating two "tree islands". The islands would create travel lanes of approximately 12 feet on
either side. Section 902.2.2.1 of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) states that the minimum unobstructed
width of a roadway that would serve fire trucks shall be 20 feet. However, the Fire Marshall's office of
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVFR) has allowed restrictions such as islands, provided the channel
width is not less than 12 feet, and the restriction does not extend beyond the typical length of a fire
truck (35 to 40 feet). Based on this allowance, the applicant's proposal will be acceptable. The
longest island is approximately 40 feet, which is acceptable to TVFR.
The. proposed name of the private street is "SW Blue Heron Place", which is acceptable to the City
Engineer.
The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be
owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall
record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that wilf clarify how
the private property owners are to maintain the private streets). These CC&R's shall be reviewed
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 31 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement desi n
standards require private streets to nave a pavement section equal to a public local street. We
applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section.
Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be
deslgned with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated,
consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and
recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.6.1 States that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall
not exceed 1,800 feet measured alon the right-of-way line except:
+ Where street location is precg luded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of
water or, pre-existing development or,
+ For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or
railroads.
+ For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access.
The proposed private cul-de-sac will not form or be a part of a continuous block. Therefore, this
standard is not applicable.
Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public
easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible.
Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet except where precuded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strit
adherence to other standards in the code.
For the reasons discussed previously in relation to the requested variance to cul-de-sac length, staff
has determined that a public street connection to abutting properties to the west and south is not
necessary. The applicant has proposed extending the sidewalk along one side of the private street to
the western edge of the development, in order to provide a potential pedestrian and bicycle
connection to future development to the west. As discussed elsewhere in this section, the applicant
shall be required to dedicate the area of the sidewalk and path to the public. The proposal satisfies
the above criterion.
Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times
the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the
applicable zoning district.
Although some of the proposed lots do not appear to meet this standard, the planned development
criteria allow for flexibility in lot dimensional standards. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(6) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public
or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition,_18.420.050.A.4.c applies,
which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or -a minimum 15-foot wide
recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit,
the frontage shall be at least 15 feet.
Nearly all of the proposed lots comply with this standard; however, planned development criteria allow
for flexibility in lot dimensional standards, as noted above. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
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.
Sidewalks are not required on a private street. However, the applicant is proposing to construct a
sidewalk on one side of the new private street.
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
pprovisions 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.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 32 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-000031VAR2001-00002- BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
1111111111 11111111111 11111011
Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C 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 line in SW Walnut Street that has adequate capacity to serve this
site. The applicants plan indicates they will install a new public manhole over the existing public line,
and extend a new public sewer line into the site within the private street. This new public sewer line
is shown to stop short of the western boundary. Since the grades of the property to the west rise
above those on this site, the new public sewer could feasibly serve the adjacent parcel. Therefore,
the applicant will be required to extend the new sewer line to the western boundary.
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 grades of this site fall primarily to the southeast. Currently, any runoff from this site flows into the
existing wetland and drainageway along the eastern portion of the site. The proposed plan shows
that all onsite runoff will be collected and conveyed toward that wetland and drainageway. The size
of the new storm line will be sufficient to handle the flows from this development. Since a private
street will serve this development, the new storm line will also be considered privately owned and
maintained.
There are existing parcels that border this site that could contribute sheet flows into the back yards of
the new lots. The developer should install additional private storm lines in the back yards of the uphill
lots to pick up any possible runoff.
Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.13 states that where it is anticipated by
the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an
existing drainage 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 onsite 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.
As was previously stated, the onsite runoff currently flows into the wetland and drainageway along the
eastern portion of the site. The applicant's plan maintains that general plan, but proposes to locate
their water quality and detention facility within a portion of the current 50-foot buffer and a portion of
the existing wetland. USA has reviewed the applicant's proposal and issued a Service Provider
Letter. USA is in favor of the plan, because the applicant is proposing to enhance a significant
portion of the existing buffer, create additional buffer, and create additional wetland area to
comppensate for the encroachment. Staff is also in favor of this plan because the end result will be a
much more appealing wetland and buffer area. The existing buffer is degraded with significant
blackberry growth. The applicant will be required to comply with the conditions of approval listed in
the USA Service Provider Letter.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 33 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001.00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001.00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
The newly created water quality swale and detention ponds will be sized to accommodate the
additional flows created by this development. The preliminary sizing calculations indicate the
detention volume, required for this development is approximately 5,800 cubic feet. The applicant's
engineer indicates they will provide in excess of 5,800 cubic feet.
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.
No proposed bicycle or pedestrian paths are shown through the development site on the City's
adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. However, the applicant has proposed extending the sidewalk
along the private street to connect to the property to the west. As previously discussed the sidewalk
will be required to be dedicated to the public, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
The applicant is proposing to construct a pathway with stairs, from the private street to the proposed
water quality facility. The homeowners of this development must maintain the pathway and stairs.
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:
The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide
the underground services;
o The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
o 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
o 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.C states that a developer
shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding 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 short 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.
There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Walnut Street. 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 45 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $1,238.00.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS:
Traffic Stud Findin s:
A traffic impact repor was submitted by Stein Engineering, dated May 8, 2000. This report makes
mention of'a current sight distance issue at the proposed site access. There is a sag vertical curve to
the east of this site. Drivers entering SW Walnut Street, from the site access, will have adequate
long-range sight distance, but any westbound vehicle will not be visible for approximately one second
(while in the low point of the sag curve). This development will not have a significant number of
northbound, left-turning vehicles, and the one-second lack of sight distance is not significant. Stein
calculated that the level of service (LOS) of the intersection of the new private street and SW Walnut
Street will be at LOS D, which is acceptable. They recommend the applicant clear some of the
existing vegetation along SW Walnut Street to improve the sight distance. Staff concurs with this
finding and recommends the applicant not make any changes to the existing sag vertical curve to the
east.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 34 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003/VAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Stein reviewed the need for a left turn lane on SW Walnut Street at the new private driveway location.
He notes that the warrants for a left turn lane are marginally met, but that left turning vehicles during
the PM peak hour would only have to wait approximately 3.2 seconds for a gap in traffic to make the
turn. He also notes that once SW Gaarde Street is opened to SW Walnut Street, the overall traffic
volumes on SW Walnut Street will decrease, and the warrants would no longer be met. Since Stein
wrote their report, SW Gaarde Street has been opened to SW Walnut Street. Based upon Stein's
findings, a left turn lane at the new private street location is not warranted and should not be installed.
Stein recommends an alternate mitigation feature of a new advanced intersection warning sign
(MUTCD W2-1), that could be located to the east of this site. The sign would warn westound
motorists that they are approaching an intersection. Staff concurs with this recommendation.
The other study intersection reviewed by Stein was at SW Walnut Street/SW 121St Avenue. He notes
that with signalization, the LOS at this intersection will be at LOS C, which is acceptable. The County
is in the process of constructing a signal at this intersection, and it should be completed by Fall 2001.
Public Water System:
This site will be serve from the City's public water system in SW Walnut Street. The Public Works
Department will need to review and approve of the overall water line layout for this development prior
to construction. The City may require a master meter at the subdivision entrance, thereby rendering
the onsite water line as a private line with private meters. The homeowner's association would then
need to arrange to pay for the monthly water usage of the development.
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.
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.
As was stated previously, the applicant's plan indicates they will create an onsite biofiltration swale for
treatment of the new stormwater runoff. Since this development is served from a private street, and
since the storm drainage system will be private, this water quality facility will also be private. The
preliminary sizing calculations indicate the length of the swale will need to be approximately 102 lineal
feet. The plan shows that they will have a swale approximately 140 feet in length, which is more than
adequate. They have also included a maintenance plan for the facility.
This Swale is to be located adjacent to the proposed detention ponds, and is included in the buffer
and wetland encroachment area. The applicant will need to comply with the conditions of approval
issued in the USA Service Provider Letter.
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.
A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall
detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that
surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering
Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 35 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002- BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff
from each lot.
The applicant has provided a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, by
GeoPacific Engineering, for the proposed grading slope construction. GeoPacific states that the site
can feasibly accommodate the proposed development. The recommendations of the report will need
to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed
with the Engineering Department prior fo issuance of building permits.
The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes
between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This
information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be
necessary when the lots develop.
Since this site is less than five acres in size, a NPDES permit is not required.
Address Assignments:
The City o 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 $30.00 per address
shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat.
For this project, the addressing fee will be $540.00 (18 lots X $30/address = $540.00).
Surve Re uirements
The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's
global positioning system (GPS),qeodetic control network. These monuments shall be on the same line
and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the
coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid
measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by:
e GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey.
o By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and provided the following comment:
e Fire hydrants and access to be approved by Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue.
The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and provided the
following comments:
s All stormwater facilities, including the water quality tract, shall be privately owned and
maintained b a homeowner's association or other private entity.
e A 15-foot wide public utility easement will be needed centered over the public sanitary facilities
within the development.
o The applicant should set the new sanitary manhole over the existing sanitary line if grades and
other utility conflicts allow.
e The proposed 8-inch public water line within the development will not be allowed. Instead, the
applicant shall install, at the property line, a double detector check assembly for fire hydrants in
the development. The applicant will install either a master meter at the property line with a
double check valve assembly, or will bank individual water meters on Walnut Street, within the
right-of-way.
The City of Tigard Property Manager has reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comment:
e The proposed stairway/path to the detention facility should be provided with hand-rails and
shoud be of an approved design.
The Tigard Police Department, and the City of Tigard Long-Range Planning Division have
reviewed the proposal and indicated that they have no objections to the proposal.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 36 OF 38
SUB2001-00001/ZON2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002- BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
The City of Tigard City Forester has reviewed the proposal and his comments are included in the
preceding discussion of compliance with Tree Removal requirements.
SECTION Vill. 'AGENCY COMMENTS
The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department has reviewed the proposal and offered the
following comments:
• The gates at the entrance shall be provided with an access option for fire apparatus. Options
include an Opticom activated opener or a Knox brand key switch.
e Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be
installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus
roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be
installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus
roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. UFC Sec. 902.2.4
• Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LAME - TOW AWAY ONE, ORS 98.81 - 98.812"
and shall be installed with a clear, space above ground level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches
wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a white background.
UFC Sec. 901.4.5.1
o 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)
o The minimum available fire flow for single-family dwellin lithe duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons
per, minute. Fire flow documentation shall be provided. If the structures is (are) 3,600 square
feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to U~ Appendix Table A-
III-A-1. (UFC Appendix III-A, Sec. 5)
• Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be installed and
operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible
construction. (UFC Sec. 8704)
The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has reviewed this proposal and has offered
comments that have been incorporated into this report.
The Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following
comment:
o If the stormwater detention facility is within the stream wetland area, a removal/fill permit will
be required. It appears the development will not impact the delineated wetland area.
Northwest Natural Gas has reviewed the proposal and offered the following questions:
o The street cross-section needs to be clarified. Does it change between TL 4100 and 4200?
Will there be a public utility easement?
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Washington County Planning Dartment,
US Army Corps of Enneers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portlandep General
Electric, CI Cable, and gierizon, were notified, but no comments were submitted.
SECTION IX. CONCLUSION
At the June 11, 2001 public hearing regarding the Blue Heron subdivision, the Planning Commission
voted to deny the application, based on the finding that the development would adversely effect the
welfare of the City.
At the hearing, additional materials were submitted, including a letter from Margie Kessler, of 12425
Alberta Street; a letter from Douglas and Nancy Lou Nash, of 12270 Alberta Street; a letter from Julie
Rau and Jim Vandehey, of 12430 SW Walnut Street; and a revised tree inventory from the applicant.
Copies of these submitted materials are attached to this final order.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 37 OF 38
SUB2001-0000120N2001-00002/PDR2001-00001/SLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002 -BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE PARTIES
TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER.
.PASSED: This 11th day of June, 2001 by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon.
Nickelson, President
City f Tigard Planning Commission
i:\curpln\kevinlsub\SUB01-1 (Blue Heron) PC Final Order.doc
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2001-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 38 OF 38
SUB2001-00001 ZON2001-000021PDR2001-00MMLR2001-00003NAR2001-00002 - BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
INi0a Ya710N a•a7aY
GCOGa•►NIC
PL a VICIMI ry "AP
N
_
ANN LLL
Yi ~A 0
S
Sam 1.00001
E 0 R c PDR,001.00001
taN~001-00002
Z S1.RZ001-00003
ST
~d W VAR~O_41-0000
3
PET OIUE ~ER4N PAR
I cr
s
p~ ~e~ ARME ST S110DINISIO
~ z
ST
L R T
1
N
t06 $09 Fant
4 0
r 4 o- .501 toot
t•
P
`o C4 of Tigard
Inlormalion on Our maP a for pamnM1tburnu' pi+nawn
N 4nnYld>ia vanfad wm 131225 SW Vill" Hatl Blvd
W I N T Bard, oR 97223 1
k5=53"'171
`
MtDi.d.Upard.or.ua
plot data: Mar 200 1. A.aAtd"^O1eO3.AFR
eemmunitr 9 slopmen?
LOT 2 o /
1
LIA
/Nl •n, q
1f
Y
.S~i l P. •~pr r-~HG44 '97 1 I I 'CORL ACPE~" ' .J' ° .
- p 11
1^ra.`:`, u 1 - r' X7s Lill 1 LOT 'L 1 LOT .3 t LO(4 t LOT , ryTf
T" ?I. 4200 , Tl 4300 , TL 4400 + TL 4504 TI. 4600
1 .0 u 4 rN
I s! J 1 , ,r 1 l n• ucnµDS stairs W
~ "Cl!hL •AC;kE`i' ~ 1 .I • 1 •i / ~s~J~`' i .
- r/i7 Ap
•'J~II If c' 1 ` rh 5~ t,p J rr, i%~ 'fX•All
1 Tl 41no 7 r. N99Ufll. ruu' r,a IF ] 42x18 <
I L:!f .I j ro tri t7 / 2 S! r • .''J,r ' H ~ 4 1 \•~'11L~r.
y, ` l6- ' m {,L Lw'"f ,rttA u~ , r 1 t
• IL 40L0
'~~"~,,~,~rn_:. IrnY' r« ~ r~ l7 _ ~ o A' f J l ~ / ~ . } _ J L
't ;5 1. ^r~~ a3 7r l r'f hb, \ \ vc r
ra 4 ...r!< ' 'a•/ - ?,k 'do 1; i i J/i A'-
IY,'
, t~- ~ ~ a'f 11' ~ t - y' N`j.; `i%~- ) rorlo . ,a J,'
a it re la HY I6 • - . ~ f r ~r j ~ ~ i i -
a / , r
1 r rp _ 't-. r;~ a `~';S r t ~S r y,,y ',\\y i ,,i.4r.•~` LOf
4~ f~:{( ' r ,!'p. i , iae~-r i ".•LYta!_Ntri -..r ,
- / r JJ ~r, 1/7 ~ • 'a _,li" L S~ ~ `~'Sr. .wi 1~5 r i {l;Jte~~' ~ J. % i
1~~ 4 e _ _ •:a =-r.. _ : ' i r . -l,i ~r ' • ' t ~ A l i~Irt ~',I 7,
°~tlp•'
a w ~ 1 { ~ri / N ~ / r M A. I.1 I ,rn 1 r,.Y 1 .4ctulf p - wT Li)T
I 111 ` J I t r R•9 1 B l a~ ~ 'r' ' ~ l J • ~ ' ' ~ ~ f ` . t~~ r. ~<7~ KTL i
Emil XJ_ l ✓ + u.l{v / titi /'i/ f r i+.. t/'~rr
-Viii 1 I ,-y„(.•
u ~ R• ~ 1 al L ; ~ t - - - rh7; %n.. ' !11 ' / t t , 1 >fr~. 4 j r xr
FIl i(r '='--".•f i y=i`2~ 'i ~'Q-r~ nayaw: -.,,x.~~ x- -
599.62 rr' ti' i l i i t J
r ! . r r l r fIV .01 LOT 4
j ' TL (K? R. 2501
J i/ i' / J; r r
' r 1 • r 1 ~ 's`S1 , " i -•G\ll~aK'•A F'ARIC-
10.
CITY %ol- t SUB2001-I/POR2001-I/ZON2001-2/SLR2001-3/VAR2001-2
suire, BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
(Map is not to scale)
I ,
Attachment 5
DRAFT
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2001
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, Mores,
Munro, Padgett, Olsen, and Sutton
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Scolar and Topp
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Kevin Young,
Associate Planner; Brian Rager, Development Review
Engineer; Matt Stine, Urban Forester; Liz Newton,
Assistant to the City Manager; Jerree Gaynor,
Planning Commission Secretary
3, PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
Commissioner Padgett moved and Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion to
approve the May 7, 2001, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken
and the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Mores and Munro
abstained.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2001-00001/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR)
2001-00001/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2001-000021SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW
(SLR) 2001-000031VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00002
BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
REQUEST: Approval of an 18-lot subdivision on 4.15 acres. The lots are to be
developed with attached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development
average just over 3,800 square feet. Development is to be clustered on the west
side of the development site, allowing for the preservation and enhancement of the
pond, wetland, and stream area on the eastern portion of the property. A sensitive
lands review is required for the development due to the presence of steep slopes,
a wetland, and a natural drainageway on the site. LOCATION: 12450 SW Walnut
Street; WCTM 2S103BC, Tax Lot 3900. The project site is located on the south
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 1
M~~J
- ~Nm
side of SW Walnut Street, opposite of SW 124th Avenue and west of SW 121s'
Avenue. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district
is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without
accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes
and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.370, 18.380,
18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765,
18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810.
STAFF REPORT
Kevin Young, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City and
summarized the applicant's proposed development. The residential development will
be clustered on the western side of the property, away from the sensitive land areas on
the eastern portion of the property. The development would create a series of storm
water detention ponds adjacent to the existing wetland pond area, reserving
approximately 2 acres of the 4.15-acre site as open space. The base density of the site
is 16.18 dwellings. The applicant requests density bonuses to allow for an additional
two dwelling units. Staff recommends approval of the density bonuses. A change is
also recommended to the conditions of approval: Conditions 27 and 28 regarding tree
mitigation. Some trees that were designated as dead, diseased or dying are actually
trees that would be impacted by the development process and therefore should be
mitigated. The applicant desires to meet the 75% tree preservation threshold.
Conditions 27 and 28 should be changed to add the stipulation "if required by the City
Forester."
President Wilson asked if the applicant has had an arborist look at the trees that are to
be saved. For example, there is one tree surrounded by paving and he believes that
tree will not survive. Mr. Young responded that he has discussed this with the City
Forester. The compacted soil around the trees will help ensure their survival. The
applicant will respond to this issue in more detail.
In regard to the zone change standards addressed on page 9, Section VI, paragraph
A3, of the staff report, Commissioner Padgett asked what change in the neighborhood
took place or what mistake in the comprehensive plan or zoning map occurred.
Mr. Young advised that the proposed development involves the adoption of a planned
development overlay on the existing zone. There is no comprehensive plan issue and
no change to the underlying low density residential zone.
President Wilson asked if the density bonus is subject to variance. Mr. Young advised
that the provisions for the density bonus are contained in the planned development
ordinance and the tree preservation ordinance. A density bonus is allowed if a
proposed design achieves certain goals. Within those provisions there is an absolute
cap of 10%. In this case, the applicant has requested density bonuses under four
different areas that total 7% under the PUD provisions. The applicant has additionally
requested density bonuses under the tree preservation ordinance. Those standards
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'T'ING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 2
allow for 1 % of density bonus for every 2% of currently existing tree canopy preserved
on the site up to a maximum of 20%. In this area, the applicant is requesting a 4.3%
density bonus. Allowance of a density bonus is at the Planning Commission's
discretion.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Matthew Sprague and Magnus Bernhardt from Alpha Engineering, 9600 SW Oak
Street, Suite 230, Portland, OR 97223, presented the applicant's request. A map
showing the location of the site and surrounding land uses was presented to the
Commission. Details of the site's wetland area, open space, and slopes were
summarized. The applicant desires to retain the existing natural features of the site as
much as possible. Of the 4.15-acre site, 2.09 acres will be retained as open space and
development will be centered on the western portion of the site. Access to the site is
from SW Walnut Street.
The proposal includes a gate at the entrance to the site, a 32-foot right-of-way with a 5-
foot sidewalk on one side, off-street parking, 18 attached dwelling units with arbors and
porches, and street trees on both sides of the street. Also proposed is a water quality
facility and a graded corridor, with improvements to the natural flow of water by creating
ponds that will pool the north-south drainage flow. There will be intensive planting of
vegetation and trees for screening and shade. Details were presented regarding
preservation of existing vegetation and proposed new plantings. All of the existing
vegetation on the north will be retained, as well as 75% of existing trees on the site that
are over 12 inches in diameter. Development impacts will be offset by enhancing other
parts of the project.
In regard to tree islands and survival of the trees, an arborist has looked at them and
believes the plan will work. Extensive discussions with the City Forester have resulted
in the requirements set forth on Exhibit A attached to these minutes. Due to the
imposition of these requirements, the applicant requests that the language "if required"
be added to conditions 27, 28, and 29 as it relates to mitigation based on the City
Forester's requirements.
Density bonuses can be requested in one area up to 10%, and for preservation of trees,
up to 20%. The applicant is requesting a 7% density bonus under the planned
development provisions as a result of the proposed streetscape, sidewalk, architectural
design, and other improvements. The applicant is also requesting a 4.3% density
bonus for the retention of trees and enhancement of the wetland areas.
Mr. Sprague responded to comments and concerns expressed by the Commission:
o Gated community - applicant believes the gate adds value to the project, increases
the value of the proposed units, and ensures the retention of existing values in the
vicinity. Applicant concedes that gating is optional.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 3
IODINE, _01=1111111 III
o Building on slopes - the proposed units will have higher foundations than a typical
house.
® Tree islands in street and survival of trees - due to site constraints, the currently
existing three islands will be paved over and two islands will be created. A condition
can be imposed requiring the applicant to replant any trees that do not survive.
Upon sale of the units, the landscape islands will be owned by the homeowners
association and landscape maintenance would be included either in the agreement
for maintenance of the private street, in the CC&R's, or required through deed
restrictions.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR
None
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION
Jim Vandehey, 12430 SW Walnut, Tigard, OR 97223: A copy of Mr. Vandehey's
testimony is attached as Exhibit B to these minutes.
In regard to the lot size and configuration issue, Mr. Young stated that the planned
development ordinance being applied here allows for more flexibility. The proposed
clustered development is intended to limit the impacts on the sensitive environment
area. The creation of smaller lots permits a larger amount of open space. Minimum lot
size standards were discussed. This proposal would not create flag lots, each lot will
have frontage to the street, and therefore that standard does not apply.
In regard to screening along the street, the Commission has discretion as to what can
be required.
In regard to the height issue, the planned development ordinance provides flexibility for
hard to develop properties and building height provisions do not apply. Planned
development bonuses may be granted at the Commission's discretion. It is up to the
applicant to prove that the requested bonuses are justified. The R-4.5 zone allows a
maximum height of 30' and the proposed dwellings are 25' or less.
Regarding the utility line issue, Brian Rager advised that the development code contains
provisions for streets that have overhead utility lines. The City has the option to require
the developer to bury the lines or pay a fee in lieu of burying.
Sharon Murphy, 12470 SW Walnut, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that her property is next
to the project entrance. She expressed concerns about traffic and damage to trees on
the site abutting her property during excavation and the potential destruction of this
natural barrier. She is also unhappy about the view of the new units from the back of
her lot and concerned about the noise that will be created by the entrance gate being
opened and closed several times a day. .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 4
Margie Kessler, 12425 SW Alberta St., Tigard, OR 97223: A copy of Ms. Kessler's
testimony is attached as Exhibit C to these minutes. Ms. Kessler also submitted
petitions signed by neighbors and a written statement from Doug & Nancy Nash,
attached as Exhibit D to these minutes. She requested that the record be held open for
7 days so that her questions can be answered.
Delbert Fennel, 12355 SW Alberta St., Tigard, OR 97223, testified that his property
adjoins the SE corner of the site and he is also concerned about traffic and access
issues.
Milt Fyre, 12121 SW Lansdowne Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that the proposed
subdivision is to the east of his property. He is opposed to the project because it is not
consistent with the surrounding area and believes the property should be developed
less densely to keep more in line with existing densities in the area.
Barry Reynolds, 12262 SW Lansdowne Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, expressed concern
regarding the turbidity caused to the pond during previous development and asked what
this developer will do to protect the pond. He also asked about utilities along the new
access road, how construction will be accomplished on the steep slopes, and whether
fill will be brought in. The applicant advised that the proposed plan only shows the
approximate locations of the units and that it is likely that a small amount of fill will be
brought in.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL
Matt Sprague and Magnus Bernhardt responded to concerns and questions from the
public and the Planning Commission.
Regarding access into the subdivision, Walnut Street is a busy street, but with the new
light at the intersection of 121St Avenue, they believe there will be breaks in the traffic
that will help people to make left turns into the new subdivision.
The walkway from the homes goes to the maintenance pond and is not proposed to go
anywhere from that point. It will not cross the pond. In the future, the open space may
be developed into a corridor and dedicated to the City.
Regarding fill, grading activities will be limited to the street and water quality facility;
most of the property will be left at existing grade.
They reported that there are trees along both sides of the private drive. Some of the
trees are on neighboring properties and some are on the site. The applicant's arbonst
looked at the trees to determine what trees could be saved and what impacts would
occur.
Sprague advised that some of the houses closest to the wetlands will be 25' high in the
back.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 5
Regarding Mrs. Kessler's concerns about privacy, the applicant stated that the closest
house would be about 70' away. They believe that the new homeowners will want to
fence their properties. The applicant said they would be willing to work with Mrs.
Kessler to see that her privacy is maintained.
Sprague testified that the proposed new homes would range in price from $180,000 to
$200,000 and would not have any negative impact on existing homes. He believes the
subdivision is well designed by saving 75% of the trees, enhancing the open space with
plantings, and maintaining privacy.
Regarding noise from the gate, Sprague advised that it would be a swinging gate, not
rolling, and if maintained properly, it will be quiet. The gate will be activated with a key
pad.
Commissioner Munro asked if the steps down to detention ponds could be used by the
neighbors to make their way to the ponds. Sprague answered that the steps could be
easily negotiated with a handrail, but this is a sensitive area and recreational use should
be discouraged. The steps should be used primarily for maintenance.
Commissioner Sutton asked about the foundation walls on lots 5, 6, 4, 7, and 8. The
applicant advised that the foundations would be larger in the back of those lots, but no
neighbors will be able to see them.
Milt Fyre commented that neighbors live across the pond and they will be able to see
the new homes. Dick Bewersdorff advised that the homes will meet building code
requirements and Matt Sprague noted that new plantings in the wetlands will enhance
the area.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Kevin Young demonstrated how to do the density calculations. He noted that the
applicant has requested density bonuses through the PUD provisions. The result of that
request was 1 unit. A density bonus for tree preservation resulted in another unit for a
total of 18 dwelling units.
President Wilson asked if the City is getting anything of value for the density bonuses.
Dick Bewersdorff noted that the City uses density bonuses to encourage people to use
the PD process. He said that granting of the bonuses is at the discretion of the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Padgett asked about our current status with meeting Metro's density
goals. Dick Bewersdorff answered that as long as we meet the minimum density for all
zones, we will meet Metro's goals.
Commissioner Olsen commented that he hates to see gates and that he is concerned
about silt and the future of the ponds.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 6
MOM
Commissioner Sutton asked if fences were allowed in the wetland buffer zone. Kevin
Young answered that USA has required the buffer for this development, and he
characterizes if more as a vegetated corridor than a buffer. The City does not require
the buffer on a minor stream. He said that since USA is requiring some enhancement
plantings in that area, we wouldn't be excited about fencing. However, there is no
condition in staff report that addresses that issue. Matt Sprague noted that USA likes
the facility and the enhancements of this development and lets them go into the buffer
area.
Dick Bewersdorff advised that the City code allows fences in sloped areas and drainage
areas; the only exception being the floodway.
Commissioner Munro asked if the City should require the developer to dedicate this
area as a park area. Bewersdorff said this area probably would not fit into our park
plans. It's best to leave it alone as a passive open space.
In response to an earlier question, Kevin Young advised that the minimum density for
this parcel would be 12.30 units.
Commissioner Mores also doesn't like gated communities but is in favor of this project.
He noted that the City is looking for higher density opportunities in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Munro thinks the developer has met the criteria for this project and would
vote favorably.
President Wilson doesn't think anything merits a density bonus and would be in favor of
denying the bonus, but otherwise approving the application.
Commissioner Sutton agreed with President Wilson. He said he was not excited about
several aspects of the project, but it seems the project meets the letter of the code.
Commissioner Olsen said he believes in the urban boundary limits, and likes what they
proposed with this project. He is in favor of the development.
Commissioner Anderson believes the applicant did a good job of planning the project,
but she is not convinced of the need for higher density in that area. She believes this
project is inconsistent with the rest of the development in the area and is opposed to
granting the planned development.
Commissioner Padgett thinks that higher density developments are adverse to the
welfare of the City and what it stands for. He is tired of shoehorning small residences
into lots just because we can. He believes we have to look at how it affects the culture
of the City, so he is not in support of this proposal. He is against the density bonus.
Mrs. Kessler withdrew her request to hold the record open for 7 days.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 7
Commissioner Padgett moved that the Planning Commission deny Subdivision 2001-
00001/Zone Change 2001-00002/ PDR 2001-00001/SLR 2001-00003/Variance 2001-
00002. Commissioner Anderson seconded motion. A voice vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-3. Commissioners Padgett, Anderson, Sutton, and Wilson voted yes;
Commissioners Olsen, Munro, and Mores voted no.
Dick Bewersdorff advised that the Commission would have to develop findings for their
decision. Commissioner Padgett said it was based ' on the testimony heard tonight,
opinions expressed by the Planning Commissioners during deliberations, and answers
to questions from staff, that it will adversely affect the welfare of the City. Because of
that, it cannot be approved.
Commissioner Munro offered a minority opinion, saying that she does not see a major
adverse effect or even a significant adverse effect. She thinks it promotes exactly what
the urban growth boundary is about and that it meets the criteria of the density. She
believes the plan is sound and she does not disagree with it. She noted that the City is
trying to encourage diversity in our housing and she believes it is an important factor in
the diversity and culture of our City.
The Commission took a 10 minute break and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner
Mores left the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
• Matt Stine, Urban Forester, provided an update on the Fanno Creek
Park Enhancement Plan.
• Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, and Chris Merkel from
Tualatin Valley Community Access Cable Company, offered a brief
training session on proper techniques for being on camera (attached as
Exhibit E).
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Nick Wilson
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 11, 2001 - Page 8
HtUttvty rt-mvm,4nvu
JUN 11 2001 page 1 Of s
0081 Blue Heron Park Mod 6 01 Tpp-IA';!12 (-od6 Ol)
6111/01 Waller H. Knapp
Point Survey GRAD
[No.. Code Species DBH Ht CRa/a R D Damaging Agents DDDD Retain Remove Comments.....
575 cvF36 Douglas-fir 40 40
577 evF32 Douglas-fir 34 34
578 evF30 Douglas-fir 30 30
579 evF34 Douglas-fir 36 36
580 evF30 Douglas-fir 30 30
583 evF18 Dou las-fir 20 20
584 evF24 Douglas-fir 26 26
585 evF26 Douglas-fir 26 26
658 evC20 western redcedar 20 20
660 evF26 Douglas-fir 28 28
661 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 120 30 10 WIND 14 disallowed
662 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 120 30 10 WIND 14 disallowed
663 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 115 30 10 FVI1VD 14 disallowed
664 evM2X18 bi leaf maple 18 18
664 bi leaf maple 22 22
665 evF22 Douglas-fir 22 22
666 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
667 evC20 western redcedar 20 DCTO DEBR 20 additional DDDD
668 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 LEON 15% WIND 18 additional DDDD
669 evF30 Douglas-fir 34 34
670 evF24 Douglas-fir 24 24
671 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
672 evF30 Douglas-fir 32 32
674 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
677 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
679 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
683 evF28 Dou laa- tr 28 28 retain?
684 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 125 30 10 WIND 16 disallowed
685 evF.16 Dou las- u 16 125 30 10 WIND 16 disallowed
686 _Doug las- tr 16 125 40 10 WIND 16 disallowed
687 evF26 Douglas-fir 26 125 40 15 WIND STCR 26
689 evF22 Douglas-fir 22 125 40 15 WIND STCR 22
690 evC 16 western redcedar 16 16
692 evF24 Douglas-fir 24 24
693 evF12 Dou las- ~r 14 110 30 10 WIND 14 disallowed
i
698 evF20 Douglas-fir 20 20
704 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 115 30 10 WIND 18 disallowed
705 evF24 Douglas-fir 24 24
' 706 evF26 Douglas-fir 26 26
1
707 evF24 Douglas-fir 24 24
709 evC20 western redcedar 20 20
f 713 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
1 715 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
1 716 evC18 western redcedar 18 18
717 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
718 cvF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
Page 2 of 5
0081 Blue Heron Park Mod 601 TPP-INV>12 (mod6 Ol)
&11/01 Walter 11. Knapp
Point Survey Species DBH Ht CR% CRAD Damaging Agents DDDD Retain Remove
No. Code Comments.....
719 cvF20 Douglas-fir 20 20
720 evF30 Douglas-fir 30 30
723 evC16 western redcedar 16 16
724 evC16 western redcedar 1616
725 evF30 Douglas-fir 30 30
726 evF20 Douglas-fir 20 20
730 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
731 evF32 Douglas-fir 32 32
732 evF20 Douglas-fir 20 20
733 evF22 Douglas-fir 22 22
816 evA16 red alder 16 16
899 evA20 red alder 20 20
900 evA24 red alder 24 24
901 evA20 red alder 20 20
903 evA18 red alder 18 18
904 evC14 western redcedar 14 14
905 evA14 red alder 14 14
908 evA16 red alder 16 16
935 evA18 red alder 18 18
936 evA14 red alder 14 14
937 evA14 red alder 14 14
938 evA14 red alder 14 14
939 evA16 red alder 16 16
940 evA14 red alder 14 14
947 evA14 red alder 14 14
953 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
954 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
956 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 DEAD 14
957 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 14
960 cvF14 Douglas-fir 14 14
961 evC36 western redcedar 36 36
962 evF24 Douglas-fir 24 24
963 cvFl8 Douglas-fir 181 18
964 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 120 60 15 18
966 evM22 Oregon ash 22 DETO DCAY 22
968 cvF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
1036 cvF42 Douglas-fir 42 DE T O PHSC 42
1043 evF26 Douglas-fir 26 26
1044 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 120 30 15 STCR WIND 18
1045 evF14 Dou las-fir 14 14
1046 evF22 Douglas-fir 26 26
1047 evF20 Douglas-fir 20 20 cl:g.to "retain"
1049 evF30 Douglas-fir 30 30
1083 LevF-26Douglas-fir 30 Douglas-fir 30 301
1084 24 Dou las- it 24 STCR 24 cng.to "retain"
1085 26 26
Page 3 of 5
0081 Blue Heron Park Mod 6 01 TPP-INis12 (mod6 01)
6111/01 Waller K. Knapp
Point Survey o GRAD
No. Code Species DBH Ht CR/o eft) Damaging Agents DDDD Retain Remove Comments.....
1092 evF28 Douglas-fir 36 36
1094 evF24 Douglas-fir 24 24
1095 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
1097 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 CROK 14
1099 evF20 Douglas-fir 20 20
1103 evF26 Douglas-fir 26 26
1105 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
1106 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 14
1108 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
1111 evF14 Doug as-fir 14 14
1112 evF18 Douglas-fir 18 18
1114 evF14 Douglas-fir 14 14
1115 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
1116 evF16 Douglas-fir 16 16
1117 evF22 Douglas-fir 22 22
1119 evF22 Douglas-fir 22 22
1120 evF20 Douglas-fir 20 20
1121 evC14 western redcedar 14 14
3073 ETR Douglas-fir 16 16
3074 ETR Douglas-fir 20 20
3075 ETR western redcedar 14 14
3077 DTR Oregon ash 20 20
3079 ETR Douglas-fir 20 20
3080 DTR Oregon ash 20 20
3081 ETR Douglas-fir 14 14
3083 ETR western redcedar 14 14
3085 ETR western redcedar 24 24
3086 ETR western redcedar 16 16
3087 ETR western redcedar 20 20
3088 ETR western redcedar 22 22
3090 DTR Oregon ash 16 16
3093 DTR Oregon ash 16 16
3100 DTR red alder 14 14
3120 ETR Douglas-fir 26 26
3146 DTR red alder 15 15
3147 DTR bigleaf maple 26 26
3149 DTR red alder 14 14
3152 DTR Oregon ash 20 20
3157 DTR Oregon ash 20 20
3158 ETR western redcedar 18 18
3160 ETR western redcedar 34 34
3161 ETR Douglas-fir 48 48
3162 DTR Oregon ash 18 18
3162 DTR Oregon ash 18 18
3165 DTR bigleaf maple 22 22
3168 ETR western redcedar 20 20
Page 4 of S
0081 Blue Heron Park Mod 6 01 TPP-MV -12 (mod6 0l)
6111/01 Wafter H. Knapp
Point Survey Species DBH Ht CR% CRAD Damaging Agents DDDD Retain Remove
No. Code [ft.] Comments.....
3170 DTR red alder 14 14
3170 DTR red alder 14 14
3172 ETR western redcedar 16 16
3173 DTR bi leaf maple 30 30
3174 DTR bi eaf maple 24 24
3175 DTR bi leaf maple 20 20
3176 ETR western redcedar 14 14
3180 ETR western redcedar 26 26
3181 ETR Douglas-fir 30 30
3182 ETR western redcedar 18 18
3183 ETR Douglas-fir 20 20
3184 EM Dot Was-fir 22 22
3185 ETR Douglas-fir 18 18.
3187 ETR Douglas-fir 16 16
3191 FM Douglas-fir 18 18
3192 ETR Douglas-fir 14 14
3193 ETR Douglas-fir 24 24
3194 ETR Douglas-fir 18 18
3196 ETR western redeedar 16 16
3198 ETR Douglas-fir 14 14
3206 DTR bi leaf maple 22 22
3208 ETR Dou las-fir 44 44
3209 ETR Douglas-fir 42 42
3212 DTR red alder 16 16
3214 DTR red alder 14 14
Page s ojs
0081 Blue lferon Park Mod 6 01 TPP-INis12 (mod6 01)
6111/01 Walter H. Snapp
Point Survey Species DBH Ht CR% CRAD Damaging Agents DDDD Retain Remove
No. Code (f3.] Comments.....
Total # All Trees >12": 162 8 116 38
Total # Trees Minus DDDD: 154
Percent Trees Minus DDDD: 100%j 1 75.3% 24.7%
Tigard Mitigation Cate go 0%
Average DBH: 21 inches
Esti mated % canopy cover retained - trees >12"DBH ( ro rtionate to dia. retained): 72%
Notes: DDDD: Dead, Dying, Diseased, Dan Brous trees
Dama in Agents: See Table 2. Tree Dama a Codes
Sum of DBH >12 3371 in. 182 2433 756
% DBH Retained 72%
Mitigation 50% 378
Number of 2-inch trees 189
Wholesale Cost/Tree are Root) S 40
Installation $ 60
Total Cost/ Tree $ 100
Total Cost $ 18,900
Total Cost (Rounded) $ 20,0001 1
Notes: Tree costs are based on wholesale cost for 13/4" caliper maples (various spp.) at I Frank Schmidt Nursery.
Installation cost includes hauling, planting, and guarantee. Past experience indicates that City of Tigard will accept 1
3/4 inch caliper stock in lieu of 2 inch caliper, and bare root stock in lieu of B&B or containerized.
i
i
BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
Testimonial
Submitted by: Julie Rau & Jim Vandehey
12430 SW Walnut St.
Tigard, OR 97223
TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODES
18.430.010 PURPOSE:
A. (4)......... To lessen congestion in streets..."
Staff Report pg. 29 ITE manual figures & TIF ord. show 10 trips per
day x 18 units = 180 T.P.D.
Using a common drive that is historically only had 10, this is a
huge increase to a collector street such as Walnut.
Walnut St. is currently closed @ 121 st and still we have 30 or more
motorists a day try to get through. (3 am this day,no different).
Staff Report Rg. 34
Traffic study used calls out 3.2 seconds waiting time during peak
hours (pin) to left turn into new development. I, personally, have
waited many minutes, many times. No mention of am traffic could
be found in the same report.
We believe Walnut St. traffic will resume heavily next month when
121st opens. With Gaarde also open, this would be an opportu-
nity to take a new study. We propose you wait on your decision
until that time.
i 18.430.010 Purpose:
i
a A.5...To prevent overcrowding of land...
18.430.020
i
D. Lot sizing may be averaged. No lot created shall be less than
18-430-2 80% underlying zone...
Existing zone R.4.5 = 7500 sq. ft. 801/6 = 6000 sq. ft.
Staff recommends 2/3 @ 3800 sq. ft.
COMMENT: Is this an arbitrary adjustment to code? What basis?
18.3710 Variences can be approved, finding: C 2a. The pro-
18-370-1 posed varience will not be materially detrimental to other
properties in -the same vicinity.
COMMENT: We believe this action will decrease the value of our property.
18.510.01 PURPOSE:
18-510-1 Major purpose is to protect the liveability of existing and fu-
ture neighborhoods.
18-510-1 18.510.020 D R4.5 Low Density
Attached single family permitted conditionally.
PURPOSE:
Liveability of existing neighborhoods paramount. "Condi-
tional use allows YOU, the Planning Commission, to make
decisions on what is valid critieria".
18-720-1 18.720.010. PURPOSE:
Establishes standards for design compatibility between
attached single family when abutting single family neigh-
borhoods.
A.1) Ensure that structures do not present excessive
visual mass or bulk to adjoining properties.
4) Encourage architural design that integrates well with
adjoining development.
18.720.020
i
' These provisions apply to ALL attached single family pro-
jects R4.5 - R4.0 that abut property zoned for single family
development.
3
18.780.030 Design Standards:
Building height shall not exceed 25 ft. within 30 ft. of property
line.
18 730 020 Exceptions to Building Height:
C 1 a Limitations -.Flag lot was created prior to April 15, 1985.
18-730-1 C2 The maximum height for attached single family having
sole access from private drive is 1 1 /2 stories or 25 ft. -
whichever is less.
18-730-2 C 2 maximum may be 21/2 story or 35" provided:
18.730.020
2b - 10 ft. sideyard
2d - windows 15 ft above grade shall not face windows or
paths on any abutting lot unless plant trees capable of
mitigating direct views.
COMMENT: We ask, since the existing subdivision created the flag lot
that is currently requesting subdivision, conditions should
co-exist. Existing subdivision are all single family units.
Maximum height should be 1 1/2 stories along perimeter
of development abutting SFD.
Visual sight is only mitigated a few months of the year with
trees. It takes several years for them to grow enough to
work.
18.725 (Environmental Issues:
Compliance with state laws: No NPDES permit required.
However, evidence of fill material Q west end of site brings
up the question of contamination: We ask for testing when
the soil is removed.
18-725-1 18.725.030 A. Noise:
Impact study quote: "No negative noise impact will result
from this project The site is no closer than 100 ft from SW
Walnut St. and is buffered by existing development and vegeta-
tion"..
COMMENT: We are the existing development. We feel we have the right
to some protection. Therefore, we ask for fencing and veg-
etation along perimeter of existing development.
18.7454.010 A. Purpose:
Enhance the asthetic environmental qualityof the city.
18-745-1 A4. By using trees and other landscape materials to mitigate
lack of privacy by provision of buffering and screening.
18-745-1 18:745.020
Provisions of this chapter apply to all developments.
18-745-5 18.745.050 A.
Intent of chapter: Provide Privacy and protection.
18-745-5 18.745.050 5c
A fence or wall shall be constructed to provide continuous
sight obscuring screen.
18-765-4 18.769.040 133
Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked
through use fo fences, wall or other barriers.
18.745 / 18.765 / Staff Report pg 14. B3
He states that driveway and street will be inside the de-
velopment. However, the drive continues to Walnut St.
between 2 properties with existing homes on them. No
buffer or screening is called out for this area.
COMMENT: Therefore, we ask the Commission to require screening on both
sides of drive access with: 1) a 6 ft. wall or 2)combination of
fence and hedge as in table 18.745.2, C 2 or 3, installed in
accordance with visual clearance 18.795 requirements at
Walnut St.
18.810.1211 Utility Lines
18-810-4 All utilities shall be placed underground
This is consistant with existing development and future Wal-
nut St. improvements.
COMMENT: We ask the Commission to uphold this code, not an "in-
lieu-of-payment„. (Staff Report pg 34).
Current situation: Overhead lines attached to 36" tree scheduled
for removal.
INN Milne
MEN
BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION.
Testimony by Margie Kessler
12425 SW Alberta St., Tigard, OR 97223
We, most of the neighbors of this proposed development, until now have not been affected by a
subdivision that caused us to know the process associated with the application process for a
subdivision and therefore beg your indulgence if we have not responded in a timely manner or
appropriately. Becoming familiar with all the codes and the staff report in a very short period of
time is very difficult. With that said, I submit the following testimony in response to the proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
1. DISCREPANCY needs clarification:
A. Drawing dated Jan. 16, 2001 given to M. Kessler by Alpha Engineering shows the
development as 4.09 acres =178,420 sf.
ERROR: 4.09 acres =178,160 sf not 178.410 sf (Q43,560 sf/acre)
B. Public Hearing Notice for June 11, 2001 reads 4.16 acres (which equals 180,774 sf)
How did the acreage increase from one drawing to another? Which figure is
correct?
2, Staff Report, Section III, page 8, Site Information:
ERROR: Seconded sentence reads "The western half..." however, it should read, "The eastern
half..."
3. Planned Developments 18.350.020 (Staff Report, Section VI, pg 9)
C. A new planned development overlay zone...
Base Zone Development Standards 18.350 070
Al. States" ..,minimum lot size,... shall not apply except as related to the densijy computation
i under
j Ch 18.715
i
Comment: (See Density Calculation spreadsheet - attached)
i
i
Staff Report ERROR on pg. 12 "maximum density allowed on the site
without the sensitive land areas would be 13, not "approximately 21 units".
s And if the public right-of-way and private street is also excluded the
maximum density would be 18.
In either case, the Density Bonus request must be eliminatedfreduced on
Staff Report, pg. 12.
C:Wy DocumerdsWawtey Oevefopmeafletue Heron Suidiv-doc
Kessler 6/11101 1
Density Calcul. 18.370,.715
Density Calculation 18.715.020
Calculation #1
4.09 r4.15 4.09 4.15
Gross Acreage in sf 178160 178160 180,774
LESS LESS
wetlands 23,564 23,563 Tract C 50,680 50,680
steep 725% 17,421 17,421 Tract a 40,290 40,290
drainage 6,452 6,462
130,713 133,328
public rt of way
20% of gross 35,632 36,155
prime Streets 18,100 15,100 TractA 18,100 18,100
Net dev. area 76,981 79,073 69,090 71,704
At 7500 si/R4.5 detached 10 11 9 10
At 10,000 sf/R4.5 duplex 8 8 7 7
Min. & Max. Densities 18.510.040
A. 'Min. at 80% of Rmaxin un
detached 8 8 7 8
duplex 6 6 6 6
Calculation #2
Ac"um 4.09 4.15 4.09 4.15
Gross Acreage inaf 178,160 180,774 178,160 180,774
LESS
Wic rt of way 1
20% of roes 35,632 36,155 35,632 36.155
pivate streets -18,100 18100 Tract A 18,100 18,100
Net dev. area 124,428 126,519 124,428 126,519
At 7500 sf/R4.5 detached 17 17 17 17
At 10,000 sf/R4.5 duplex 12 13 12 13
Min. 8. Max. Densities 18.510.040
A- 'Min. at 80% of niwdffxm density'
detached 13 13 13 13
duplex 10 10 10 10
Maximum Density if the site had no sensitive land areas
Staff report states that maximum density "would be approximately 21 dwelling units."
(Staff Report: . 12 of 37~
Comment: Maximun density appears to be in ERROR. See calculations below.
Per Calculation #1
Acreage in sf 178,160 180,774 178,160 180,774
At 7500 of/R4.5 detached 23.75 24.10 24 24
At 10,000 sf/R4.5 duplex 17.82 18.08 18 18
Per Calculation #2
Net dev. area 124,428 126,519 124,428 126,519
At 7500 sf/R4.5 detached 16.59 16.87 17 17
At 10,000 sf/R4.5 duplex 12.44 12.65 12 13
Doc/H"Iey/ Density Calcul. 18.370,.715
4. Variances 18.370.010
82. "An applicant who is proposing to vary a specification standard for lots yet to be created
through a subdivision process may not utilize the variance procedures unless otherwise
specified in Ch 18.730.030, Zero Lot Line Setback Standards, or Ch 18.430, Subdivisions
5.Subdivisions 18.430
Purpose is to
A4. ..."...lesson congestion in the streets...."
Comment:
18 units w!2 or more vehicles = 36t vehicles at the intersection of Walnut St. &
120 with a curve in Walnut St. on the west approaching the intersection at this
subdivision and a hill on the east.
No signal lights at that intersection are in the plan.
With this situation and the study stating that this subdivision would produce 180
trips per day onto Walnut, this is a dangerous situation which will contribute to
more accidents. (See Staff Report, pg. 34, Traffic Study Findings)
6.Gen. Provision 18.430.020
D. "Lot averagipZ Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed
in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than
allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall be less
than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying district"
Comment:
Zone R-4.5 = 7,500 sf lots. 80% = 6,000 not 3.800 sf. averacle
7. Adiustments Authorized 18.430.060
A. "Granting of adjustments. Adjustments to the subdivision regulations prescribed by this
title may be authorized by the Director. and application shall be made with a preliminary
plan application in accordance with Section 18.430.050. Criteria for granting such
adjustments are contained in Section 18.370.020 Cl."
(430.050 refers to Submission Requirements: Preliminary Plat)
370.020 C 1 Special Adjustments: "Adjustments to development standards within
subdivisions (18.430). The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the
same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved.
approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds:
I a "There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual
and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated
c:Wiy Documeft\Hmft Dev knxr#eM\8lue Heron subdiv..doc
Kessler 6/11/01 2
Comment: "If the special circumstances or conditions" are that this acreage
contains "sensitive land"; the owner knew when he purchased the property that this
area could not be developed: Therefore, there is no reason for special
adjustments.
1 b "The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision;"
Comment: Adjustment is NOT necessary; Subdivision can be changed to comply
with standard codes for R-4.5 zone and then no adjustment is necessary.
lc "The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property,"
Comment: Such an adjustment is detrimental to the safety of drivers and foot
traffic because of the increased vehicle conjestion.
It is also injurious to the rights of other property owners.
The eight (8) units bordering the south property line are designed to have windows
with direct view into my home and patio. No fencing or screening is proposed and
without it my privacy in my own house is compromised as is my safety.
Id. "The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from
strict compliance with the regulations of this title."
Comment: This is not an extraordinary hardship. The owner knew when he
purchased the property approximately 15 years ago, and lived on the property for most of
those years, that the "wetland/sensitive area" could not be developed. For that very
reason, his purchase price was probably much lower than similar property without the
sensitive land. He would be the first to attempt to restrict any similar development that
adjoined his property.
Ex.: Due to codes and restrictions for building on "sensitive land", we were only
allowed to build one single-family residence on 9.8 acres with difficulty in placement of the
house, and that was not seen an "extraordinary hardship" because of sensitive land
through my property and no adjustments were given to us.
See Density Calculation spreadsheet
c:V4 Oocumq tsWawtey Developmenttt3lue Heron subdiv..doc
Kessler 6/11 101 3
8. Design Compatibility Standards 18.720
Purpose 18.720.010 design compatibility between attached single-family residential when
abutting detached single-family districts'...:
1. Ensure that structures do not present excessive visual mass or bulk to
adjoining properties;
4. Encourage architectural design that integrates well with adjoining
development.
Comments:
18 two-story units, 10 feet apart, towering above my back yard is excessive visual
mass or bulk.
2-story attached units do not integrate well into the Walnut St. one-level ranch style
homes.
A. Design transition... 18.720.30 When... attached single-family project abuts property zoned
for detached single-family, the following design standards shall apply:
1. Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property
line.
Comments:
Per page10, 4a of Staff Report: "Buildings on Lots 7-12 maintain the required 15
foot rear yard setback. HOWEVER,
"Exceptions to Building Height Limitations 18.730.020
C2. Maximum height for an attached single-family residential structure on a lot having sole
access from a private drive is 1 '/z stories or 25 ft, whichever is less, except that maximum height
may be 2'/z stories or 35 feet, whichever is less, provided:
d. Windows 15 feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling unit windows or
patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal includes an agreement to plant trees capable of
mitigating direct views, or that such trees exist and will be preserved."
Comment:
Kessler home (behind units 9,10, 11 & 12) is situated below the grade of the
proposed two story units along the abutting property line. Although the height of
the proposed units will be 25 ft or less, the ground level of these units will be at
much higher elevation than the main level of my home, SO any windows on the
back of these units will view directly into my home and patio just as if the units
were 35 feet or possibly more.
Therefore, I request the Commission to direct that no windows be allowed facing
my home on the second floor level and that an eight (8) foot high, black
chain link. 11.5 gauge fence be installed by the developer along the entire
south property of this subdivision, and that with privacy slates be installed in
the fence the full distance from the SW corner property line to the SE comer
of proposed lot for unit 7.
C:Wy DocumnWHawley Developm \Blue Heron Subdiv-dec
Kessler 6/11/01 4
9. Ch 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening (FENCE)
Comment:
The proposed improved Private Drive with Public Sidewalks and pathway leading to the
sensitive area will Invite foot traffic from both Walnut St. and the subdivision. Since the
current natural property barriers along the south property line of the subdivision will be
removed and no property line fencing is proposed to curtail egress onto abutting property
to the south (Kessler property), I respectfully request the Planning Commissions to
include a condition that a fence (black chain link 11.5 -gauge, 8 feet high) from
the SW comer to the SE comer of the subdivision propertl be installed by
the developer.
The chain link fence requested will mitigate obstruction of the visual beauty-and
enjoyment of the sensitive area that spans both properties while simultaneously defining
the space allocated to the subdivision and eliminate trespassers on abutting south
properties as well as trespassers to the subdivision. I believe that residences of a high-
end, gated, residential park as this would also expect the perimeter to be fenced for their
privacy and safety. I further request that privacy slates be installed in this chain link
fence behind proposed units 9, 10, 11 & 12 to protect the privacy of residents on both
sides of this fence.
This request is in compliance with
Ch 18.745.050 Buffering and Screen
A4. Purpose. By using trees and other landscaping materials to mitigate the effects of
the sun, wind, noise and lack of privacy by the provision of buffering or screening."
and
Al. "General Provision. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for
privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise
pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring
properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles;
I have previously had incidences of trespassers who travel west on Alberta St., down my
private drive which is posted "private property, in to my yard, along the side of my house
to the back and over the 4 foot fence on my west property line, across neighboring
property to Walnut St. and in one case, this was a person with a bicycle.
Tigard police were called and sat watch on Alberta St. at different times for the
trespasser.
Alberta St. neighbor, Nancy Kelly, has reported trespassers traveling along my east
property line to and from the northeast comer of my property traveling on the southeast.
comer of the Hawley property. Her "large dog" alerts her to such trespassers.
Both Nancy Kelly and I are single, working property owners who are concerned about our
safety. This fencing will help to insure our protection and keep our Alberta St.
C:W1y oocumentswawley Deve4oprnent\13lue Heron Subdiv-doc
Kessler 6/11101 5
neighborhood secure as well as providing a safety feature for the proposed subdivision
residents.
SUBMIT as part of this hearing:
PETITdON signed by neighbors opposing the high density on the small part of the
acreage.
PET~I'ION signed by Alberta St. neighbors supporting the need for a fence along
the south property of this subdivision.
STATEMENT written and signed by Doug & Nancy Nash of Alberta St.
10. Staff Rep rt Section VI, TREE REMOVAL: CIS 18.790 pg. 27 of 37
Comment: TREES at SW corner of (proposed subdivision
In previous discussion with Judith Farmer of Alpha Engineering, and noted
on a map by Alpha, I was told five (5) trees would remain along the property line as
required by the City of Tigard. However, in a discussion 6/8101 with Kevin Young,
Tigard Planning., I was told the all but one (1) of the five (5) trees will be taken out.
This impacts my trees since my trees are close to the property line
where trees will be removed and root systems are most likely intangled.
What action and financial assurance is proposed to protect my trees?
Nothing in the Staff Report address damage to trees on neighboring properties.
I hereby request written assurance that every possible action will be taken
to mitigate any damage to or loss of my trees and that, if there is tree damage or
loss, or damage to my home after tree removal on this subdivision, I will be
adequately compensated.
I
t, Margie Kessler, request that the record remain open for at
least seven (7) days after this hearing.
c:%1y oocumeWs\Hawley Devebpaw tOlue Heron Subdiv..doo
Kessler 6/t 1/01 6
June 6, 2001
To Whom It Concerns:
We, Doug and Nancy Nash, own a residence at 12270 S.W. Alberta. We are very much opposed
to the the new Blue Heron Park Subdivision's proposed changes in zoning.
For years now the residents of Alberta Street have worked to be a united street. We have a
communication system that keeps everyone informed about taking care of each other. We try to
always be good neighbors. Most of the residents are long time and have seen many changes in the
area.
What concerns us now is the tremendous impact on traffic that will occur if this zoning is
changed. There are so many developments going in right now that Walnut and 121 st are
becoming major traffic routes. It seems to us that if the zoning was put there in the first place,
then it should stay that zoning instead of changing right and left at the whim of a developer.
We are also concerned with increased traffic of strangers passing through our dead end street.
Margie Kessler owns the land that abuts the development. At this point there is no protection
from trespassers who will cut across her land to get to 121 St. Right now this is not a problem but
if that development goes in without any form of fencing a lot of people will be using her property
and our dead end street as a short cut.
By coming across her property, she could become liable for injuries that could occur to a
trespasser. Having the developer install a six-foot tall, 11.5 gauge chain link fence along the 450
foot south property line would help stop trespassing on private property and stop foot traffic
through the street from people who have no business passing through.
The city of Tigard has had problems in the past with lawsuits. If this fencing were not to go in
then the city could have future lawsuits facing them. Having the developer provide the fencing
would eliminate the majority of future problems, that could occur and prevent future lawsuits
against the city for failing to protect its citizens.
If North Dakota can be turned into a one way entrance street then surely we should be protected
also. We therefore request that if this development goes iij in whatever density, that a fence be
installed to restrict all foot travel across private property.
We want to keep our neighborhood safe and secure and this would be a good start to that.
Z. Sincer
E. Nash
Nancy Lou Nash
12270 S.W. Alberta Street
Tigard, OR 97223
PETITION
To Disapprove the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
The proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision with 18 units will impact the surrounding
neighborhoods dramatically with a large population in an area zoned "low density".
We oppose the request for a zoning change from low density to high density and the
variance to a lot sizes of less than 7,500 square feet.
Name & Address & Date
LAD )-41n<
O SCIJ Lsrh
-e je.1 9. -S z~ w I, I- q of
C" V- tj- c I2 u) b
a
a
i
3
PETITION
To Disapprove the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
The proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision with 18 units will impact the surrounding
neighborhoods dramatically with a large population in an approximate two (2) acre area,
after subtraction of the restricted area, and in an area zoned "low density".
We oppose the request for a zoning change from low density to high density and the
variance to a lot sizes of less than 7,500 square feet.
Name & Address & Date
C.rS/cv~
-~4C-•~~ _ /1 7 ~~L(~A'\. ~~.-a1~~ ~~C~..(~.C1(.~' •oJI1rrG-c1•'~i '~T7 ~%7J-S~S
it d. CLC r c;'-7:2 7
z ~5 e :rSiv L~ % 7Zz3 6
1-2
cJ = 3 E <
A
/ za sf y o~.° 9r2z3
InY
' T L1 ~ZL _ ,
L2tV5 sL,--) r G t2
!,7 7
2 03cJ / 6~A;i
70 a - 7- yo- -t 6-7
` 3` l1- G.~ .22 of/
_-07
A A. ci-72i -a
l T1
~ a , Qu Sck ILS?.v hc.7G.'~-~5- l c~+~ 1Ji.'~ ~1 X223 (~/~~o/
.vZ 9ed ~sicJ cS c 'P,12-23 &1V19,
M, " 2,4 3 S w Wv l1.~ s-f- 0,0- u3 ~1~r~O /
PETITION
To Fence the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
In the event that Blue Heron Park Subdivision is approved, we request that fencing be
required by the development.
We, the residents of Alberta Street (a dead end street ) are the neighborhood adjoining the
proposed subdivision via property owned by Margie Kessler. We are a friendly
neighborhood who have worked together to maintain a safe and secure neighborhood free
of trespassers and crime.
One of the major concerns for the Alberta Street neighborhood is the foot travel that will
cut across the Kessler property and use Alberta Street. We believe that this development
should protect the privacy of the Kessler property as well as that of the Alberta Street
neighborhood. We therefore request that the developer of this subdivision be required to
install a six-foot tall, 11.5 gauge chain link fence along the 450 foot south property line to
restrict the travel of anyone residing in or entering the subdivision from Walnut Street.
Name & Address & -Date 2.1
- r '.i• rye' L ~ ~ ~•~•U~
r 3 c r A-C t A S-) : U ' 3 c 1
•7 5~U'1 5 A Ibrr~2 jf ~aasr~- Q~° 99223
1.0 i245;p sLL t t T D r. .may 3 /7
L,Of Z y3
uJ
f 2270 Sw ® D/
1 2 o e G DI
''j?~or c.~u~.i< /aya-ez- suJ # 1A,
~r st o'1 ' ,el aY° %7x 3 ~o/i%I
PETITION
To Disapprove the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
The proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision with 18 units will impact the surrounding
neighborhoods dramatically with a large population in an approximate two (2) acre area,
after subtraction of the restricted area, and in an area zoned "low density".
We oppose the request for a zoning change from low density to high density and the
variance to a lot sizes of less than 7,500 square feet.
Name & Address & Date
,I akK1
a3
trAld Qiay-d Ck 6?7,g
01
Di
Attachment 6
CITY OF TIG D
OREGON
July 9, 2001
Ms. Susan Baxter
12230 SW Lansdowne Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Ms. Baxter:
Your July 6, 2001, letter to the Tigard City Council regarding the appeal of the Blue
Heron Park Subdivision was received at City Hall today. Your letter will be entered
into the record as written testimony and submitted to the City Council with the packet
of information they will receive for the hearing on this matter. The appeal hearing is
tentatively scheduled for 7:30 p.m., July 24, 2001, at the Town Hall at City Hall.
Thank you for taking the time to submit written testimony. If you have any questions,
please contact either Associate Planner Kevin Young or me at 503-639-4171.
Sincerely,
C
V
Catherine Wheatley
City Recorder
c: Kevin Young, Associate Planner
Bill Monahan, City Manager
k=MATHY COUNGLACKNOWLEOGEMENT - BAXTEROOC
13125 SW Hall Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772' 1
e
Tigard City Council July 6, 2001
Town Hall of the Tigard Civic Center
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223 RECEDED C•OT'
RE: "Appeal of Blue Heron Park Subdivision" JUL 0 9 2901
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: Adrninistra$ion
I have never written a letter like this and for all I know it may never reach the hands that
it should. It is impossible for my husband and myself to attend the Council meeting due
to responsibilities of small business ownership. Nevertheless, I will sleep much better for
having written it.
My husband, Pete, and I have lived on Lansdowne Lane since 1991. We have watched
the denuding of the hillsides in Tigard of trees, as well as tree cutting on streets
surrounding where we live. We have watched displaced wildlife struggle to cohabitate
with human beings and still maintain their lives. We have watched neighbors live with
their lots washing down into the wetlands behind Lansdowne Lane. Somehow the quality
of life in Tigard seems to be slipping. And now Mr. Erroyl Hawley wants to build more
homes in this area. Is he going to do this without disturbing the wetlands or natural
drainage? Is he going to do this and still leave as many trees as possible? We think not.
Understand that neither of us begrudges Mr. Hawley the ability to make money.
Certainly if we owned the property we would want to build on it too. This is an
undeniable truth. But, is the proposal of 18 units a reasonable number given the
geography of the property? Neither of us believes this is reasonable. Especially is this
not reasonable in light of the problems with the property. We believe that the City is
correct in requiring a Sensitive Lands Review. Certainly the City in identifying the
Zoning for this property has already taken into consideration the problems with the
geography of the land. Therefore, neither of us understands why Mr. Hawley cannot
downgrade the amount of buildings he wants to put on that property. After all, 9 homes
equate into an average of 22.5 persons living on that land (an average of 2.5 persons per
home) plus their 18 cars (given 2 cars per family). Did Mr. Hawley pay so much money
for the property that he cannot make any money if he doesn't stop at 9 homes on 7500
square foot lots?
We believe the City to be correct in their denial of the Blue Heron Subdivision the way
the proposal is written. We also hope that the appeal is denied.
Sincerely,
Susan Balder
12230 SW Lansdowne Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
503/590-9708
NONNI
16 July 2001
To: 20p1
Tigard Civic Center 30L $
1125 SW Hall
Tigard, OR 972 B23 lvd A00116'strg on
From:
Garla Isaacson
12520 SW Walnut St
Tigard, OR 97223
To the Tigard City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to raise anew as well as reiterate the concerns of the local
inhabitants and society abutting the proposed development called the Blue Heron Park
subdivision. Although some of these concerns were raised in the earlier meetings, they were not
given the importance and attention I feel is necessary in the commissions approved minutes.
Looking at the development from the street inwards, I take exception to the supposed need for a
gate. There is no other community in the area that has this eyesore. It flies in the face of the
neighborhood spirit of interaction, and engenders the fragmentation of the area socially as well as
personally.
■ Needless to say, the repetitive beeping of the security systems opening and closing warning
systems will be a decided detriment to the livability of the adjacent houses.
■ I am given to understand that the gate will have an open walkway immediately adjacent to the
structure which will provide 24/7 open access to the community for walk up visitors. Where
is it supposed that they park? In the turn lane? Will parking for guests be provided?
■ A gate, we were told, will provide added security for the homeowners in the development.
From what? The deer and fauna they housing is displacing? The long term local inhabitants?
Surely you do not think a mildly interested miscreant is incapable of following a legitimate
resident into the community. Why sell them a false sense of security to merely pander to their
quest for exclusivity? In their response it mentions that it will help retain my property value.
Is this to be accomplished by protecting the community from them?
Is this really going to raise the duplexes pricing that much versus the community damage?
The aforementioned reasons are some of the many that were raised against the inclusion of a gate
in the developments plan, and need consideration in your final deliberations.
Continuing with the street that is proposed, I am concerned about the access situation. It is
inadequate by traffic design planning at this point, and passed off under the guise that "someday"
a second access route can be provided. I was not under the impression that permits were granted
upon hopeful suppositions. Can I as a homeowner tell you that I want to build item "A", and
although I am required to comply NNtAtraffic and safety laws B,C or D, have that granted because
I'm sure I'll get to it someday? I think not.
What exactly is meant by enhancement of the wetlands?
Is the pond going to be made a more acceptable shape and size? Shall it be lined? If so, why
not just call it a pool and be done with it.
How shall it be enhanced to encourage the diverse fauna in the area? The deer are rather
skittish and the other animals are generally not well disposed to human contact. How are the
present animals to be protected?
Since there will probably be massive landscaping and inclusion of lawns in the area, what
measures are being taken to keep the pesticides and fertilizers from polluting the pond and
rendering it a mossy breeding place for innumerable mosquitoes?
For the last 30 years I have enjoyed a happy existence with privacy, quiet, and peace. This home
is my family castle, my retirement, and in many ways, my pride. The rest and solitude this
provides will be impossible to maintain with a 25 ft tall duplex 10 feet from my yard. The
removal of the trees which have provided noise buffering from the street traffic (as well as
housing to a very diverse woodlands animal population) will be replaced by duplexes with their
music, activities and noise generated by their very act of living. As a remedy, I am being told that
they will "mitigate" the noise and loss of privacy. How is this to be accomplished? I was
informed by my neighbors that "some trees would be planted". Granted, a fence that would block
out the unwanted loss of privacy would have to be 25 foot tall, and is unmanageable, but "a few
trees" is similarly absurd.
■ Since the creation of this project is responsible for my loss of quiet, privacy and security I
feel it is their responsibility to build a fence of reasonable height (6-8 ft) to "mitigate" this
loss. Their suggestion that it be the affected homeowners responsibility to provide this
fencing is both an insult and affront of the strongest type. Why should I be responsible to
clean up a problem of their creation and impact on my life, privacy and solitude with my time
and money?
■ Furthermore, this fencing would provide some small measure of security that will be lost by
the removal of the natural barriers of blackberries, brush and inhospitable (to humans) terrain.
■ Tree planting of sufficient density along the fence line should also be done so that, in time,
visibility to the neighboring yards can again be occluded and some measure of privacy
restored.
A matter not given much attention was the method of providing the basic utilities to this
development. Tearing up the street (yes, the very one slated for re-paving soon) will have a direct
impact on the short term quality of life in the area.
What measures are being taken to address this impact? Although the dust, noise and
inconvenience from the construction are somewhat short term, they are real and present
safety concerns as well.
I will be very unhappy to see this project approved, and would ask your vote be cast against it. I
would hate to see the quality of life I have worked so hard to maintain and obtain, be taken from
me in my latter years by another in their quest for cash. Please think before you vote about the
impact to the wildlife, community and social texture of the neighborhood your actions will affect.
~0
• 3
C : V, ti !Blurt
07/17/01
Cathy:
Please distribute the enclosed testimonial for the 07-24-01 City Council
Meeting. Thanks a lot for your help with my questions regarding this!
Julie Rau
503-520-0800 work
503-579-3753 home
IIIIIIII 'IIIIIINIffi Imi
Blue Heron Park Subdivision Appeal
Testimonial Submitted by:
Julie Rau
12430 SW Walnut St.
Tigard, OR 97223
Mr. Mayor, City Council Members:
With all respect, I am submitting this testimony for your consideration regarding my opposition
to the Blue Heron Park Subdivision Appeal, 12450 SW Walnut St.
I attended the 06-11-01 Planning Commission Meeting, which denied this project. At that
meeting, all testimony either written or verbal was in opposition to this plan. On 07-24-01 an
appeal is scheduled at the City Council Meeting by the applicant.
The developers feel they should be given all consideration and much leeway in variences,
bonuses and flexibility, as a result of M developing the wetlands located on this property.
The owner was well aware that this was a restriction when he purchased the property. I'm
sure the developers are as aware of this stipulation.
Bonuses have been asked by the developers for
-increasing the number of proposed units to 18
- decreasing the size of the lots from 7500 sq. ft. to 3800 sq. ft.
- allowing two-story duplexes in a traditionally ranch style, one-story home
neighborhood.
All these conditions are a result of "bonuses" they would receive from the wetlands they are not
developing, when in fact those wetlands arenon-buildable.
All exceptions in favor of this development do not seem to respect these sensitive wetlands, not
to mention the adverse effects this subdivision will have on all the homes bordering this
project.
My home is located at the proposed "entrance/exit" of the subdivision - a two-way driveway,
approximately 8 feet from my bedroom. I realize my home to these developers is merely "an
existing structure" - but it is my home, with several trees I am most concerned about, either by
being damaged from the removal of other trees or from heavy equipment and machinery coming
and going down this narrow drive. I can honestly say that I purchased this home because of the
trees on the property as well as the beauty of the surrounding forested lots.
My point being, this proposedgated community will make a major impact on my privacy and
increase noise pollution (with this drive being the only access to the project). With the
removal of so many trees and as a result of such a large amount of duplexes "clustered"near my
backyard and the rest of the affected home owners back yards, I feel our property values will no
doubt decrease. "Clustered" is the developers term for the positioning of these buildings. I feel
"crammed" is a more accurate description.
In the near future, I will be losing two 3 ft. diameter douglas firs and approximately 10 ft. of my
front yard, as Tigard will continue its'development of Walnut St., with widening the street and
adding sidewalks. With the increase in traffic out front, along with the traffic flow from the
subdivision (the developers estimate 180 trips per day), I feel I'm in a no win situation.
The developers want to make money, the property owner wants to make money and the City of
Tigard will benefit from this; but with what regard to the "existing structures" - the existing
homes with owners who enjoy living in this neighborhood and call it home - many for more than
20 years?
I respectfully ask the City Council members to seriously consider the present, established home
owners in this matter, whose home life styles will be greatly, negatively impacted, should this
appeal be approved. Terms like variences, bonuses and flexibility may indeed become legal, as
situations change and demands rise for answers to favor development and revenues. But
legalities aside, simply because you can do something doesn't always mean you should do
something.
My sincere thanks and appreciation for your time and consideration in this most important
matter.
Julie Rau
Item No. -~t
r®r COUnoll Newsletter detgd • Zd1.O /
July 15, 2001 wco JUL 16 2001
City of Tigard
Planning Commission
RE: Draft of Meeting N imrtes of June 11, 2001 = OMISSIONS
I attended and testified in opposition to the proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision, at the
meeting on June 11, 2001. This "Draft" does not include the following pertinent information
that was discussed at that meeting:
Vos! y BQnus_s: -
3% Undeveloped common space = BOGUS
Applicant's request for density bonus 3% for the undeveloped common space was called
"BOGUS" by commission because it was based on open space preservation of restricted
wetland areas which could not be developed rather than buildable open space
preservation.
1% Private Street = DOUBLE count
The trees in the driveway/private street are existing trees have been counted already in
the 4.3% density bonus for retention of tree canopy allowed under provision of Chapter
18.790. DOUBLE count.
2% Use of e;dsting topography and views = NO
Any units placed on the buildable east end of this property would have a view of to the
east if they have an east window. There is no special "design" for this credit.
1% Architectural quality and building grouping = NO minimized "footprint" of development
when two-story attached units crowded together tower above the neighboring single level
unattached homes on lots larger than 7500 sq. ft.
1Buildiztg WSM limitation:
Units 5 & 6 = 16 foot high foundation + 25 foot house = 41 feet high building
Exceeds the 25 foot height link and therefore not allowed.
Line of vision into Ms. Kessler's home & patio from 2d story of units along south property line
because her home sits approximately 10 ft. below the ground level of the units proposed.
TOM
h inutos fail to address Ms. Kessler's concern for protection of trees on her property which have
entangled root systems with the trees being removed at the southwest property line.
Bug" is restricted in the 50 it. buffer zone
Property Line of Units 5 & 6 is in the buffer area
Foundation of Units 5 & 6 sit in the buffer area.
Sincerely,
Margie K er
s
12425 SW Alberta St.
Tigard, OR 97223 RECD J U L 18 2001
July 17, 2001
City Council
c/o Tigard Planning
RE: Proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision - Opposition
As a neighbor on property abutting the Hawley property, I oppose the proposed subdivision
because it DOES NOT integrate well with adjoining development and the extreme density
will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods and environments.
This area is zoned R4.5 Low Density requiring lot sizes of 7,500 sq. ft. The neighbors adjacent
to these proposed units have one-level homes on lots greater than 7,500 sq. ft. The main level
of my home sits approximately 10 ft. below the ground level of the proposed units and the
eighteen (18) attached two-story units crammed on approximate two acres will definitely
present excessive visual mass or bulk as they tower over neighboring structures. The row of
units along the south property line (unit 9, 10, 11 & 12) will be a "massive wall with windows"
that look into my yard, patio and home. And since all the large fir trees along the south
property line will be removed, this bulk will be even more noticeable. One unit hangs off the
slope to the wetland area and has a 16 ft. concrete foundation plus the two-stories. This
foundation will certainly be an eyesore to surrounding neighbors.
With the tree removal along the south property line (approx. 12 large fir trees), I have great
concern about the preservation and survival of my large fir trees. Other neighbors share this
same concern about trees on their property.
This proposal does not provide for buffering, screening or fencing to mitigate the effect of
noise and lack of privacy, or to ensure safety and to identify property boundaries. The existing
natural buffer, the blackberries are being removed exposing mY ro to introsi
g P PAY on and
trespassing by occupants of the development as well as foot traffic through the development on
the public sidewalk. Without a fence, this subdivision creates a liability for me that should not
be imposed on me.
NINE IMRIII
12425 SW Alberta St.
Tigard, OR 97223
Another concern is the impact to the sensitive lands (wetlands, creek, wildlife, etc.) and the
liability and safety of children going into detention pools and pond.
The additional traffic from 18 more families onto the already busy Walnut St. pose increased
safety hazards. And the traffic noise of vehicles of 18 families passing within only a few feet
of the two neighboring homes on either side of the private street is a major imposition.
Realtors have advised that the neighboring property values will be lower due to this
development.
As confirmed in the June 11, 2001 Hearing with the Planning Commission, Tigard is in good
standing with Metro Urban Growth Boundary goals for housing, so the density presented by
this project is not necessary.
Sincerely,
Margie Kessler
PETITION
To Disapprove the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
The proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision with 18 units will impact the surrounding
neighborhoods dramatically with a large population in an approximate two (2) acre area,
after subtraction of the restricted area, and in an area zoned "low density".
We oppose the request for a zoning change from low density to high density and the
variance to a lot sizes of less than 7,500 square feet.
Name & Address && Date
i-23ov 4ed 4/C. :va s/ /
c
F-6-o/
i23 F- 6- n I
o cJ c =
I 20 Sf- OJT 912Z3
S i.w ~1 S~- r~l Grp 7a l ~7
s S ~.v A-'
Y77
. 2 a , cJ I 6~j /d 1
c -T
t> ey OV 779 r?
IZ2~ 91o r c~ ci -7~~3
a Q~ a ot- I LS Z) Au toe~~ S ?1- Q7~ q ? ZZ3 (p/~~o /
a 9d cLt d
d9le z~3 &AF09i
/u. IA- z 3 S w WoLR^,c•UA C- 22,3, (c,Iglo
JUG i . 8PETITION 2®0'
To (Disapprove the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
The proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision with 18 units will impact the surrounding
neighborhoods dramatically with a large population in an approximate two (2) acre area,
after subtraction of the restricted area, and in an area zoned "low density".
We oppose the request for a zoning change from low density to high density and the
variance to a lot sizes of less than 7,500 square feet.
Name & Address & Date
JU
PETITION MTV
To Disapprove the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
The proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision with 18 units will impact the surrounding
neighborhoods dramatically with a large population in an area zoned "low density".
We oppose the request for a zoning change from low density to high density and the
variance to a lot sizes of less than 7,500 square feet.
Name & Address & Date
Esau= Now Now=
k2 Y7 n kL) L tzg---1 p
a i
z~ w ~ of
?d s
i
{
{
{
f
MEW
top
%1114
PETITION 1
To Disapprove the Proposed ®Or
Brae Heron Park Subdivision
The proposed Blue Heron Park Subdivision with 18 units will impact the surrounding
neighborhoods dramatically with a large population in an approximate two (2) acre area,
after subtraction of the restricted area, and in an area zoned "low density".
We oppose the request for a zoning change from low density to high density and the
variance to a lot sizes of less than 7,500 square feet.
Name & Address & Date
lv-ll LA}. Zz J
29--1 SL-u, On
i a= J24= C-1
7227
-hJ I
PETITION 'JIJ4 'r 8200
To Fence the Proposed
Blue Heron Park Subdivision
In the event that Blue Heron Park Subdivision is approved, we request that fencing be
required by the development.
We, the residents of Alberta Street (a dead end street ) are the neighborhood adjoining the
proposed subdivision via property owned by Margie Kessler. We are a friendly
neighborhood who have worked together to maintain .a safe and secure neighborhood free
of trespassers and crime.
One of the major concerns for the Alberta Street neighborhood is the foot travel that will
cut across the Kessler property and use Alberta Street. We believe that this development
should protect the privacy of the Kessler property as well as that of the Alberta Street
neighborhood. We therefore request that the developer of this subdivision be required to
install a six-foot tall, 11.5 gauge chain link fence along the 450 foot south property line to
restrict the travel of anyone residing in or entering the subdivision from Walnut Street.
Name & Address ate
7-V 9-
d - ~0
6~. 1 C y -r✓j
cr, R.-'- - --azo
-o /
Z C -,6
= LlJ ' G C ~l
G o i l
Cil
, /zs/a0 sr~ Alhe
09 r Sur t t T o. ~f~Y 7V3 (01-7
1 Gt~~ 4-/i
c 3 G~`7
' f2ZZo GIAJ B O/
L r' /27--/V 5k) ~a3
uj, r s~.~ u s /a SF~ ~ suJ ~r s 0'1 ' A 4 97z~3 r%%!
MEMO
June 6, 2001 1 C~ JU`
To Whom It Concerns: 8Z®®'
We, Doug and Nancy Nash, own a residence at 12270 S.W. Alberta. We are very much opposed
to the the new Blue Heron Park Subdivision's proposed changes in zoning.
For years now the residents of Alberta Street have worked to be a united street. We have a
communication system that keeps everyone informed about taking care of each other. We try to
always be good neighbors. Most of the residents are long time and have seen many changes in the
area.
What concerns us now is the tremendous impact on traffic that will occur if this zoning is
changed. There are so many developments going in right now that Walnut and 121 st are
becoming major traffic routes. It seems to us that if the zoning was put there in the first place,
then it should stay that zoning instead of changing right and left at the whim of a developer.
We are also concerned with increased traffic of strangers passing through our dead end street.
Margie Kessler owns the land that abuts the development. At this point there is no protection
from trespassers who will cut across her land to get to 121st. Right now this is not a problem but
if that development goes in without any form of fencing a lot of people will be using her property
and our dead end street as a short out.
By coming across her property, she could become liable for injuries that could occur to a
trespasser. Having the developer install a six-foot tall, 11.5 gauge chain link fence along the 450
foot south property line would help stop trespassing on private.property and stop foot traffic
through the street from people-who have no business passing through.
The city of Tigard has had problems in the past with lawsuits. If this fencing were not to go in
then the city could have future lawsuits facing them. Having the developer provide the fencing
would eliminate the majority of future problems that could occur and prevent future lawsuits
against the city for failing to protect its citizens.
If North Dakota can be turned into a one way entrance street then surely we should be protected
also. We therefore request that if this development goes irk in whatever density~that a fence be
installed to restrict all foot travel across private property.
I
We want to keep our neighborhood safe and secure and this would be a good start to that.
Sincer
E. Nash c
Nancy Lou Nash
12270 S.W. Alberta Street
Tigard, DR 97223
C
07/17/01
Cathy:
Please distribute the enclosed testimonial for the 07-24-01 City Council
Meeting. Thanks a lot for your help with my questions regarding this!
Julie Rau
503-520-0800 work
503-579-3753 home .
Blue Heron Park Subdivision Appeal
'T'estimonial Submitted by:
Julie Rau
12430 SW Walnut St.
Tigard, OR 97223
Mr. Mayor, City Council Members:
With all respect, I am submitting this testimony for your consideration regarding my opposition
to the Blue Heron Park Subdivision Appeal, 12450 SW Walnut St.
I attended the 06-11-01 Planning Commission Meeting, which denied this project. At that
meeting, all testimony either written or verbal was in opposition to this plan. On 07-24-01 an
appeal is scheduled at the City Council Meeting by the applicant.
The developers feel they should be given all consideration and much leeway in variences,
bonuses and flexibility, as a result of 3»z developing the wetlands located on this property.
The owner was well aware that this was a restriction when he purchased the property. I'm
sure the developers are as aware of this stipulation.
Bonuses have been asked by the developers for.
-increasing the number of proposed units to 18
- decreasing the size of the lots from 7500 sq. ft. to 38M sq. ft.
- allowing two-story duplexes in a traditionally ranch style, one-story home
neighborhood.
All these conditions are a result of "bonuses" they would receive from the wetlands they are not
developing, when in fact those wetlands arenon~buildable.
All exceptions in favor of this development do not seem to respect these sensitive wetlands, not
to mention the adverse effects this subdivision will have on all the homes bordering this
project.
My home is located at the proposed "entrance/exit" of the subdivision - a two-way driveway,
approximately 8 feet from my bedroom. I realize my home to these developers is merely "an
existing structure" - but it is my home, with several trees I am most concerned about, either by
being damaged from the removal of other trees or from heavy equipment and machinery coming
and going down this narrow drive. I can honestly say that I purchased this home because of the
trees on the property as well as the beauty of the surrounding forested lots.
lam
My point being, this proposed gated community will make a major impact on my privacy and
increase noise pollution (with this drive being the only access to the project). With the
removal of so many trees and as a result of such a large amount of duplexes "clustered"near my
backyard and the rest of the affected home owners back yards, I feel our property values will no
doubt decrease. "Clustered" is the developers term for the positioning of these buildings. I feel
"crammed" is a more accurate description.
In the near future, I will be losing two 3 ft. diameter douglas firs and approximately 10 ft. of my
front yard, as Tigard will continue its'development of Walnut St., with widening the street and
adding sidewalks. With the increase in traffic out front, along with the traffic flow from the
subdivision (the developers estimate 180 trips per day), I feel I'm in a no win situation.
The developers want to make money, the property owner wants to make money and the City of
Tigard will benefit from this; but with what regard to the "existing structures" - the existing
homes with owners who enjoy living in this neighborhood and call it home - many for more than
20 years?
I respectfully ask the City Council members to seriously consider the present, established home
owners in this matter, whose home life styles will be greatly, negatively impacted, should this
appeal be approved. Terms like variences, bonuses and flexibility may indeed become legal, as
situations change and demands rise for answers to favor development and revenues. But
legalities aside, simply because you can do something doesn't always mean you should do
something.
My sincere thanks and appreciation for your time and consideration in this most important
matter.
G~ 6~
Julie Rau
f
z
s
IN,
16 July 2001
To: R~C~~VED C• ~
Tigard Civic Center
13125 SW Hall Blvd ;S$r8AM,
Tigard, OR 97223 A~~31Y1
From:
Garla Isaacson
12520 SW Walnut St
Tigard, OR 97223
To the Tigard City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to raise anew as well as reiterate the concerns of the local
inhabitants and society abutting the proposed development called the Blue Heron Park
subdivision. Although some of these concerns were raised in the earlier meetings, they were not
given the importance and attention I feel is necessary in the commissions approved minutes.
Looking at the development from the street inwards, I take exception to the supposed need for a
gate. There is no other community in the area that has this eyesore. It flies in the face of the
neighborhood spirit of interaction, and engenders the fragmentation of the area socially as well as
personally.
Needless to say, the repetitive beeping of the security systems opening and closing warning
systems will be a decided detriment to the livability of the adjacent houses.
■ I am given to understand that the gate will have an open walkway immediately adjacent to the
structure which. will provide 24/7 open access to the community for walk up visitors. Where
is it supposed that they park? In the turn lane? Will parking for guests be provided?
■ A gate, we were told, will provide added security for the homeowners in the development.
From what? The deer and fauna they housing is displacing? The long term local inhabitants?
Surely you do not think a mildly interested miscreant is incapable of following a legitimate
resident into the community. Why sell them a false sense of security to merely pander to their
quest for exclusivity? In their response it mentions that it will help retain my property value.
Is this to be accomplished by protecting the community from them?
Is this really going to raise the duplexes pricing that much versus the community damage?
The aforementioned reasons are some of the many that were raised against the inclusion of a gate
in the developments plan, and need consideration in your final deliberations.
Continuing with the street that is proposed, I am concerned about the access situation. It is
inadequate by traffic design planning at this point, and passed off under the guise that "someday"
a second access route can be provided. I was not under the impression that permits were granted
upon hopeful suppositions. Can I as a homeowner tell you that I want to build item "A", and
although I am required to comply with traffic and safety laws B,C or D, have that granted because
I'm sure I'll get to it someday? I think not.
What exactly is meant by enhancement of the wetlands?
Is the pond going to be made a more acceptable shape and size? Shall it be lined? If so, why
not just call it a pool and be done with it.
111111111111,111mi IMMUNE
■ How shall it be enhanced to encourage the diverse fauna in the area? The deer are rather
skittish and the other animals are generally not well disposed to human contact. How are the
present animals to be protected?
■ Since there will probably be massive landscaping and inclusion of lawns in the area, what
measures are being taken to keep the pesticides and fertilizers from polluting the pond and
rendering it a mossy breeding place for innumerable mosquitoes?
For the last 30 years I have enjoyed a happy existence with privacy, quiet, and peace. This home
is my family castle, my retirement, and in many ways, my pride. The rest and solitude this
provides will be impossible to maintain with a 25 ft tall duplex 10 feet from my yard. The
removal of the trees which have provided noise buffering from the street traffic (as well as
housing to a very diverse woodlands animal population) will be replaced by duplexes with their
music, activities and noise generated by their very act of living. As a remedy, I am being told that
they will "mitigate" the noise and loss of privacy. How is this to be accomplished? I was
informed by my neighbors that "some trees would be planted". Granted, a fence that would block
out-the unwanted loss of privacy would have to be 25 foot tall, and is unmanageable, but "'a few
trees" is similarly absurd.
■ Since the creation of this project is responsible for my loss of quiet, privacy and security I
feel it is their responsibility to build a fence of reasonable height (6-8 ft) to "mitigate" this
loss. Their suggestion that it be the affected homeowners responsibility to provide this
fencing is both an insult and affront of the strongest type. Why should I be responsible to
clean up a problem of their creation and impact on my life, privacy and solitude with my time
and money?
■ Furthermore, this fencing would provide some small measure of security that will be lost by
the removal of the natural barriers of blackberries, brush and inhospitable (to humans) terrain.
■ Tree planting of sufficient density along the fence line should also be done so that, in time,
visibility to the neighboring yards can again be occluded and some measure of privacy
restored.
A matter not given much attention was the method of providing the basic utilities to this
development. Tearing up the street (yes, the very one slated for re-paving soon) will have a direct
impact on the short term quality of life in the area.
■ What measures are being taken to address this impact? Although the dust, noise and
inconvenience from the construction are somewhat short term, they are real and present
safety concerns as well.
I will be very unhappy to see this project approved, and would ask your vote be cast against it. I
would hate to see the quality of life I have worked so hard to maintain and obtain, be taken from
me in my latter years by another in their quest for cash. Please think before you vote about the
impact to the wildlife, community and social texture of the neighborhood your actions will affect.
0-2
Item No.
For Council Newsletter dated
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council r~
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: July 20, 2001
SUBJECT: Scheduling of Blue Heron Park Subdivision Appeal Hearing
It has come to our attention that the appellant of the Planning Commission's denial of the Blue
Heron Park Subdivision (SUB 2001-00001) has failed to post the site in accordance with code
requirements. Section 18.390.050.6.1 of the Tigard Development Code requires the applicant (or
in this case, the appellant) to post a notice of the upcoming hearing on the development site at
least ten business days prior to the hearing. It is our understanding that the site was posted on
July 19th, which does not allow for the required 10 business days prior to the hearing, scheduled
for July 24th. If this code requirement is not met, the Council's decision on this matter may be
vulnerable on appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, has determined that the best course of action is to
continue the hearing to your next meeting date, on August 14th. In order to limit the amount of time
the Council spends on this matter, our recommendation is to open-the hearing on July 24th, and
then immediately announce that the hearing will be continued on August 14th. In this way we hope
to limit testimony and deliberation on this matter to the August 14th meeting. In the meantime, the
appellant will be mailing notice of the continuance to all citizens who received the original notice,
as well as all persons who testified at the Planning Commission hearing, submitted written
materials, and signed petitions. The notice will state that the actual hearing on the matter will be
held on August 14th. In this way, we hope to limit the amount of time that the Council devotes to
this issue.
mill 111W
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER:
THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,
IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER
om or naAao
Community 0eve4mrne
Sfiapingll Btturcommunity
PUBLIC NERRIFRIG NOTICE
,GUM
orl 11,,~d1
.a. ~ ~ ' f i. i d ? la
Otis, "
a r ~o
I KM
FILE NUMBERS: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2001-00001
ZONE CHANGE I~ZON~Iy20011-00002 (PDR) 2001-00001
VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00002 R) 2001-00003
FILE TITLE: "APPEAL" OF BLUE HERON PARK SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: Urban Development Corporation OWNER: Erroyl Hawley
Attn: At Jeck 9055 SW 91 , Apt. #7
9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223
Portland, OR 97223
APPLICANT'S
REP.: Alpha Engineering, Inc.
Matthew Sprague, Project Planner
9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 230
Portland, OR 97223
ITEM ON APPEAL: On June 11, 2001, the Planning Commission denied a request for approval of an 18-lot
subdivision on 4.15 acres. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached single-family
homes. Lot sizes within the development average just over 3,800 square feet. Development
is proposed to be clustered on the west side of the development site, allowing for the
preservation and enhancement of the pond, wetland, and stream area on the eastern portion
of the property. A sensitive lands review is required for the development due to the presence
of steep slopes, a wetland, and a natural drainageway on the site. On June 22, 2001 an
appeal was filed of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project.
LOCATION: 12450 SW Walnut Street; WCTM 2S103BC, Tax Lot 3900. The project site is located on the
south side of SW Walnut Street, opposite of SW 124' Avenue and west of SW 121"Avenue.
ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate
detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size
of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally.
Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
REVIEW CRITERIA
BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapter 18:390.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER
18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL.
ASSISTiVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO
ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL
INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD -
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE
ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING
PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY
PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL
MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION.
In 11111 Mpg 1111111JJVIgg~
IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7-DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE,
THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR
227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY
REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST
THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE LILY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6).
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF
THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION.
AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO
THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
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 PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY
THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A
COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT
ISSUE.
ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT
NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (254) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE
CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A
COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE
OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (254) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE
TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER KEVIN YOUNG AT (503) 639-4171,
TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223.
VICINITY MAP
e
ea SUB2001.00001
PDR2001.00001
ZON2001.00002
SLR2001.00003
VAR2001.00002
GT _
:lD SIT BLUE HERON PARK
3 SUBDIVISION
~ D
A
rN _ 111 I„1
,MMM
Ci4oi$.fd
III IN xM 1N
ryyl tl 1r,11
iNa lN,rr,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
RE: July 24, 2001 Meeting - Hearing for Blue Heron - Agenda Item No. 6
DATE: July 17, 2001
The applicant's packet material will be sent to the City Council by paper copy. This
information, including maps, will also be available for the public to review in the Tigard
Public Library as well as at the Community Development Departrment Counter in the
Lobby area of City Hall.
1:1ADMICATHIMOUNCILIMEM0 - BLUE HERON APPLICANT INFORMATION.DOC
' l / n I -r-L' L
CESINW
July 23, 2001
Mr. John Roy, Property Manager
CITY OF TIGARD
12800 SW Ash Street.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: COOK PARK EXPANSION PHASE 1- CHANGE ORDER No.1
Dear John:'
The following revised quantities from Northwest Earthmovers, Inc. reflect the construction of the
sports field grading and utilities.
Contract Revised
Contract Rev. Unit Unit Total
No. Description Quantity Otv Unit Price Price Amount
SCHEDULE 1 - SITE IMPROVEMENTS
3a. ADDITIONAL EROSION 1 LS LS 0 $1,020.00 $1,020.00
CONTROL MEASURES
3b. BROADCAST SEED & 0 6.5 AC 0 $1,200.00 $7,800.00
STRAW MULCH
4. STRIPPING 3825 -3825 CY $5.50 0 ($21,037.50)
(In place measurement)
4a. STRIP AND STOCKPILE 0 3850 CY 0 $1.80 $6,930.00
TOPSOIL
.4b. STRIP AND OFFHAUL 0 3850 CY 0 $6.00 $23,100.00
5. EXC. AND EMBANKMENT 1800 -1800 CY $7.20 0 ($12,960.00)
(In place measurement) 5750 CY 0 $5.10 $29,325.00
5a. REPLACE 4" TOPSOIL 0 3460 CY 0 $1.80 $6,228.00
5b. FINE GRADE BALLFIELDS 0 31138 SY 0 $0.20 $6,227.60
6. REMOVE EXCESS MAT. 3000 0 CY $5.50 0 ($16,500.00)
(In place measurement)
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT TO SCHEDULE 1 - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS $30,133.10
CESNW,INC.
15573 SW BANGY RD., STE. 300 LAKE OSWEGO, OR97035
503.968.6655 TEL 503.968.2595 FAX www.ccsnw.com
SCHEDULE 2 - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
21a. 12" PVC (w/nat backfill) 0 298 LF 0 $21.40 $6,377.20
24a. 6" PVC (w/nat backfill) 0 355 LF 0 $16.00 $5,680.00
25a. 4" FRENCH DRAIN 0 612 LF 0 $11.30 $6,915.60
26a. STORM MANHOLE 0 1 EA 0 $1,622.00 $1,622.00
29. LYNCH CATCH BASIN 4 8 EA $521.00 $521.00 $2,084.00
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT TO SCHEDULE 2 - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS $22,678.80
SCHEDULE 3 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
36a. ADJUST EXTG MANHOLE 0 1 EA 0 $816.00 $816.00
37a. SANITARY MANHOLE 0 1 EA 0 $3,308.60 $3,308.60
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT TO SCHEDULE 3 - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS $4,124.60
The total increase in the project contract is $56,936.50.
If you have any questions in this regard please call.
Sincerely, Approved:
CESNW, INC. CITY OF TIGARD
Jeff Vanderdasson, P.E.
Project Manager
1516\Chg-ordl.doc
i
i
i
i
i
3