The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/12/2006 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 12, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED 1: \Ofs\Do n n a's\Ccpkt 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Agenda Item No. , For Agenda of - a 6 - OG Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Date: September 12, 2006 Time: 6:30 p.m. Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding Councilor Sally Harding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Nick Wilson Absent: Councilor Tom Woodruff Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) Study Session ➢ Consideration of Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Management/Professional Group Human Resources Director Zodrow reviewed this Staff will prepare an agenda item with the City Council. TPOA, per contract, item for future City Council received a 3.2 percent cost-of-living adjustment consideration to grant the on July 1, 2006, and the SEIU-represented group City's management/ of City employees will receive the same increase professional group a 3.2 on October 1, 2006. percent cost-of-living adjustment, effective City Council members discussed briefly whether October 1, 2006. to direct staff to prepare an item for a future City Council agenda to grant the management/ professional group a 3.2 percent cost-of-living adjustment, effective October 1, 2006. Council comments were favorable to granting the adjustment based on past practice to provide an increase consistent with that provided to the SEIU/OPEU bargaining unit. ➢ Update on Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Levy Library Director Barnes updated City Council with information on the communication plans for the upcoming Washington County Cooperative Library Levy. She distributed samples of communication brochures and information cards. She also described the types of meetings and Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) events where factual information will be provided. About $100,000/year of additional revenue is estimated to be received by the Tigard Public Library if the levy passes. This funding could restore library open hours, fund additional programs, and be used to purchase more books/library materials. Some of the written materials will be applicable to the City of Tigard library while other pieces would apply county- wide. Tigard-specific information has been reviewed by the City's legal counsel. County-wide information will be reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State's office. ➢ Discuss 2006/07 Pavement Major Maintenance Council will consider Program - Phase 1 Contract formally approving a proposed contract Community Development Director Coffee amendment to perform the reviewed with the City Council information additional work as outlined contained in an August 31, 2006, memorandum in the City Engineer's from City Engineer Gus Duenas on this item. memorandum. Morse Brothers, Inc. was awarded the 2006/07 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Phase 1 contract. As explained in the memo, the bid was significantly lower than the Engineer's estimate, which means that a number of additional projects can be added to this phase. ➢ Discuss Significant Increases for Highway Construction Costs - City Projects Community Development Director Coffee noted a full discussion was not needed on this topic, but wanted to point out increased construction costs will have an impact on City projects. Study Session ➢ Paul Owen introduced his replacement, Darlene continued... Young, the Summerfield Liaison to the City Administrative Council. Mr. Owen said he would continue to Items review water issues. Council members thanked Mr. Owen for his service and welcomed Ms. Young. ➢ TriMet - Commuter Rail Groundbreaking: October 25, 10:30 -11:30 a.m.; Tigard Commuter Rail Station. Mayor Dirksen, the Governor and Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) Senators are scheduled to speak. Councilor Sherwood said she would attend and Councilor Wilson said he would check his schedule and try to attend. TriMet is also planning to hold its Board meeting at Tigard City Hall that day. Mayor Dirksen noted that Washington County Chair Brian has urged City of Tigard to send representatives to the annual "Railvolution" conference as this forum provides good information about commuter rail projects including funding availability. Councilor Wilson said he would be willing to attend. ➢ League of Oregon Cities Conference: September 28-30, Portland Marriott Downtown. Mayor Dirksen and Councilor Woodruff plan to attend. Councilor Sherwood said she would attend for part of the conference. ➢ League of Oregon Cities Hospitality Suite - Hosted by Mayor Dirksen on Thursday, September 28, 5-9 p.m. Staff is preparing some displays of Tigard projects. ➢ City Hall Day: October 19, 7-9 p.m., Town Hall A draft agenda for this event This event will be jointly sponsored by City of will be prepared by City staff Tigard and League of Oregon Cities. Legislative for the Mayor's review. candidates are invited to attend. This will provide an opportunity for elected officials and City Council candidates to ask questions. The program might be recorded for cable television rebroadcast. After discussion, City Council members agreed that the City of Beaverton could also participate. Mayor Dirksen requested efforts be made to make sure that all candidates have an opportunity to speak. ➢ New laptops are set for wi-fi. ➢ Family Festival Update Assistant City Manager Newton reviewed the Festival events held last weekend, including a movie night for middle-school-age children, a "run," genealogy research assistance, and a great Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) fireworks display. Staff made notes on what went well and what could be done better for next year. ➢ National League of Cities Conference: December 5-9, 2006, Reno, Nevada. Mayor Dirksen advised he would attend. Council-candidate Buchner advised she would like to go if elected and Mayor Dirksen recommended that she attend the leadership sessions if possible. Councilor Harding said she would prefer to attend the leadership conference sessions; she will review the information and advise staff of the sessions she selects. ➢ The next 5'h Tuesday is October 31, 2006 Mayor Dirksen said he would (Halloween). Council decided to cancel this prefer to continue to hold the meeting. There was discussion on the low meetings stating he thinks attendance at the 5`h Tuesday meetings and citizens appreciate knowing whether to continue with them. there is this opportunity to talk to the City Council. He suggested providing a way for people to contact the City (e- mail or leaving a telephone message) to sign up for a topic at an upcoming 5`h Tuesday. Assistant City Manager Newton suggested the 5`h Tuesday meetings be reviewed during the Council's goal-setting session in January. ➢ Discuss Commuter Railroad Crossing Plans for City Council asked staff to Main Street and Bonita Road (see September 7, check on signalization plans 2006, memorandum from City Engineer Duenas) to assure that the intersections will be clear of Community Development Director Coffee vehicles when trains travel discussed this item with the City Council. City through. Engineer Duenas's memo noted safety concerns for these streets with commuter trains traveling at 50 to 60 miles per hour. Both TriMet and ODOT Rail Division officials are extremely concerned about crossings where left-turning vehicles can block through traffic resulting in vehicles trapped on the tracks and unable to Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) move. It was recommended that medians be installed as described in City Engineer Duenas's memorandum. Councilor Sherwood noted this is a huge safety concern for the crossing at Bonita Road. Mayor Dirksen pointed out that a no-left-turn on Main would be too restrictive and said that because there is a station at this location, the train would either be slowing down or stopping. ➢ Ballot measures were discussed briefly. Mayor Dirksen noted that City Council members were asked to "weigh-in" on Measure 41. Mayor Dirksen indicated he would support the County's safety levy. Executive The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session Session at 7:17 p.m. to consult with legal counsel regarding litigation likely to be filed under ORS 192.660(2) (h). Executive Session concluded at 7:28 p.m. Additional ➢ Council members received a copy of an argument Study Session opposing the City of Bull Mountain Discussion incorporation prepared by Mr. Phil Decker for the Voter's Pamphlet. ➢ Mayor Dirksen reminded City Council members to review the draft City Center Advisory Commission By-Laws scheduled for discussion at the September 19, 2006, City Council meeting. Business 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and Local Meeting Contract Review Board to Order at 7:34 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Harding, Sherwood, and Wilson. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports Councilor Harding reported on the Washington County Coordinating Committee CCC meeting Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) held last week. WCCC is still trying to identify funding for transportation projects. The Committee is now considering a trip to Washington DC in March rather than October. In October, they are considering hosting a meeting with Senators while they are in this area to attend the Commuter Rail Groundbreaking. The Committee is trying to develop a formula to equitably distribute gas tax funds if that is an option chosen as a funding source. The Committee is still considering traffic impact fees and a possible "MTIP-type" of ballot measure. There is no "concrete direction" decided upon at this time. Councilor Harding gave an update on Goal 5. Tigard is on target with adopting the Program. The Program Implementation Report is out in preliminary draft form. This will be considered for adoption after October. There is still time left to comment and if anyone has an interest in this, they should contact Washington County for a copy. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items None Mayor Dirksen announced that Agenda Item No. 3, to honor the Murrayhill Little League All Star Baseball Team, would not occur this evening due to a scheduling conflict. 2. Mayor Dirksen announced the following Proclamations Proclamations: 2.1 Proclaim September 17-23, 2006, as Constitution Week 2.2 Proclaim September as National Drug Addiction Recovery Month 3. Murrayhill Cancelled. Little League All Star Baseball Team 4. Presentation Mr. Norm Penner, representing the Friends of the from the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge presented Friends of the the Mayor and City Council with a framed print of Tualatin River an American Bittern as an expression of Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) National appreciation for Tigard's support for the Grand Wildlife Refuge Opening Ceremony of the Refuge held on June 3, 2006. The Mayor and City Council extended their thanks to the volunteer efforts of Mr. Penner and the Friends. Mayor Dirksen said he had been honored to be part of the Grand Opening. Construction of the new Visitor Center is underway. 5. Citizen - Tigard High School Student Envoy Jasmina Communication Dizdarevik presented her first update of the school year to the City Council. A copy of her report is on file in the City Recorder's office. - Marland Henderson, 11795 SW Katherine Street, Tigard, OR said he was speaking to the Council to bring awareness of the plight of the mentally ill and their families to everyone's attention. He referenced the Mayor's proclamation of September as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month and advised that 85 percent of those with serious drug and alcohol addictions are also affected by mental illness. He spoke to efforts grounded in "evidence- based practices" whereby support is given to programs that can document their success. Programs are under funded. Councilor Sherwood advised Mr. Henderson that next Tuesday Mr. Howard Spanbock of Luke Dorf, Inc. will brief the Council on mental health and substance abuse services available in Tigard, Washington County and the metro area. City of Tigard and the League of Oregon Cities will host "City Hall Day" on October 19 for people to bring up issues to state legislative candidates. Funding for mental health programs would be a good topic to discuss with the candidates. - Mr. Marvin Bowen, 12562 SW Main Street, Tigard OR 97232 advised he plans to open a Brew Pub on Main Street in about two months. He noted issues with people parking on the street for long periods of time and that parking time limits are not enforced by the Police Department and requested the City Council consider directing enforcement. Mayor Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) Dirksen noted that parking issues have come up on Main Street and it would be good to review the situation downtown. This will be brought to the attention of Police Chief Dickinson. 6. Consent 6.1 Approve Council Minutes for August 8, and 15, Motion by Councilor Agenda 2006 Sherwood, seconded by 6.2 Receive and File: Councilor Wilson, to adopt a. Council Calendar the Consent Agenda. b. Tentative Agenda c. Fifth Tuesday Meeting Notes - August 29, The motion was approved 2006 by a unanimous vote of 6.3 Appoint Kelly Johnson to the Park and Council present. Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) - Resolution No. 06-55 Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes A RESOLUTION APPOINTING KELLY Councilor Sherwood Yes JOHNSON AS A MEMBER OF THE PARK Councilor Wilson Yes AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. 6.4 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County to Share in "Transient Room Tax" Revenues - Resolution No. 06-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY CODE SECTION 3.08.170.B, IN ORDER THAT AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT MAY BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHARING TRANSIENT ROOM TAX REVENUES 6.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Contract Awards to Century West Engineering Corporation for Design Services for the Ash Avenue Extension project and the 97th Avenue and 100`'' Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement b. Award Contract to Landis & Landis for Construction of Pine Street - Street and Storm Drainage Improvements c. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with Murray Smith and Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) Associates, Inc. for Professional Services for 550-Foot Reservoir No. 2 d. Purchase Seven Police Patrol Cars from Gresham Ford 7. Award of Park Manager Plaza and City Forester Stine Motion by Councilor Heritage Tree summarized this agenda item for the City Council. Wilson, seconded by Designations Councilor Sherwood, to Before the City Council is a request to award award Heritage Tree Heritage Tree designations to two trees: a Douglas designations to the Douglas Fir located at 8275 SW Ross Street and a Monkey Fir Tree located at 8275 SW Puzzle tree located at 14530 SW 103'd Avenue. Ross Street, Tigard, Oregon and the Monkey Puzzle Tree City Forester Stine noted that some of the trees located at 14530 SW 103`d designated as heritage trees may need some work; Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. i.e., pruning, soil treatments, etc. Annually the City anticipates spending no more than $2,000 on the The motion was approved Heritage Tree Program and these funds will come by a unanimous vote of from the FY 06/07 park operations budget. Council present. Councilor Harding had suggested previously that Mayor Dirksen Yes high school students might be asked to help identify Councilor Harding Yes heritage trees. If more trees are identified than can Councilor Sherwood Yes be funded for the budget year, an inventory of trees Councilor Wilson Yes for consideration could be established. City Forester Stine reviewed the trees nominated: 1. The Douglas Fir Tree is about 150 years old and is a unique tree. He said it reflects the heritage of the City. 2. The Monkey Puzzle Tree was planted around 1925 per long-time resident Evelyn Nokes. This tree is located near the John Tigard House and is native to South America. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Dirksen, City Forester Stine advised that the Heritage Tree designation is not intended to become a burden to a property owner. In fact, a property owner can request to have the designation removed at any time. Park Manager Plaza suggested that information be added to the City's web page identifying the location of Heritage Trees. Mayor Dirksen suggested a future tour could be offered to view these trees as Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) well as historic buildings. 8. Consider Park Manager Plaza presented information on this Motion by Councilor Acceptance of agenda item to the City Council. Sherwood, seconded by Matching Councilor Wilson, to adopt Funds to The City was notified recently that a grant was Resolution No. 06-57. Construct Jim awarded to the City for the Skate Park if $150,000 in Griffith matching funds would be provided for construction. The motion was approved Memorial Skate by a unanimous vote of Park Funding of the Skate Park will come from Park Council present. SDCs, Donations and the Grant. Mayor Dirksen Yes Michael Kent and Chas Caldwell were also present Councilor Harding Yes and made comments about their plans to use the Councilor Sherwood Yes Skate Park. These two young people also made the Councilor Wilson Yes presentation to the State committee responsible for awarding grant money. The Skate Park should be through the permit process in the next 30 days, construction would begin this fall, and the Grand Opening held next summer. Grant money was also received from Tony Hawk who sent a sketch of a couple of ideas to improve the plans for Tigard's Skate Park. These ideas were incorporated. Donations for the Skate Park would still be appreciated. Tigard was prepared to fully fund the Skate Park if needed; however, because of the grant, more SDC funds can be used to fund other park needs in the City. Councilor Harding noted the growing popularity with this sport over the last several years. This park facility will be well utilized. Mr. Rich Carlson acknowledged a number of contributors over the last five years including Landmark Ford, Tigard Liquor Store, Verizon, GI Joes, and the Tigard Optimists. RESOLUTION NO. 06-57 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A $150,000 STATE OF OREGON LOTTERY Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow up) LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT TO BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JIM GRIFFITH MEMORIAL SKATE PARK 9. Consider Community Development Director Coffee Motion by Councilor Writ of presented the staff report. Sherwood, seconded by Mandamus Councilor Wilson, to Concerning The staff approved the condominium project on approve the staff decision 120-Day June 20, 2006. An appeal was filed on July 6, 2006, including all conditions of Expiration - the 120-day deadline. The appeal hearing was approval for the Longstaff Longstaff scheduled for August 28. A Writ of Mandamus was Condominiums. Condominiums filed on August 24, 2006. (SDR2005- The motion was approved 00011) Options before the Council were to approve the by a unanimous vote of staff decision or direct the City Attorney to contest Council present. the Writ in Circuit Court. Mayor Dirksen Yes Staff and the City Attorney recommended that the Councilor Harding Yes City Council approve the staff decision, including all Councilor Sherwood Yes conditions of approval. Councilor Wilson Yes Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adjourn the City Council meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes 006.," Catherine Wheatley, City Re er Attest: Mayo( City of Tigard Date: 'X"!' oz cp'', a OD iAadm\cathy\ c \2006\060 2.doc ' Revised 9/ 11 /O6 Agenda Item No. 3 will be rescheduled. r F ARD CITY COUNCIL AND CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD, MEETINGS mber 12, 2006 6:30 p.m. TIGARD CITY HALL FD~`~ r~ ! 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: To request to speak to the City Council: ➢ Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available for the agenda item you would like to address: o Sign the Citizen Communication sign-up sheet o During Citizen Communications ask the Mayor if you may speak when the agenda item is considered by the Council. o The Mayor will determine whether public comment will be accepted. ➢ Sign the Citizen Communication sign-up sheet if you would like to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Citizens are asked to keep their remarks to two minutes or less. Longer matters may be set for a future agenda by contacting the Mayor or the City Manager. ➢ If you need assistance determining how to sign in, please speak to the staff greeter who will be near the entrance to Town Hall before the Council meeting. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (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, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION ➢ Consideration of Cost of Living Adjustment for Management/Professional Group Update on Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Levy Discuss 2006/07 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Phase 1 Contract ➢ Discuss Significant Increases for Highway Construction Costs - City Projects • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to consult with legal counsel regarding litigation likely to be filed under ORS 192.660(2)(h). 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(4), 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. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order: City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. PROCLAMATIONS 2.1 Proclaim September 17-23, 2006, as Constitution Week 2.2 Proclaim September as National Drug Addiction Recovery Month • Mayor Dirksen TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 2 Item 3 will be rescheduled. 7:40 PM 3. HONOR STD D A VLTTT T LITTLE LEAGUE ATT STU=D BASEBALL T-EAM F-0D T44EzR PERFO QO'aAr 4G AT TuE LITTLE LEAGUE WORLD SERIES 7:45 PM 4. PRESENTATION OF APPRECIATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE • Presentation to the City Council by a Representative from the Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 7:55 PM 5. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Jasmina Dizdarevic • Citizen Communications - Sign Up Sheet • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication 8:00 PM 6. 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: 6.1 Approve Council Minutes for August 8, and 15, 2006 6.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda c. Fifth Tuesday Meeting Notes - August 29, 2006 6.3 Appoint Kelly Johnson to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) - Resolution No. 06- 6.4 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County to Share in "Transient Room Tax" Revenues 6.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Contract Awards to Century West Engineering Corporation for Design Services for the Ash Avenue Extension project and the 97th Avenue and 100th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement b. Award Contract to Landis & Landis for Construction of Pine Street - Street and Storm Drainage Improvements c. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with Murray Smith and Associates, Inc. for Professional Services for 550-Foot Reservoir No. 2 d. Purchase Seven Police Patrol Cars from Gresham Ford • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for S4arate 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. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 3 8:10 PM 7. CONSIDER AWARD OF HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATIONS a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion C. Consideration: Motion to Award Heritage Tree Designations to the Douglas Fir Tree located at 8275 SW Ross Street, Tigard, Oregon and the Monkey Puzzle Tree located at 14530 SW 103rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 8:20 PM 8. CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF MATCHING FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT JIM GRIFFITH MEMORIAL SKATE PARK a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 06- 8:25 PM 9. CONSIDERATION OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONCERNING 120-DAY EXPIRATION - LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS (SDR2005-00011) a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to approve the staff decision including all conditions of approval for the Longstaff Condominiums (SDR2005-00011) 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS 12. 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 statute. 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(4), 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. 8:45 PM 13. ADJOURNMENT i:tadmkathy\cca12006\060912.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 4 4 F ARD CITY COUNCIL ANDCONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETINGSmber 12, 2006 6:30 p.m. ~1 TIGARD CITY HALL 17 ~ T-` 13125 SW HALL BLVD ~TIGARD, OR 97223 ° - PUBLIC NOTICE: To request to speak to the City Council: ➢ Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available for the agenda item you would like to address: o Sign the Citizen Communication sign-up sheet o During Citizen Communications ask the Mayor if you may speak when the agenda item is considered by the Council. o The Mayor will determine whether public comment will be accepted. ➢ Sign the Citizen Communication sign-up sheet if you would like to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Citizens are asked to keep their remarks to two minutes or less. Longer matters may be set for a future agenda by contacting the Mayor or the City Manager. ➢ If you need assistance determining how to sign in, please speak to the staff greeter who will be near the entrance to Town Hall before the Council meeting. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (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, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (IDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION ➢ Consideration of Cost of Living Adjustment for Management/Professional Group ➢ Update on Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Levy ➢ Discuss 2006/07 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Phase 1 Contract ➢ Discuss Significant Increases for Highway Construction Costs - City Projects • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to consult with legal counsel regarding litigation likely to be filed under ORS 192.660(2)(h). 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(4), 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. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order: City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PROCLAMATIONS 2.1 Proclaim September 17-23, 2006, as Constitution Week 2.2 Proclaim September as National Drug Addiction Recovery Month • Mayor Dirksen TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 2 3. HONOR MURRAYHILL LITTLE LEAGUE ALL-STAR BASEBALL TEAM FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE AT THE LITTLE LEAGUE WORLD SERIES • Mayor Dirksen 4. PRESENTATION OF APPRECIATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE • Presentation to the City Council by a Representative from the Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge 5. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Jasmina Dizdarevic • Citizen Communications - Sign Up Sheet • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication 6. 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: 6.1 Approve Council Minutes for August 8, and 15, 2006 6.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda c. Fifth Tuesday Meeting Notes - August 29, 2006 6.3 Appoint Kelly Johnson to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) - Resolution No. 06- 6.4 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County to Share in "Transient Room Tax" Revenues 6.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Contract Awards to Century West Engineering Corporation for Design Services for the Ash Avenue Extension project and the 971h Avenue and 1001h Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement b. Award Contract to Landis & Landis for Construction of Pine Street - Street and Storm Drainage Improvements c. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with Murray Smith and Associates, Inc. for Professional Services for 550-Foot Reservoir No. 2 d. Purchase Seven Police Patrol Cars from Gresham Ford • Consent Agenda - Items Removed, or Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed firm the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 3 7. CONSIDER AWARD OF HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATIONS a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion C. Consideration: Motion to Award Heritage Tree Designations to the Douglas Fir Tree located at 8275 SW Ross Street, Tigard, Oregon and the Monkey Puzzle Tree located at 14530 SW 103rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 8. CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF MATCHING FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT JIM GRIFFITH MEMORIAL SKATE PARK a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 06- 9. CONSIDERATION OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONCERNING 120-DAY EXPIRATION - LONGSTAFF CONDOMINIUMS (SDR2005-00011) a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to approve the staff decision including all conditions of approval for the Longstaff Condominiums (SDR2005-00011) 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS 12. 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 statute. 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(4), 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. 13. ADJOURNMENT inadm%cathy%c 12000X060912p.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 page 4 STUDY SESSION AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING September 12, 2006 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION ➢ Consideration of Cost of Living Adjustment for Management/Professional Group ➢ Update on Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Levy ➢ Discuss 2006/07 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Phase 1 Contract ➢ Discuss Significant Increases for Highway Construction Costs - City Projects • ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS ➢ Paul Owen will introduce Darlene Young, Summerfield Liaison ➢ TriMet - Commuter Rail Groundbreaking: October 25, 10:30 -11:30 a.m.; Tigard Commuter Rail Station. Mayor Dirksen, Governor and Senators speaking. Check for Council attendance. ➢ League of Oregon Cities Conference: September 28-30, Portland Mariott Downtown. Mayor Dirksen and Councilor Woodruff attending. Any others? ➢ League of Oregon Cities Hospitality Suite - Hosted by Mayor Dirksen on Thursday, September 28, 5-9 p.m. ➢ CityHall Day: October 19,7-9 p.m., Town Hall ➢ New laptops ARE set for wi-fi ➢ Family Festival Update ➢ National League of Cities Conference: December 5-9, 2006, Reno, Nevada. Check for attendance. ➢ Check 56, Tuesday schedule - Next 51' Tuesday will be October 31, 2006 (Halloween). Check whether Council would like to cancel. Next 5th Tuesday would be January 29, 2007. ➢ Discuss Commuter Railroad Crossing Plans for Main Street and Bonita Road (see September 7, 2006, memorandum from City Engineer Duenas) • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to consult with legal counsel regarding litigation likely to be filed under ORS 192.660(2)(h). 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(4), 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. Council Calendar September 19 Workshop Meeting; 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 26 Business Meeting; 6:30 p.m., RRCCR & Town Hall 28-30 League of Oregon Cities Conference 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 closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (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 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - 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 (2) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. hadm%caft%cca ss%2006%060808ps.doc Tom Coffee - FYI My Ballot Arguemert filed today _ _ - Page 1 From: "phil decker" <pd-law@comcast.net> To: "Tom Coffee" <Tomc@tigard-or.gov> Date: 9/11/2006 5:10:31 PM Subject: FYI: My Ballot Arguement filed today Who's pushing a new'city,' anyway? Who? Of the three Chief Petitioners who put the 'city' question on the ballot, research reveals two (Hamilton-Treick and Fowler) are active license real estate brokers. But few realize they are actually both from the same real estate brokerage (Realty Trust)! The third (Franzke) is a lawyer whose firm represents developers. Bull Mtn. Residents for Incorporation's four directors? The same two real estate brokers - same real estate brokerage, a real estate appraiser plus the same lawyer whose firm represents developers. These two brokers, plus their loyal 'B' team, have also targeted a city council takeover if voters approve their novice 'city.' Suspicious? Why a new'city'? Self-determination? Local control? Family values? Other slogans? Nonsense. The real'why' lies just under the smokescreen: 487 undeveloped acres around Roy Rogers get pulled into their new'city' if formed! And 487 undeveloped Bull Mountain acres is pure gold to real estate and developer interests. Their distracting rhetoric aside, the real reason these interests want you to buy their new'city' is clear: 487 undeveloped Bull Mountain acres! Suspicious yet? Who put up all that money? Financial context: the entire Tigard Council spent less than $10,000, total, campaigning for their seats. But these 'new ciy types paid over $50,000 cash - only thru August! - for their $30,000+ no-bid economic study, plus many tens of thousands more for their incorporation paperwork lawyer fees, unsuccessful legal challenges over Tigard policy plus their new lawsuit against Tigard over boundary lines. $50,000+ is not'bake sale' money. Who put up all that cash? We already know why. New city? Don't need it. Their'new city attempt is far too questionable and risky, all to create a highly dubious, expensive (higher taxes) and, lest we forget, totally unnecessary added layer of government. We don't need that. WE DECIDE! Vote NO! Visit bullmountainelection.com Phil Decker Unincorporated Bull Mountain Agenda Item No. S~-u dm S QSSeon Meeting of I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Directo RE: Consideration of Cost of Living Adjustment for Management Group DATE: August 8, 2006 Approximately 87 employees belong to the Management/Supervisory/Confidential Group and are not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. These positions include department directors, managers, first line supervisors, planning staff, accountants, engineers and other professional and technical staff. Each fiscal year the City Council considers and makes a determination on a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for this group of employees. The last COLA for this group was made on October 1, 2005. The Tigard Police Officers Association received a 3.2% increase on July 1, 2006 and the SEIU/OPEU group will receive a cost of living adjustment of 3.2% effective October 1, 2006. A cost of living adjustment assists the City in maintaining a competitive market position with regard to its salaries. In prior years the Council has considered and elected to provide a cost of living adjustment for the Management Group which was consistent with that provided to the SEIU/OPEU bargaining unit. We are seeking your Council's direction on this matter at your August 22, 2006 Study Session. Thank you for your consideration. s--Lt d Agenda Item J`~SUn Meeting Date 9/12/06 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title U date on Washington County Cooperative Ubtary Services Le Prepared By: Margaret Barnes Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval + ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review of the communications plans to inform the public about the levy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff seeks Council support of the communications effort to provide educational information about the levy. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The County, through the Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS), has developed a communications plan to provide factual information about the levy. All the member libraries of the Cooperative are assisting with this effort. Tigard's communications efforts have included: • Articles in Cityscape • Distribution of levy literature created by WCCLS • Posters • Brief reminders about levy and distribution of levy materials at Library programs • Provision of Voter Registration applications • Community outreach through presentations at service club meetings and service fairs • Reminder of levy on library receipts • Information on library web pages • Media contacts OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Vision Task Force Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all ages. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment A Washington County Measure #34-126 Ballot Title Attachment B Washington County Measure #34-126 Explanatory Statement FISCAL NOTES The levy is at a fixed rate of 17¢ per $1,000 assessed value. A home with average assessed value (not market value) of $192,000 would pay $33 in 2007-08. i WrnN a&gVonnst2006%councd agenda item summary sheet 06 - june revision.0oc Washington County Measure # 34-126 Ballot.Title Caption: Local Option Levy to Maintain Countywide Library Services Question: Shall Washington County maintain countywide library services by levying 17 cents per $1,000 assessed value for four years, beginning FY2007/08? This measure may cause properly taxes to increase more than three percent. Summary: This levy would support Cooperative Library Services' member libraries in Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Comelius, Forest Grove, Garden Home, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, and West Slope. Approximately 85% of levy funds would be distributed to these libraries, many having experienced service reductions in recent years. The remainder would support central services that link these libraries together. The levy would: • Maintain current services, avoid additional cuts in hours, books, programs • Restore open hours at some libraries • Support annual summer reading programs for children • Provide literacy programs for preschoolers to increase reading readiness, training for childcare providers regarding literacy activities for young children • Purchase books and materials • Support outreach to special populations such as homebound residents • Maintain daily book deliveries between libraries to fill user requests • Maintain WILInet catalog/website, fund information systems replacement The levy is a fixed rate of 17 cents per $1,000 assessed value. A home with average assessed value (not market value) of $192,000 would pay $33 in 2007-08. Estimated revenues for each year of the levy: $6,897,586 in 2007-08 $7,207,978 in 2008-09 $7,532,337 in 2009-10 $7,871,292 in 2010-11 Washington County Measure 34-126 Explanatory Statement Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) has provided funding for public library operations, central support and outreach programs linking together city and community libraries for 30 years. Measure 34-126 is a four-year local option levy to maintain public library services countywide. Which public libraries would be funded? The levy would support WCCLS member libraries in Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Garden Home, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, and West Slope. Approximately 85% of levy funds would be distributed to these libraries, many having experienced service reductions in recent years. Remaining funds would support central services linking libraries together to serve all residents. Why is this lea proposed? Maintain current local library services and avoid additional cuts in hours, book purchases and programs: • The levy would maintain current local library services through 2011, and allow some libraries to restore previously cut hours. • Libraries have reduced services as a result of previous funding reductions. • County funding for libraries in 2005-06 was about the same as it was in 2001-02. • Levy funding would address projected increases in population and library use. In the past 10 years population has increased 26%, while use of libraries has increased 64%. • Based on trends, library checkouts are projected to increase 43% during the term of the levy, topping 11.5 million in 2011. • The levy would also maintain central services that link libraries together such as the shared WILInet catalog/website, and daily book deliveries between libraries to fill user requests. Support literacy programs for children: • Over 17,000 children participate in the annual countywide summer reading program designed to sustain reading retention between school years. • Library-based literacy programs for preschoolers increase the number of children entering school "ready to read-" Purchase books: • Levy funds would purchase books and other materials that are available to residents through all WCCLS libraries. What would the levy pay for? Maintain public library service levels while meeting projected increases in population and use: The levy would maintain current services and allow for restoration of selected services at some libraries, namely hours of operation, and purchase of books and other materials (85% of levy, average of $5.98 million per year). Maintain central services and outreach programs that support all WCCLS libraries: This includes outreach to special populations such as homebound residents, support for summer reading programs, early childhood literacy efforts, and WILInet catalog/website and funding for an information systems replacement (15% of levy, average of $1 million per year). How would this levy affect a homeowner's taxes? The levy is a fixed-rate of 17 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Owners of a home with an average assessed value of $192,000 (not market value) would pay $33 in 2007-08. What happens ifthe levy does not pass? Further reductions in hours and book purchases are likely; current service levels would likely be reduced. y Agenda Item No. rl Meeting of Q la- MEMORANDUM 7 TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas 11-" City Engineer RE: Additional Streets for the Pavement Overlay Contract 2006-07 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Phase 1 DATE: August 31, 2006 Morse Brothers, Inc. was awarded the 2006-07 Pavement Major Maintenance Program contract for pavement maintenance on the City streets at the Council meeting on August 15, 2006. The project was formally bid and awarded on a unit bid item basis with unit bid prices for specific items of work. The low bid submitted by the contractor at $254,330.23 was the lowest by far with the next higher bidder at $299,336.00. The Engineer's Estimate range was from $290,000 to $335,000. More importantly, the bid price submitted for the asphaltic concrete (pavement) bid item is $52.65 per ton, which is significantly lower than the $70 per ton in the Engineer's Estimate and the $70 per ton submitted by the next higher bidder. To take advantage of the exceptionally low prices in the contract and to address a much larger portion of the street maintenance backlog sooner rather than later, we propose to add the following additional streets to the contract for construction this fall: • Durham Road (Summerfield Drive to Serena Way) 98`h Avenue (Durham Road to Sattler Street) • 124`h Avenue (Walnut Street to Katherine Street) • Ash Avenue and segments of intersecting streets (McDonald Street to Fanno Creek) • 66' Avenue (just south of Hampton to Franklin Street) • 67" Avenue (north of Baylor Street) The current estimated amounts for the additional quantities on these streets add up to a total of $580,000 with Durham Road being approximately $230,000 of that amount. These numbers may change slightly as the scope of work on each of the additional streets is further refined and quantities are defined more precisely. However, the total amount should be relatively close to the current estimate. We had planned the overlay on Durham Road for the spring of 2007. However, we now have this rare opportunity to complete that street and others this fall at prices that we most likely will not see again in future bids. The additional quantities would increase the contract amount from $254,330.23 to $835,000 plus a contingency amount of $85,000 for a total project commitment of $920,000. The amount of $950,000 is available in the FY 2006-07 CIP budget under the Street Maintenance Fee Fund, and $210,000 under the Gas Tax Fund for a total PMMP budgeted amount of $1,160,000. That amount is sufficient for the proposed contract amendment and still leaves some funding available for additional streets (Phase 2 of the program) in the spring of 2007. Approval of the contract amendment will allow us to use Street Maintenance Fee dollars in the most cost effective way possible in light of rapidly increasing construction costs. The public contracting rules allow original contracts to be substantially increased when the original contract was awarded through a formal competitive process, the contract documents include unit prices that can be used as the basis for determining the cost of the additional work, and a binding obligation exists on the parties covering the terms and conditions of the additional work. All these conditions are met with the contract awarded to Morse Brothers, Inc. In addition, the contractor agrees to perform the additional work under the terms, conditions and bid prices under the original contract. We will be discussing the proposed contract amendment for additional work at the study session on September 12, 2006. If Council agrees with the proposed action, it will be submitted to Council for formal approval at the September 26, 2006 meeting. c: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director Bob Sesnon, Finance Director Joe Barrett, Purchasing is"Vl Vnemor"wrNsWdWonal Week for the pvmy d ovefty W09MM OC -Dis ri bu+-ed - Agenda Item No. t :Y4 _<V I(r'1 i Meeting of q. Ia ~lB MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager 09~ FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer RE: Commuter Rail Railroad Crossing Plans for Main Street and Bonita Road DATE: September 7, 2006 The Commuter Rail Construction Plans are basically completed and have significant impacts on intersecting streets at Main Street and Bonita Road. Safety is the major factor that is being taken into consideration in the final configuration of the railroad crossings on these two streets. The commuter trains in some places will be traveling at 50 to 60 miles per hour. Both Tri-Met and ODOT Rail Division are extremely concerned at crossings where left-turning vehicles can block through traffic resulting in vehicles trapped on the tracks unable to move. As a result, medians are proposed for Main Street and Bonita Road. I am providing this information so that you may be aware of the proposed medians and on the limitations on access that result. If there are any objections that would override the safety concerns, we need to make them known at this point before the plans are. finalized. The road authorities will be the entities applying for the permits to allow the improvements to be constructed. Once the plans are finalized, crossing orders will be issued to construct the improvements. As the road authority for the streets under City jurisdiction, the City of Tigard will be . the applicant for Main Street, Bonita Road, Durham Road, Tiedeman Avenue and North Dakota Street. Tri-Met will be preparing the documents for City signature. Both Tri-Met and ODOT Rail want to finalize the crossing modifications within the next two to three weeks. The crossing orders will be issued shortly after that. Main Street At the Main Street Crossing, a median will be installed extending from Tigard Street north past Commercial Street with a gap at the location of the two rails crossing Main Street. The existing crossings do allow stacking for one or two cars to make left-turns from Main Street to Commercial Street just north of the tracks and allows left turns from Commercial Street to Main Street. With the placement of the median, the entry and exit to both Commercial Street west of Main Street and the Commuter Rail parking lot will be limited to right-in and right-out. Attached is a drawing that shows the configuration of the crossings for construction. Since the commuter trains will be stopping at the station, speed through the crossings at this location should not bea major issue. Nevertheless, ODOT Rail staff remain concerned about the possibility of vehicle/train collisions and are strongly supporting the placement of the medians. Bonita Road The Bonita Road crossing is even more complicated with a business that requires access between the two tracks. A median is also proposed for this location to block left turns into the business and to 74`h Avenue. 74`h Avenue will be limited to right-in and right-out at its intersection with Bonita Road. The existing situation has some serious safety issues because left-turning traffic into 74th from Bonita occasionally blocks through traffic resulting in cars sitting on the tracks. There have not been any incidents because the freight trains travel relatively slow through the crossing. The commuter trains will be traveling at 50 mph through this area. Safety becomes paramount under those circumstances. Attached is a drawing that shows the proposed median. The work on these crossings most likely will be performed in the spring of 2007, if the commuter rail project proceeds as scheduled. If the proposed modifications to the railroad crossings on these two streets remain as proposed, the City staff will develop a public outreach program to inform the businesses and residents in the two areas well in advance of the construction. If you have any comments or concerns, please let me know so that we may bring them up with Tri- Met and ODOT Rail. Attachments c: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director Vannie Nguyen, CIP Manager Marco Cabanillas, Project Engineer Nancy Werner, ROW Administrator JNI 8 v c1c ~ c Y+ a im- r TV- fi.♦_...-.^ . ~ ° . '..-fib ~ g ~ ~ ~c w F E 6 -21 ....r -nu .µn+r 3 as'^'~♦~~ v ~ ( i t Y t3 S3i I g f5 L':.# V7 11:1 v 2r W ~ t ~`d«rrP'/e t~C~r t 7' ! ~ i r ^§ii 3 wI~ S°A' ftSi1d'if ,,...W.. ' 1H ~«..ww•e+..rdrw..d ~.r.~.. ri a . Fi S d,~ - ' «a„««waw t~,,..z>...... tKR.<, 1 4 y ~ ~ X v s .amrw..nu .vsvavaa~twa+e~ wra^=- L'A _ .ea..~. . . 41...........~-......+..•..v.......,....«~..~....-.+... •m..•..~.+... ..~..w.xw.....,,. q~ ,:...u.~! aw_. F `.r ,.,w,,... Y 1 q :~,,.e.•r...,.. k .....w....w. w.«.......w.....w.auw.. -w- v.~.~-F...e«.a.~..~. t Al g~ p ~ ~ 8~ t ~ 'i 1r•': t >Ci a'ra »;m iO:aSt Ltt. M+wtw: ~.777?r . AiF~~ df-';°'r.~+aaxtrn ,vr~arr; _ati"J•. { N } fkwUS nzA SrOt ttP3. 5EY 6itatvrti: Sti`.~Yi~.T C t rsaa htv Dro. 0. t~++ t tarty N }1Y~y ih Yxi`ifiL,L Rrbs tSr> Gb k~v '.8S~C5Z ;IMl d /Y ' NEitt'4flkt. ,W' SICM 0s3 O'i r)(1,171x7; %prthT M V1,gt.St11 anU wtati.'tt;'GN mill'd %tuf Dtaj om Mrsv- t. VA"P:ri: t+•Aw-pm OPIM Y. ettt: 15 « F:MM ~t ttr Y•ItSit t+CLL v xa.7. Q • a~ ~ytV 4" I tw rn« _ t r.a.: k RE OF'~ C"dl .^.•t7.Ct1!tY~4.7,tyry coition, aL1 w > it - SKNQ P"at t our N-3:C pi1p= .St'ttD M W WW U kf3y :57 r'S4t , r JAM FPJ-COUN1r UCTROvo ,N IRAWAPORTAT N OSMk^7 OF ORbM7f WASHIMON cau4Tr COMMUTER RAIL rw fto~ , TxructtjstSre$f~a~N.C~b9C t Crar,~~ Ecs t~ sk eaerA ~-Raw' T R l 1Q) M ET R n s trvisia+~ sar+rrxrs.Mn aa,airtet K AN rwx...r, T xr .ran ~5 rrT~sa-[a mAti t' v t~'XtiDt N~St=7rx.'i~. i'•~F is t Head to Reno and Discover i P I r(19 Imina ---y- The Too~s, and . - n tFSS C Resources to He~p i-~; 3 (3 1:30 pm 5:00 pm Your 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm Mobile Workshops - Registration Governance and Policy Meetings Resolutions Committee Meeting You may come with a question, a need for information 7:30 am - 5:00 pm NLC Nominating Registration Committee Hearing • advice, baffling situation, or a desire to become 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Leadership.Trairiing Institute Constituency and Special Group I • ' proficient and skilled in a • area • Seminars Meetings and Events municipal governance. At the 2006 NLC Congress of Cities and Exposition, you'll find the largest pool of 9:00 am - 10:30 am. 7:30 am - 8:00 pm experienced city • • cities and towns • - Registration General Session 10:30 am - 3:00 pm 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Exposition • small. Combine targeted workshops Leadership Training Institute • • suppliers • • floor Seminars 10:45 am - 5:15 pm an than 300 the , Mobile Workshops Workshops and • - to return • - with the solutions 1:30 pm - 5:00 pm 9:00' am - 5:00 pm Mobile Workshops • need to make • community a better place Governance and Policy Meetings City Futures Panel Meetings to live, • and grow. Constituency and Special Group Constituency and Special. Group Meetings and Events Meetings and Events 5:45 pm - 6:45 pm First-Time Atten n Register today-early and • • save - 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm • Welcome Reception an 9:15 am - 10:45, am Exhibit Hall Opening General Session 1 11:00 am 12:30 pm 4 Workshops i 1~ ~1 I a C~ 12:45 pm - 2:15 pm "Look for a great return 9:00 am - 11:00 am Delegates Luncheon investment. The education Opening General Session 11:00 am - 5:00 m 2:30 pm • limited resources your city Exposition Annual Business Meeting into the - -Ron Schmitt, • • - pm f Workshops 7:00 Host City Closing Event, Sparks, Nevada; 116Congress of Cities Program Committee of CilnES 4NO Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 4815 Washington, D.C. Nafloml • Decemb Legm of Nerro,Nevada ***********************AUTO**3-DIGIT 972 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 00237067 Suite 550 JOANNE BENGTSON Washington, DC 20004 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO MAYOR 108' P4 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223-8144 '106 ~,d Joanne Bengtson - Measure48EndorsementForm_Newest.pdf- s Page 1 DEFEND Opposition Form o repo n Ballot Measure 48 TABOR Flawed Formula C o A L I T I o N Constitutional Amendment I/We oppose Ballot Measure 48 because it will hurt Oregon. We can't afford further cuts to our schools, senior services, health care and public safety. Instead of solving the problems in our state, Ballot Measure 48's flawed formula will make it worse. "My recommendation to other states is to learn from the Colorado experience. Don't go down the road we traveled." Dr. Stephen Berman, Professor of Pediatrics - University of Colorado School of Medicine Impacts of the TABOR Flawed Formula: 0 Colorado had a similar law in place ...and it didn't work. Colorado's law strangled budgets slowly, squeezing tighter every year. Colorado schools, economy, roads and other public services were all damaged. 19 The measure will significantly reduce revenue available for schools, health care and public safety. This measure will impact Oregon's ability to house and supervise felons, provide health care to children and keep schools open for a full year. O Ballot Measure 48 has numerous unintended consequences. Language in the ballot measure is so poorly written that it could be interpreted to apply retroactively. With my/our oppositionto Ballot Measure 48, I/we join a coalition of Oregonians who have come togetherto make sure Oregon's priorities are headed in the right direction. We believe in educating our kids, taking care of seniors and standing up for what's right. So sign me/us up! O YES! The Defend Oregon Coalition or Our Oregon can use my name as a public opponent to Ballot Measure 48. Joining the coalition simply means that you oppose the measure. Name Signature Name of organization if this is an organizational endorsement: Date Phone number Home town Email Address (Please print clearly) Please return to Defend Oregon Coalition: 1125 SE Madison, Ste. 210 • Portland, Oregon • 97214 (P) 503.131.3672 - (F) 503.232.0180 www.defendoregon.org lhw 'U's Me ~aww p~opmed? Mh ~~ppo~~ o~ ~~o Maintain current local library services and avoid additional bww does n p, aril reductions in hours, book purchases and programs: ° The levy would maintain current library services through Likely results include: ° Hours and book purchases are llow s 2011, and aome libraries to restore previously likely to be reduced. reduced hours. ° Libraries have reduced services as a result of previous ° Current service L1gRARY HOURS funding reductions. levels would be st3f,l?AY LOU reduced as - ° Libraries have reduced operational costs and adjusted spending determined by to limit the effect of previous reductions on users. local member ° County funding for libraries in 2005-06 was about the same as it was in 2001-02, libraries. even though there have been significant increases in population and use. ° In the past 10 years population increased 26%, while use of libraries increased 64%. Levy funding would address projected increases in population and library use. ° The levy would maintain central services that link libraries together, such as the shared popula uon and dubraffu Circulation WILlnet catalog/website, and daily book deliveries between libraries to fill requests. Growth 1996-2005, Projected Growth 2006-2011 ,8096 Support literacy programs for children: 140% Wt.. ° Over 17,000 children participate in the annual countywide summer 100% reading program designed to sustain reading retention between Id1.[5 school years. 60% 2096 ° Library-based literacy programs for preschoolers are designed 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 to increase the number of children entering school "ready to read." Based on WCCLS circulation statistics, library checkouts are estimated to Purchase books: 1 L increase 43% during the 4-year term of ° Levy funds would purchase books and the levy, topping 11.5 million in 2011 other materials that are available to residents (over 9% annually). through all WCCLS libraries. Levy authorized by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. Materials paid for by Washington County Cooperative Library Services. Information reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division for compliance with ORS 260.432. Aug `06 s+u ss_. Measure 34®1 is a four- WhW M, Wd C EC year local option levy that would AS ~Swv Pay W? maintain public library services in OUT Washington County. The Washington ° Maintains public library service levels IT County Cooperative Library Services while meeting projected increases in (WCCLS) has provided funding for population and use. Allows for public library operations linking restoration of selected services at together city and community libraries some libraries-namely hours of T for 30 years. operation and purchase of books and other materials (average of ton $5.98 million per Li © o r year, 85% of levy). r IVY ~Ja~0 o The levy would provide funding for ° Maintains central c I m` ~"LiN I services and v libraries in: outreach ° Banks ° Hillsboro programs that o 0 ° Beaverton ° North Plains serve residents ° Cedar Mill ° Sherwood through all WCCLS 4- 1," 2 S4 ° Cornelius ° Tigard libraries. This includes outreach to ° Forest Grove ° Tualatin special populations such as ° Garden Home -West Slope homebound, funding for reading programs, early childhood literacy, How ch MOUN WILlnet catalog/website, delivery of the l (COOTTE] books between libraries and funding for Local, o Lib SeMbes ra-ry ° Measure 34-126 is a fixed rate of an information systems replacement ountywide 170 per $1,000 of assessed value. (average of $1 million per year, 15% 2006 Election November 7, ° Owners of a home with an average of levy). assessed value of $192,000 0 (different than market value) would Cooperative o Library ddashinq E County pay $33 in additional taxes in services s • 2007-08. Librdrq For more information, log on to Servic.cs ® $29.5 million would be levied over www.wilinet.wccls.lib.or.us, ask a librarian, four years. or call WCCLS at 503-846-3222. • ooton coe e I ^ s~ 3.9f: L..v e Ilute~n Measure 34-126 Local Option Levy to Maintain Countywide Library Services Which public libraries would be funded? Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) has provided funding for public library operations linking together city and community libraries for 30 years. The levy would fund member libraries in Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Garden Home, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, and West Slope. 85% of levy funds would be distributed to these libraries, many having experienced service reductions in recent years. Remaining funds would provide central services that link libraries together. Why is the levy proposed? It would maintain library services and allow for restoration of selected services at some libraries, namely hours of operation, and purchase of books and other materials. It would maintain central services and outreach programs that serve residents through all WCCLS libraries. This includes outreach to special populations such as homebound, funding for reading programs, early childhood literacy, WILlnet catalog/website, delivery of books between libraries, and funding for an information systems replacement. WASHINGTON COUNTY Cooperative Library Services If the levy passes the Tigard Public Library would: • Restore open hours from 55 to 62 hours per week. • Fund children's literacy programs aimed at teaching more children to read before entering school. • Allocate book funds to meet increases in population and use. - If the levy does not pass the Tigard Public Library would likely: Reduce current service levels and hours. Now would this levy affect taxes? It is a fixed rate of 17~ per $1,000 of assessed value. l s Owners of a home with t an average assessed y value of $192,000 ` (different than market value) would pay $33 r in additional taxes in 2007-08. $29.5 million would be levied over 4 years. Where can I get more information? Log on to www.wilinet.wccls.lib.or.us, ask a librarian, or , call WCCLS at ` 503-846-3222. Levy authorized by Washington County W* r ~+t►`"` Board of Commissioners. Materials paid for by WCCLS. Information reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division for compliance with ORS 260.432. Aug. '06 C-,7 • ~~~glon Co w. " Measure 34-126 Local Option Levy to Maintain Countywide Library Services Election • November 7th Which libraries would be funded? Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) has provided funding for public library operations linking together city and community libraries for 30 years. The levy would fund member libraries in Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Garden Home, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, and West Slope. 85% of levy funds would be distributed to these libraries, many having experienced service reductions in recent years. Remaining funds would provide central services that link libraries together. Why is this levy proposed? To maintain current local library services: • Avoid additional reductions in hours, book purchases and programs. • Provide current local library services through 2011. • Address increases in population and library use. • Maintain central services that link libraries together. WASHINGTON COUNTY Cooperative Library Services 9Z41-" G , To su ort literacy programs for children: • Over 17,000 children participate in the annual summer reading program designed to sustain reading retention between school years. • Library-based literacy programs for preschoolers are designed to increase the number of children entering school "ready to read." To purchase books: • Funds would purchase materials available to residents through all WCCLS libraries. What would the levy pay for? It would maintain library services and allow for restoration of selected services at some libraries, namely hours of operation, and purchase of books and other materials. It would maintain central services and outreach programs that serve residents through all WCCLS libraries. This includes outreach to special populations such as homebound, funding for reading programs, early childhood literacy, WILlnet catalog/website, delivery of books between libraries and funding for an information systems replacement. Now would this levy affect taxes? • It is a fixed rate of 17~ per $1,000 of assessed value. • Owners of a home with an average assessed value of $192,000 (different than market value) would pay $33 in additional taxes in 2007-08. • $29.5 million would be levied over 4 years. What happens if the levy does not pass? • Hours and book purchases are likely to be reduced. • Current service levels would be reduced as determined by local member libraries. Where can I get more information? Log on to www.wilinet.wccls.lib.or.us, ask a librarian, or call WCCLS at 503-846-3222. Levy authorized by Washington County Board of Commissioners. Materials paid for by WCCLS. Information reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division for compliance with ORS 260.432 July '06 Beaverton City Library: 34-126 Washington County Library Measure Washington County checkouts are projected to SumBmerr Rea CitPyr Library would cooperative Library Services increase 43% during termillion in restore some of its books and (WCCLS) has provided funding the levy, topping for public library operations, 2011. The levy would also other materials budgets. ntain central services central support . and outreach maintain central services that line outs i h p ograms that support all programs linking together city and libraries together such a community libraries for 30 years. shared WILInet catalog/website, WCCLS libraries: This includes outreach to Measure 34-126 is a four-year and daily book deliveries between special populations such as local option levy to maintain libraries to litfill eracy reques for homebound residents,. support for public. library services Support Y program summer reading programs, early and countywide. children: WILlnetd cliteracyatalog/ efforts website, and Which public libraries would be Over 17,000 children funded? participate in the annual funding information The levy would support countywide n d eto su fain replacement (IS% of levy, average WCCLS member libraries in program desig ion Banks, Beaverton, Cedar.Mill, reading retention between school of $1 Imo llid this levyraffect a Cornelius, Forest Grove, Garden years. homeowner's taxes? Home, Hillsboro, North Plains, • Library-based literacy ro rams for preschoolers The levy is a fixed-rate of 17 Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, and p g asses sed West Slope. Approximately 85% increase the number of children vcents per alue. Owners o00 a home with an of levy funds would be distributed entering school "ready to read." average assessed value of to these libraries, many having Purchase books: • Lev funds would purchase $192,000 (not market value) experienced service reductions in y through all woul 200 d 708 $33 in addition taxes recent years. Remaining funds books and other materials that are would support central services available to e What happens if the levy does linking libraries together to serve WCCLS libraries. ass? all residents. What would the levy pay for? . not pass? Why is this levy proposed? Maintain public library service Further reductions in hours and Maintain current local library levels while meeting projected book purchases are likely; current services and avoid additional increases in population and use: rservice educed, levels would likely be reductions in hours, book The levy would maintain purchases and programs: current services and allow for • The levy would maintain restoration of selected services at current local library services some libraries, namely hours of "fit Takes, a'~/I~1Age" tion, and purchase of books through 2011, and allow some opera Fai71{~ ReSOUrCeFalr 'libraries to restore previously and other materials (85% of levy, y reduced hours. Libraries have average of $5.98 million per c~a ` reduced services as a result of year). ~atUt" previous funding reductions. Beaverton City Library, • County funding for libraries in currently open 49 hours per week, September3. 30,00 X006 6 1.1:00 a.m, P. 2005-06 was about the same as it would increase its hours of was in 2001-02. operation to 58 per week. • Levy funding would address The Beaverton City Library ected increases in population currently checks out 1,700,000Fun Activities & . h6at and prod library use. , In the past 10 items per year. The projected Infdralation J , years population has increased circulation would be over geavertOn.'CltyIb.Cary 26%, while use of libraries has 2,400,000 items per year. increased 64%. Beaverton City Library had • Based on trends, library over 5;000 youth participate in its YOUR CITY Page 15 cttj 1 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: September 12, 2006 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) 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. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Plea Print CONTACTED Name- I g dtlL-~ Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: ~j Address X9 city -T7 634Q State Zip tom`, h Phone No. Name: t ,2 LV Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: S Address WC emu/ 1~~'•°~ S ras City 72!5 yt-'^ State Zip Phone No. 3 o6 Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION CITY MANAGER CITIZEN COMMUNICATION FOLLOW UP FOR THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 MEETING At the last City Council business meeting held on August 8, 2006, the following individual(s) testified during Citizen Communications to the City Council: ➢ Mark Padgett, 12974 SW Princeton Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, offered congratulations to the Mayor on his "imminent reelection." Mr. Padgett said he wanted to mention an issue that has come to the forefront because of what is now occurring in the unincorporated area. He said that both he and Councilor Wilson are former members of the City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is mandated by State law, but the membership and makeup of the Planning Commission is under the purview of the City Council. Mr. Padgett noted that current Planning Commission members can include up to two people who do not live inside the City of Tigard. Mr. Padgett said the theory behind this was to have people who live within the "area of interest" be able to have some say in how planning is coordinated since that area would likely come into the City of Tigard; however, this is probably no longer the case. In general, this means that there could be people on the Planning Commission who do not own property within the City and are not City residents, sitting in on quasi-judicial hearings, making what is, in effect, law for the City of Tigard. Mr. Padgett said these land use decisions go into the Code and include Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which become part of the City Code. He said he does not think he is the only one who now feels uncomfortable with having people from outside the City who will either be in another City or remain in an unincorporated area making law for the citizens of Tigard at a municipal level. Mr. Padgett suggested the City Council change the Planning Commission membership policy and limit membership to property owners and/or residents of the City of Tigard. He said the Council might want to "grandfather" in the people who are now serving on the Planning Commission. Mr. Padgett said he did not feel "too badly" about city-owned property possibly ending inside the new City, because this property will require their City services without "us" contributing to their tax base. "So, let them see how it feels for a change." Mayor Dirksen said he thought Mr. Padgett's point regarding Planning Commission membership was well taken. Councilor Wilson noted he wrote a letter recently to Representative Krummel and pointed out that Tigard has always had members from Bull Mountain on our Boards and Committees. He said he agreed with Mr. Padgett that it is inappropriate to have people from another City serving on our Planning Commission. Mr. Padgett noted he was especially concerned because the Planning Commission makes laws. Councilor Wilson said there has been a "sea change" in the Urban Services Agreement and a shift in 20 years of policy and it is time for us to catch up. ➢ Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place, Tigard, Oregon, added to Mr. Padgett's comments that there are business and property owners within the City of Tigard who are not residents. She said that it was common for cities to allow people who own property who are not residents to serve on the Planning Commission. Ms. Buehner raised an issue regarding the Planning Commission. She noted that on tonight's Consent Agenda alternate Jeremy Vermilyea will be appointed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Vermilyea is the last alternate and it is likely the City will be losing one or two additional Commissioners by the end of the year. She recommended City Council direct staff to immediately begin looking for replacements. She added that it would be a good idea to name a couple of alternates so they can "get up to speed" before they are appointed. Mayor Dirksen said he has already started talking to the City's Volunteer Coordinator to publish an advertisement for applicants. Ms. Buehner suggested that membership be focused more on those who are "professionals" in the business. She noted the current public members are great members, but there is a need for members who have expertise in planning, legal, or architecture. Mayor Dirksen said he thought the Charter stipulates some requirements for membership and that the City Council would follow those guidelines. In response to a comment from Councilor Woodruff, Ms. Buehner said she would like to discuss how to retain Planning Commission members in a "different environment." ➢ David Mielke, 600 Hidden Ridge, Irving, TX 75038, National Municipal Affairs Manager with Verizon introduced himself and Mr. Richard Stuart, Associate General Counsel for Verizon. Mr. Mielke said they would like to provide public testimony on Agenda Item 5 regarding revisions to the Tigard Municipal Code for a right-of-way usage fee. After brief discussion with the Council, Mayor Dirksen advised Mr. Mielke that he would be given an opportunity to speak to the City Council. In response to a question from Legal Counsel Firestone, Mr. Mielke advised he would only like to speak during Agenda Item No. 5; Agenda Item No. 6 did not propose changes to the Tigard Municipal Code that were of concern to Verizon. Councilor Harding asked a follow-up question regarding Mr. Padgett's comments. She referred to his statement regarding the Planning Commission amending Code. Assistant City Manager Newton confirmed that amendments to the Development Code are placed before the City Council for final action; the Planning Commission forwards its recommendations on such amendments. Councilor Wilson noted the Commission does make quasi-judicial land use decisions, which are final unless appealed. iaadmtcathy\ccm\citizen communication follow upW00912.doc TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 9000 SW DURHAM ROAD - TIGARD - OREGON - 97224 (503) 431.5518 - FAx (503) 431.5410 HTTP: //THS.TTSK.KI2.OR.US/LEADERSHIP/HOME.HTML CITY COUNCIL STUDENT REPORT: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 STUDENT ENVOY: JASMINA DIZDAREVIC 2006-2007 "Leaving a Lasting I. ACADEMICS Impression" a.) Second week school, going well b.) Foreign language halls now located in portables due to Activities Director: construction so teachers are adjusting. Judy Edtl President: II. ATHLETICS Jasmina Dizdarevic a.) Cross country, soccer, water polo and football have all started their season and are participating in practices. Vice President: b.) Soccer: Lu Yang i.) Next game: September 14`h: Tigard vs. Sunset Activities Officer: c.) Football: Will McLellarn i.) Last game was September 9`h against Lincoln High School at Lincoln. To our dismay Lincoln Secretary: won Kaity Haworth ii.) Next Game: September 15`h: Tigard vs. Sheldon d.) Cross Country: Treasurer: i.) Boys and Girls looking to make it to state this year Mark Schleyer (1S` time in 20 years.) Human Relations: ii.) Home invitational: September 22nd Lisa Yanagawa . III. ARTS Assemblies: a.) Choir: Kaitlyn Lange i.) Planning for the Homecoming Dance ii.) Preparing for Winter Concert which takes place in Spirit: December. Ben Murphy iii.) Fundraising for concert choir trip to San Francisco Publicity: b.) Band: Ariel Gruver i.) Concert Band: New and all freshmen! ii.) Performances: Technology 1.) Welcome Back Assembly, September 8th Coordinator: 2.) September 15`h Football game vs. Sheldon Justin Karr iii.) Fundraising program called Walk-n-Knock on September 16` or 301h. c.) Thespians: i.) Homecoming Float: Jaws "Ifyou think you can't, you can't. " - Henry Ford TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 9000 SW DURHAM ROAD - TIGARD - OREGON - 97224 (503) 431.5518 - FAx (503) 431.5410 HTTP: HTHS.TTSK.Kl 2.OR.US/LEADERSHM/HOME.HTML ii.) Fall Show: Much Ado About Nothing iii.) Distressed about musical; will be doing something 2006-2007 more low budget this year. "Leaving a Lasting Impression" IV. ACTIVITIES: a.) Welcome Back Deco - September Stn Activities Director: i.) Theme: Igniting Our Future: Let's Make It Hot! Judy Edtl b.) Welcome Back Assembly - Friday, September Stn. President: c.) Homecoming: Jasmina Dizdarevic i.) Theme: Sail Away With Me ii.) The parade/game will be October 12th, parade begins Vice President: at 5:00pm and the game at 7:00pm followed by a Lu Yang bonfire. Activities Officer: iii.) Dance will be Friday, October 13th Will McLellarn d.) Link Krew: i.) August 26th - Training Secretary: ii.) Freshmen first day went VERY smoothly. Kaity Haworth iii.) Developing plans to stay in touch with group members. Treasurer: Mark Schleyer Human Relations: Lisa Yanagawa Assemblies: Kaitlyn Lange Spirit: Ben Murphy Publicity: Ariel Gruver Technology Coordinator: Justin Karr "Ifyou thinkyou can't, you can't. " - Henry Ford Agenda Item # ~ DfA Meeting Date 9/12/06 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title U date on Washin on County Cooperative Library Services Le Prepared By: Margaret Barnes Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ,Z ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review of the communications plans to inform the public about the levy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff seeks Council support of the communications effort to provide educational information about the levy. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The County, through the Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS), has developed a communications plan to provide factual information about the levy. All the member libraries of the Cooperative are assisting with this effort. Tigard's communications efforts have included: • Articles in Cityscape • Distribution of levy literature created by WCCLS • Posters • Brief reminders about levy and distribution of levy materials at Library programs • Provision of Voter Registration applications • Community outreach through presentations at service club meetings and service fairs • Reminder of levy on library receipts • Information on library web pages • Media contacts OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Vision Task Force Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all ages. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment A Washington County Measure #34-126 Ballot Tide Attachment B Washington County Measure #34-126 Explanatory Statement FISCAL NOTES The levy is at a fixed rate of 17¢ per $1,000 assessed value. A home with average assessed value (not market value) of $192,000 would pay $33 in 2007-08. 1:1admtcathyVormsQ000koundl agenda Item summary sheet 06 -June revislon.doc Washington County Measure # 34-126 Ballot Title Caption: Local Option Levy to Maintain Countywide Library Services Question: Shall Washington County maintain countywide library services by levying 17 cents per $1,000 assessed value for four years, beginning FY2007/08? This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent. Summary: This levy would support Cooperative Library Services' member libraries in Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Garden Home, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, and West Slope. Approximately 85% of levy funds would be distributed to these libraries, many having experienced service reductions in recent years. The remainder would support central services that link these libraries together. The levy would: • Maintain current services, avoid additional cuts in hours, books, programs • Restore open hours at some libraries • Support annual summer reading programs for children • Provide literacy programs for preschoolers to increase reading readiness, training for childcare providers regarding literacy activities for young children • Purchase books and materials • Support outreach to special populations such as homebound residents • Maintain daily book deliveries between libraries to fill user requests • Maintain WILInet catalog/website, fund information systems replacement The levy is a fixed rate of 17 cents per $1,000 assessed value. A home with average assessed value (not market value) of $192,000 would pay $33 in 2007-08. Estimated revenues for each year of the levy: $6,897,586 in 2007-08 $7,207,978 in 2008-09 $7,532,337 in 2009-10 $7,871,292 in 2010-11 Washington County Measure 34-126 Explanatory Statement Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) has provided funding for public library operations, central support and outreach programs linking together city and community libraries for 30 years. Measure 34-126 is a four-year local option levy to maintain public library services countywide. Which public libraries would be fiuaded? The levy would support WCCLS member libraries in Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Garden Home, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, and West Slope. Approximately 85% of levy funds would be distributed to these libraries, many having experienced service reductions in recent years. Remaining funds would support central services linking libraries together to serve all residents. Why is this levy proposed? Maintain current local library services and avoid additional cuts in hours, book purchases and programs: • The levy would maintain current local library services through 2011, and allow some libraries to restore previously cut hours. • Libraries have reduced services as a result of previous funding reductions . • County funding for libraries in 2005-06 was about the same as it was in 2001-02. • Levy funding would address projected increases in population and library use. In the past 10 years population has increased 26%, while use of libraries has increased 64%. • Based on trends, library checkouts are projected to increase 43% during the term of the levy, topping 11.5 million in 2011. • The levy would also maintain central services that link libraries together such as the shared WILInet catalog/website, and daily book deliveries between libraries to fill user requests. Support literacy programs for children: • Over 17,000 children participate in the annual countywide summer reading program designed to sustain reading retention between school years. • Library-based literacy programs for preschoolers increase the number of children entering school "ready to read." Purchase books: ` f • Levy funds would purchase books and other materials that are available to residents through all WCCLS libraries. Wliat would the levy pay for? Maintain public library service levels while meeting projected increases in population and use: The levy would maintain current services and allow for restoration of selected services at some libraries, namely hours of operation, and purchase of books and other materials (85% of levy, average of $5.98 million per year). Maintain central services and outreach programs that support all WCCLS libraries: This includes outreach to special populations such as homebound residents, support for summer reading programs, early childhood literacy efforts, and WILInet catalog/website and funding for an information systems replacement (15% of levy, average of $1 million per year). How would this levy affect a homeowner's taxes? The levy is a fixed-rate of 17 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Owners of a home with an average assessed value of $192,000 (not market value) would pay $33 in 2007-08. What happens if the levy does not pass? Further reductions in hours and book purchases are likely; current service levels would likely be reduced. Agenda Item No. 3 For Agenda of September 12, 2006 September 12, 2006, City Council Packet Information for Agenda Item No. 3 - Honor Murrayhill Little League All-Star Team - will be distributed with the September 8, 2006, City Council Newsletter Agenda Item # L' Meeting Date September 12, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Presentation of Appreciation to the City of Tigard from the Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (J ' Prepared By: Cathy Wheatley "Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: VC ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive the presentation of appreciation to the City of Tigard from Norman Penner of the Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ➢ On April 25, 2006, the Tigard City Council approved Budget Amendment #11, to fund a $1,500 contribution to the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Grand Opening Ceremony. ➢ Mr. Norman Penner, a representative of the Refuge requested time on the City Council meeting agenda to issue a presentation of appreciation for the City's contribution. The Grand Opening Ceremony was held on June 3, at which time the Refuge was officially open to the public. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT This past Council action of support to the Refuge was in keeping with the Vision Statement's Growth and Growth Management Goal to "...protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community." ATTACHMENT LIST No attachments. FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:tadm\packet'06\060912teppmciation - wildlife refuge.doc M MEMORANDUM 1 i TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Agenda Item No. (o. a , For Agenda of September 12, 2006 FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder RE: Three-Month Council Meeting Calendar DATE: September 5, 2006 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk September 4 Monday Labor Day Holiday - City Hall Closed 12* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 19* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall October 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 19* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 31 Tuesday Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting - 7-9 pm, Tigard Water Auditorium November 14* Tuesday Council Meeting with Lake Oswego City Council - 6:30 pm, Lake Oswego City Hall 10 Friday Veteran's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed 21* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 28* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 23-24 Tuesday Thanksgiving Holiday - City Hall Closed iAadmkAty council3-month calendar for 8-8-08 cc mt0.doc Agenda Item No. CD • o2. b Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2006 Meeting of 9 • / a - 0 Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Meeting Date: September 19, 2006 Meeting Date: September 26, 2006 Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time'. Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Public Works Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: August 29, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: September 5, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: September 12, 2006 Woodruff & Prosser will be absent. Newton out Study Session Workshop Agenda Study Session Consideration of COLA for Mgmt./Prof. Group Draft Ordinance - Proposed Local Gas Tax - Discussion of Citywide Employee Survey - Sandy Z. - 10 min. Task Force & Gus D. - 20 min. Sandy Z. - 15 min. Executive Session on Pending Litigation Joint Meeting with Park and Recreation Advisory Discuss Potential Jaywalking Ordinance- Bill D. - Contract Amendment adding Streets to the 06-07 Board - Dennis K./Dan P. - 30 min. 15 min. Pavement Major Maint. Program - Tom C. 10 min. CCAC Bylaws - Phil N., Tom C. - 30 min Audio/Visual Designs - Gary E. - 30 min. Consent Agenda Downtown Land Use Design Guidelines - Phil N. - Consent Agenda LCRB - Award Contract for the Construction 40 min. Authorize CDBG application submittals for Sr. of Pine St. - Street & Storm Drainage Imp. - Tom C. Review & Discuss Streetscape Plan - Tom C. - Center & Garrett St. sidewalk improvement - LCRB - Award Contract - Ash Ave Ext. - Vannie PPT - 60 min. Duane R. - RES LCRB - Amend Prof. Svcs. Agreement for 550-foot Discuss MTIP Transportation Priorities Consider Adoption - COLA for Mgmt./Prof. Group Reservoir No. 2 - Dennis K. 2008-2011 - Project Selection Update Resolution - Sandy Appt Kelly Johnson to PRAB - RES - Dan P. Gus. D. -10 min. LCRB - Amend Contract Adding Streets on LCRB - Police Car Purchase - Dennis K. Presentation on Services offered by Luke-Dorf Pavement Major Maint. Prog. - Tom C. IGA - Wash. Co. - Share in "Transient Room Tax Bill D. - 20 min. Revenues - Bob Business Meeting Proclaim Sept. 17-23 Constitution Week - 5 min. Business Meeting Proclaim September as National Drug Addiction Chamber President Ralph Hughes - 10 min. Recovery Month - Craig D - 5 min. Recognize Jim Wolf - Bill D. - 5 min. THS Student Envoy Jasmina Dizdarevik -10 min. Resolution in Support of the WCCLS Library Heritage Tree Nominations - Matt S. - 5 min. Operational Levy - Margaret B. - 5 min. - RES Acceptance of $150,000 in Matching Funds to Finalization of Sewer Reim. Dist. #32 (Fern St.) Construct the Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park Info. Public Hearing, PPT, Gus D. - RES - 10 min. Dan Plaza - 10 min. Consider Adopting Tigard Downtown Streetscape Presentation in Appreciation of Tigard from the Plan - Denver I. - PPT - RES - 30 min. Friends of the Tual. River Nat'l Wildlife Refuge -10 min Cach Creek Area Annexation - PHQJ - ORD Tom C. - 60 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 45 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 210 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 120 min. Time Left: 90 min. Time Left: - 10 min. Time Left: 15 min. 9/5/2006 1 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2006 Meeting Date: October 10, 2006 Meeting Date: October 17, 2006 Meeting Date: October 24, 2006 Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: September 26, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: October 3, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: October 10, 2006 Newton out Study Session Workshop Agenda Study Session Joint Meeting with Senior Center Board - Loreen - 30 min. - SI Joint Meeting with the Budget Committee - Bob - 45 min. - SI Enhanced Citizen Participation Update - Liz - Consent Agenda 30 min. - SI Consent Agenda LCRB - Award Contract for Hydrogeologist Presentation of Tigard Community Profile - of Record - B. Rager 2006 Edition - Tom C. - PPT - 15 min. Business Meeting Business Meeting THS Student Envoy Jasmina Dizdarevik -10 min. Proclamation - National Magic Week Update on Proposed WCCLS Operational Chamber President Ralph Hughes - 10 min. Levy - Margaret B. - 15 min. TMC Section on Explanatory Statements for Police Department Annual Report - Bill D - 30 min any Initiative or Referendum by Petition Citizen Comm. - Tualatin Resource Center - Cathy W. 10 min. - ORD Annual Update - Catherine West, Dir. - SI - 10 min. Quarterly Emergency Management Program Update - Mike L.- 20 min. Commuter Rail Update - Gus - 20 min. 3rd Quarter Goal Update - Craig P. - 10 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 115 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled:120 min. Time Avail: 135 min. -Time Scheduled: 10 min. Time Left: 20 min. Time Left: 80 min. Time Left: 125 min. 9/5/2006 1 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2006 Meeting Date: October 31, 2006 Meeting Date: November 14, 2006 Meeting Date: November 21, 2006 Meeting Type/Time: 5th Tuesday/7 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Lake Oswego Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Location: Water Building Aud. Location: Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: October 31, 2006 Materials Due @ 5: November 7, 2006 Fifth Tuesday Meeting Study Session Workshop Agenda Consent Agenda Business Meeting Hold for Joint IWB and Lake Oswego City Council Meeting Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 0 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: min. Time Left: 135 min. Time Left: min. 9/5/2006 1 Agenda Item No. • C Meeting of / • 06 FIFTH TUESDAY MEETING - August 29, 2006 Present: Mayor Dirksen Councilor Sherwood Councilor Wilson Councilor Woodruff Facilitator: Basil Christopher Staff: Carol Krager Citizens: John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136`h Place, Tigard Andrew Storment, 15367 SW 82"`' Place, Tigard Press: Barbara Sherman The meeting started at 7:04 p.m. Citizen Facilitator Christopher welcomed everyone to the meeting. Mayor Dirksen explained the Fifth Tuesday meeting process and the role of the citizen facilitator. PARKS SDC - Mr. John Frewing urged the Council to update the Parks SDC's as soon as possible. He said he is concerned that the City is losing money everyday because the rates are too low and based on out of date data. He said we are two months into the fiscal year and already the prices that were paid for parks are 20% above the average of the numbers in the methodology which he feels is out of date. He suggested there be a change to the update methodology rather than a complete review. Councilor Sherwood noted that she has mixed feelings about increasing charges because of the affordable housing issue. She said there is a need for parks but she doesn't want to keep driving up housing prices. Councilor Wilson said that while rates were nearly doubled and money is in the account, we can't spend some funds unless they are matched with our own funds. He suggested a bond measure or other source would help the City match this money. Mr. Frewing expressed support for a bond measure. Mayor Dirksen mentioned Metro's Open Spaces bond measure which will be on the November ballot and noted he agreed to add his name to the list of supporters, although he and other mayors were disappointed with the parcel selection process. He said he hoped more land would be identified that was inside the Urban Growth Boundary. Councilor Woodruff suggested that Parks staff could examine the current formula and determine if it is still reasonable. They could also consider whether there would be support for changing the update procedure. Gretchen Buehner noted that many citizens and even City committee members don't understand how the Tigard Parks SDC's are used. She asked if it would be appropriate to do a Cityscape article explaining the formula. Councilor Sherwood noted that some articles were written recently in response to parks questions raised by residents living on Bull Mountain. She agreed that this is a complex issue many people don't understand. ACTION ITEMS: • Parks staff should do a study - is Tigard's Parks SDC methodology keeping pace? Should the update procedure be changed? • Publish a Cityscape article explaining the SDC formula to the public. BAN OF ALCOHOL IN PARKS - Andrew Storment, of Boy Scout Troop 423 is working on a merit badge and needed to interview public officials on an issue. He chose the recently passed ban on alcohol in certain city parks as his discussion issue. Question 1: How did the alcohol ban come about? Mayor Dirksen said there were citizen concerns about public drinking in some parks. This ban is a tool to help prevent unwanted behavior and loitering. He mentioned that Tigard was the only city in the Portland metropolitan area that did not have such a ban and the Council did not want Tigard parks to become a destination for this activity. Councilor Sherwood said there are people living in camps in the parks. The landscaping is conducive to this activity because of heavy brush and blackberry cover. She said a lot of this is due to chronic homelessness and mentioned that pushing people from one area will just move them into another area unless the underlying cause is addressed. She mentioned that a local agency, Luke-Dorf, has an outreach person that goes out to talk to people living in the parks to offer information on services and resources available to them. She suggested that Neighborhood Watch walks be started along some of the park trails. Mayor Dirksen noted that this ban would not solve the problem; it is just another tool for the City to help discourage undesirable activities in public areas. Question 2: How many votes did it take to pass the ban? Mayor Dirksen said there were five votes; it passed unanimously. Question 3: How many people had complained about the use of alcohol in city parks? Councilor Wilson said the City receives 2-3 complaints per week. Councilor Sherwood said it was enough for the Council to see that this is a problem they needed to do something about. ACTION ITEMS: • Talk to ODOT about cutting brush and berry bushes on land they control. Keep brush trimmed in City parks. 0 Start Neighborhood Watch Walks in secluded neighborhood parks. Regular walks on trails may discourage gatherings and camps. Mayor Dirksen reported that the deadline for Council candidate filing had passed this week and he was running unopposed for reelection. He said Councilor Sherwood is running for reelection on the City Council and Councilor Wilson had chosen not to run for reelection. He noted that audience member Gretchen Buehner is also running for Council. As there were no other discussion items or citizens wishing to speak, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. I/Admin/Carol/rifthTuesday/ 060829 Agenda Item # l ~ 3 Meeting Date September 12, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Appoint Kelly Johnson to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: Dk~ City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council adopt a resolution appointing Kelly Johnson to the PRAB? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ In December, 2005, the Council appointed Kelly Johnson as an alternate member to the PRAB. ■ On August 15, 2006, PRAB member Carl Switzer resigned, creating an opening on the Board. ■ Staff is proposing Ms. Johnson be appointed to complete Mr. Switzer's term, which expires December 31, 2007. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could decide not to appoint Kelly Johnson to the Board. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Tigard Beyond Tomorrow: Community Character & Quality of Life Volunteerism #1) City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution 2. Biographical Information on Ms. Johnson FISCAL NOTES There are no costs associated with this appointment. Attachment 2 Biographical information on Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) appointee Kelly Jean Johnson has lived in Tigard for approximately 2 years. She is currently serving as an Alternate Board Member on the PRAB. She holds an MBA in sports marketing from the University of Oregon and a BSBA in marketing from Creighton University. She is currently a sales director with Brainstorm NW Magazine in Lake Oswego. She feels it is important for a city to provide its residents with safe, clean, enjoyable, and effective facilities, programs, and clubs to promote general health, well-being, education, and youth experiences. She wants to apply her experiences and education to assist in developing the programs and facilities to best serve the community. She has served on advisory boards including the U.S. Olympic Committee, the Ford Gorge Games, the Boys and Girls Club of Omaha, and the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) River Raiders USBL team. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.06- A RESOLUTION APPOINTING KELLY JOHNSON AS A MEMBER OF THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, the City Council activated the Park and Recreation Advisory Board by Ordinance No. 03-02 on April 22, 2003; and WHEREAS, with the resignation of Carl Switzer on August 15, 2006, a vacancy now exists on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, Kelly Johnson was appointed as an alternate member of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board on December 20, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Kelly Johnson is appointed as a member of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board to complete Carl Switzer's term which expires December 31, 2007. PASSED: This lo? day of 2006. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: . . L~ a~4~_ I City Recorder - City of TigardCj RESOLUTION NO. 06 - cJ'°S Page 1 Agenda Item # (0, Meeting Date September 12, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title A Resolution Declaring Agreement With Washington County Code Section 3.08.170.B and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County and the City of Tigard For the Purpose of Sharing of Transient Room Tax Revenues. Prepared By: Robert Sesnon Dept Head Approval: 14 Di City Mgr Approval: CX ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council adopt a resolution declaring agreement with Washington County Code section 3.08.170.13 and authorizing the City Manager to execute an intergovernmental agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard for the purpose of sharing of Transient Room Tax Revenues? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve this Resolution and Direct the City Manager to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In May 2006, the voters of Washington County approved a two-percentage point increase in the preexisting transient room tax, bringing the rate to 9%. All additional funds generated as a result of this increase, which became effective July 1, 2006, are dedicated to promoting tourism. Because the distribution formula has now changed, County Code section 3.08.170 requires each cityxxrithin the county to adopt and file with the County a resolution declaring it agrees with the provisions of County Code 3.08.170.B, which states that the City will receive 50% of 5/9ths of the amounts collected within the city boundaries, so long as it does not adopt its own transient room tax. Effective July 1, 2006, Transient Room Tax revenues generated within cities in Washington County are allocated as follows: • Lodging operators keep 5% of collections (to offset collection costs) Of the remaining 95%- 0 3/9 to promote tourism • 1/9 to the Washington County Fair • 50% of 5/9 to cities • 50% of 5/9 to Washington County In order for the City to receive Transient Room Tax funds it must approve this resolution and execute the intergovernmental agreement. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT This is consistent with the Council's goal to stabilize the financial picture. ATTACHMENT LIST Intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County FISCAL NOTES This agreement allows the City to receive Transient Room Tax revenues collected by the Washington County, estimated at $325,000 for the 2006-07 FY. I:%admteathyVormsQ008\counci1 agenda item summary sheet 06 • June revision.doe CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 06-,(p A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY CODE SECTION 3.08.170.B, IN ORDER THAT AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT MAY BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHARING TRANSIENT ROOM TAX REVENUES WHEREAS, the Washington County Transient Room Tax has existed since 1985 and is authorized by County Code section 3.08; and WHEREAS, In May 2006 the voters of Washington County approved a two-percentage point increase in the tax, bringing the rate to 9%; and WHEREAS, this increase is dedicated to promoting tourism within Washington County; and WHEREAS, this change effects the distribution formula in effect prior to the rate increase and thus requires that the related Intergovernmental Agreement in effect between the City of Tigard and Washington County be updated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: In lieu of adopting a City of Tigard transient room tax, and for the purpose of entering into an agreement with Washington County to receive distributions of receipts from the County Transient Room Tax in a manner provided by Washington County Code section 3.08, the City Council of the City of Tigard hereby agrees as follows: a. That the administration and enforcement of such tax shall remain with the Director of the Support Services Department for the county; b. That the total transient room tax imposed within the city shall not exceed nine percent of the rent as provided in section 3.08.080 of the Washington County Code. SECTION 2: The City Manager is authorized to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County, substantially in the form attached to this resolution, for the above stated purpose. SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. RESOLUTION NO. 06 - Page 1 PASSED: This day of ~ 2006. - 6. Mayor - ity of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 06 - ~p Page 2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Transient Room Tax . This Agreement is entered into by and between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon (County) and the City of , a municipal corporation (City). WHEREAS: - - - t Washington County Code Chapter 3.08, the "Transient Room Tax" is a county- wide tax on hotel-motel occupancy; 2. Chapter 3.08.170 provides that tax receipts allocable to hotels and motels in a city may be shared with the city, provided.the city adopts a resolution declaring that, in lieu of adoption of its own tax, it agrees to certain terms of Chapter 3.08; and 3. City, by Resolution No. , has so declared and the parties desire to enter into an Agreement to implement the terms of Chapter 3.08; now, therefore, it is AGREED: 1. City, in lieu of adopting its own transient room tax, and in consideration of an allocation of tax receipts arising from hotels and motels in City, hereby consents to the following: a. The administration and enforcement of the transient room tax shall remain with Washington County, acting by and through its Director of Support Services; b. The total amount of transient room tax imposed in City shall not exceed nine percent (9%) of the rent as provided in Section 3.08.080 of the County Code; and C. The amount distributed to City shall be calculated as provided for in Section 3.08.170 C. of the County Code. 2. County shall calculate the amount, if any due to City in accordance with Section 3.08.170 C and shall distribute any amount due to City within 30 days of receipt of the taxes. 3. County and City, by and through their respective finance officers shall cooperate in ensuring that the tax is effectively and efficiently enforced within City. Each party shall give the other immediate written notice of any action or suit filed or any claim made against that party that may result in litigation in any way related to this Agreement. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Transient Room Tax Page two 4. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice. Any amounts due City for receipts prior to the effective date of termination shall be paid within 30 days of termination. 5. Each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws; and rules and regulations on non-discrimination in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national .___..__.ongin, religion,.sex; sexual orientation, marital status, age, medical condition or disability. 6. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the Agreement between the parties with respect-to the included terms and as .a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. WHEREAS, all the aforementioned is hereby agreed upon by the parties and executed by the duly authorized signatures below. CITY OF Signature Date Printed Name Title Address: WASHINGTON COUNTY Signature Date Printed Name Title Address: 155 N First Avenue; MS 25; 334 Public Services Building Hillsboro OR 97124 Agenda Item # to-'s- a, Meeting Date September 12, 2006 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: Contract Awards for Design Services for the Ash Avenue Extension 1roject. and the 97`h Avenue and 100`h Avenue SLannita~ Sewer Reimbursement Districts Prepared B : Vannie N env -Dept Head roval: City M Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Should Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the contract awards to Century West Engineering Corporation to perform design services for the Ash Avenue Extension project (between Burnham Street and the existing railroad tracks), and the 97`h Avenue and 10& Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Districts? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the following contracts to Century West Engineering Corporation: - Ash Avenue Extension: $82,631.00 - 97`h Avenue & 100`h Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Districts: $111,606.00 Staff further recommends authorization of the additional amounts of $8,263.00 and $11,160.00 to be reserved as contingencies for each project respectively and applied as needed as the projects progress towards completion. The total amount committed to the Ash Street Extension project is therefore $90,894.00. The total committed amount for the 97`h Avenue & 100`h Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Districts project is $122,766.00. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The workload in the Community Development's Capital Construction & Transportation Division is heavy and the Division staff has not increased to keep pace with the project workload. To expand the Division's capability to meet the project demands in FY 2006-07, staff prepared a Request for Proposal in March 2006 to qualify engineering firms for survey, engineering design and construction management services on an as-needed basis. • On April 25, 2006, Council approved the contract awards to the following Civil Engineering firms: Century West Engineering Corporation, Group McKenzie, Inc. and W&H Pacific, Inc. Council also authorized the City Manager to execute design contracts with the firms for projects up to and including $50,000. • Group McKenzie, Inc. has been authorized to perform the design services for the Tigard Triangle Local Reimbursement District project. W&H Pacific, Inc. is working on a fee proposal for the designs of the 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street Signalization and the Red Rock Creek Culvert Replacement projects. Century West Corporation has submitted its fee proposals for the designs of the Ash Avenue Extension and the 97`h Avenue and 100`' Avenue Sewer Reimbursement Districts projects. • Staff has reviewed Century West's fee proposals and has determined that the design fees of $82,631.00 for the Ash Avenue Extension and $111,606.00 for the 97th Avenue and 100th Avenue Sewer Reimbursement Districts project are appropriate. The fees include topographic survey, preliminary design, final design, construction staking and construction management • Ash Avenue is a new street, approximately 400 feet long, to be constructed between Burnham Street and the existing railroad tracks. The new street will provide a second entrance and exit to the proposed Commuter Rail station and parking lot identified in the Downtown Improvement Plan. The design will include a half-street improvement, which consists of a 24-foot paved width and a 14-foot wide sidewalk and landscape area on one side of the street. The street will tie into a modern roundabout at the intersection of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue, which is being designed as part of the Burnham Street project. Century West will closely coordinate their work with the Burnham Street design consultant. Ash Avenue is scheduled for construction in the summer of 2007. • The 97th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District will provide sewer service to 21 lots in the 97th Avenue and Pembrook Street area. The 100th Avenue District will also provide sewer service to 21 lots in the 100th Avenue and Inez Street area. Although both districts will be designed under the same contract, the design costs and other expenditures will be maintained separately for each district. The project is scheduled for construction in the spring of 2007. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. COUNCIL GOALS AND rTIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT The Ash Avenue Extension project meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic goals of "Improve Traffic Flow and Safety". It also directly supports the Council Goal to "Implement Downtown Plan." The 97th Avenue and 100th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Districts project is part of the Citywide Sewer Extension Program established by City Council to provide sewer service to developed but unserved residential areas in the City. It meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Growth and Growth Management goal of "Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of established areas, protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community." Sewer service enhances the environment and protects the health of the residents by providing for the closure of septic systems 40 to 50 years old. ATTACHMENT LIST Project Location Maps. FISCAL NOTES The amount of $300,000 is available in the FY 2006-07 CIP Gas Tax Fund for the Ash Avenue Extension project and $2,000,000 is available in the Citywide Sanitary Sewer Extension Program for the 97th Avenue, 100th Avenue and other sewer extension projects. These amounts are sufficient to award the design contracts of $82,631.00 and $111,606.00 to Century West Engineering Corporation. These funds are also sufficient to allow the additional amounts of $8,263.00 and $11,160.00 to be set aside as contingency funds for the projects. iladm\cathyVorms\2006%cound1 agenda item summary sheet 06 -june revision.doc E EXTENS~~N ASH AV ram O~c jqC PSG . OAT s~ Oy Oy d d N o ~Sh A~ Exte Sion 4 MAP viCVDI N 97TH & 100TH AVE SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS McDONALD ST Q rn N ELROSE ST Q Q 0 rn Q v 0 3 rn W VIEW TERR VIEW TERR INEZ S T CANTERBURY LN PEMBROOK ST L-LF L 100TH A VE = 97TH A VE VICINITY MAP NTS Agenda Item # ` O. 5 10 Meeting Date September 12, 2006 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: Award of Contract for the Construction of Pine Street - Street and Storm Drainage Improvements Prepared By: Vannie Nguyen Dept Head Appro A City Mgr Approval: Ce ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of Pine Street - Street and Storm Drainage Improvements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Landis & Landis Construction, LLC in the amount of $336,018.01 and authorize an additional amount of $33,601.80 to be reserved for contingencies and applied as needed as the project goes through construction. The total amount committed to the project is therefore $369,619.81. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The project was advertised for bids on August 8 and August 10, 2006 in the Daily Journal of Commerce and The Times respectively. Bids were opened on August 24, 2006 at 2:00 pm and the bid results are: Landis & Landis Construction, LLC Portland, OR $336,018.01 (low bid) Dunn Construction, Inc Portland, OR $356,070.00 Engineer's Estimate Range $177,000 to $217,000 • Although the bids submitted are much higher than the estimated cost range in the Engineer's Estimate, the two bids are relatively close together. The subtotal for the storm drainage improvements in the low bid is approximately 15% higher than the Engineer's Estimate, which is a reasonable increase. However, the bid items for the roadwork are uniformly higher throughout on both bids and are approximately double the estimate on the low bid. The relatively small variance between the two bids suggests that the higher cost is a more accurate representation of the industry cost for completing the proposed street and storm drainage improvements. Material and construction costs associated with fuel expenses have risen significantly during the past year. These costs are anticipated to remain high and are even likely to continue to escalate over time. In addition, the project is not large enough to achieve economies of scale since the bid item quantities are relatively small and some of the work is labor intensive. Therefore, it is unlikely that a future re-bid of this project will yield a lower construction cost. A review of two major road projects recently bid by Washington County and a small parking lot project in the City of Sherwood indicate a trend towards higher prices for unit bid items. Although the Pine Street project is not directly comparable to those projects, it is clear that the cost estimates need to be raised significantly to reflect the current bidding atmosphere, especially on relatively small projects. Finally, rejection of bids would add this project to a growing list of projects slated for bid advertisements in the spring of 2007. That logjam of projects, both rebids and planned, does not bode well for a lower bid on this project at that time. A contract award to the low bidder on this project would allow for better spacing of construction work throughout the fiscal year and should encourage more competition on those projects already planned for the spring of 2007. • Pine Street is classified as Local Street and located in the northeast quadrant of the City. Problems with the street include poor pavement condition, narrow width, and inadequate drainage that creates water buildup along the side yard of a property on the street. This project will reconstruct the entire length of the street, which is approximately 815 feet, beginning from east of 69 h Avenue to the end of the street. The project will also install 900 lineal feet of storm drain pipes, five manholes and six inlets to replace the existing inefficient drainage system. Other drainage facilities include asphaltic concrete (AC) berm and concrete ditch to direct and collect storm runoff. Sidewalks and curbs are not included in the project since the street is being rehabilitated as part of the Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP). • Storm drainage easements have been obtained from two property owners to convert a. private storm line and inlet to a public drainage system. • To resolve location conflicts between the existing water line that is under the jurisdiction of Tualatin Valley Water District and the new storm drainage system, the District will complete the necessary relocation of the water line by the end of September to provide clearance for construction of the project. • The construction is anticipated to begin the first week of October and is expected to be completed in late November. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reject the bids and re-bid the project in the spring of 2007. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT This project meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic goals of "Improve Traffic Flow and Safety". ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES This project will be funded through three funding sources: the Street Maintenance Fee Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and the Stormwater Fund. The amounts of $950,000, $210,000 and $195,000 are budgeted in each fund respectively. However, on August 22, 2006, Council awarded a construction contract of $279,763.23 for the FY 2006-07 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Phase 1 leaving approximately $670,000 in the Street Maintenance Fee Fund account. The lowest bid submitted includes the following bid schedules: - Street Improvement: $207,683.50, with 10% contingencies $20,768.35 - Storm Drainage Improvements: $128,334.51, with 10% contingencies $12,833.45 Total: $336,018.01, with 10% contingencies $33,601.80 The available amounts of $670,000 in the Street Maintenance Fee Fund, $210,000 in the Gas Tax Fund, and $195,000 in the Stormwater Fund are sufficient to award a construction contract of $336,018.01 for the project and provide a contingency amount of $33,601.80 for a total project commitment of $369,619.81. It should also be noted that this project has received a $2,180 credit and an easement dedication from adjacent property owner, George E. Scholibo, Jr. (Buster's Barbeque), for the storm drainage improvements within the utility easement on his property. Those improvements connect to the street drainage and should eliminate flooding on properties along Pine Street. PINE STREET STREET & STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 69TH AVENUE TO END MAPELEAF ST N a a ~ rl OAK STREET OAK STREET a Q < a Q N P,NE sT a) PINE ST PROJECT LIMITS y SPRUCE ST 0glo) P PC\~G Agenda Item # (0,50- Meeting Date September 12, 2006 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Amend the Agreement for Professional Services or 550-Foot Reservoir No. 2 Prepared By: Brian Rager Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve Amendment No. 2 for Murray Smith and Associates, Inc. (MSA) for professional services related to the 550-Foot Zone Reservoir No. 2 project and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the amendment. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ Originally, the 550-Foot Zone Reservoir No. 2 project was to be located on the Alberta Rider School property. Ultimately, this was not possible and the Price property was purchased in May, 2006, with the final project scope to include a pocket park and possibly an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) well. ■ Due to modifications resulting from the change in location, the Council approved Amendment No. 1 of the Professional Services contract on February 22, 2005. At that time, reservoir supply and overflow piping was to be routed through the Rider School site and MSA proceeded with design work. Recently, staff determined the supply and overflow piping can not be routed through the school site, due to conflicts with the school district's project schedule and because favorable terms for a water line easement could not be reached. A second amendment for the professional services is needed for the following reasons: o Addition of the pocket park design elements (result of final property negotiations). o Revised overflow piping route across the Price site versus the Rider School site. o Addition of street design work. The existing scope only addresses design work along the Price reservoir site. Both the Public Works and Engineering staff recognized that if street improvements were to continue from the Price property to the east end of the 10 mg reservoir site, a substantial section of the north half of the roadway could be improved. To capitalize on this opportunity, this amendment incorporates this additional section of roadway into MSA's street design work.. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay the project to solicit proposals for professional services for the additional work scope. This option is not the preferred choice because MSA already knows the project and the site, and has offered to perform the additional work at 2003 contract rates. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Urban & Public Services, Water and Stormwater Goal #1, Strategy #3: Build identified water capital improvements. This reservoir was identified on the Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study System Map, dated May 2000. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for 550 Foot Reservoir FISCAL NOTES The cost of Amendment No. 2 is $116,038. Funding for the professional services is as follows: Original Cost $268,355 Amendment No. 1 $129,062 Proposed Amendment No. 2 $116,038 Total Cost $513,455 Expenditures To-Date $ 99,203 Remaining Cost $414,252 The FY '06/'07 Water CIP Fund contains $500,000 for these services; there is ample funding to accommodate the amendment. 1:\adm\cathyVorms\20=1crb agenda ftem summary sheet 00-June revislon.doc AMENDMENT NO.2 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 550 FOOT RESERVOIR FOR CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON THIS AMENDMENT, dated the day of , 2006, modifies the agreement and contract made and entered into at Tigard, Oregon dated May 12, 2003, by and between City of Tigard, hereinafter called the "City", and MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. hereinafter called the "Engineer", and provides for engineering services for design, bidding and construction. This amendment is hereby made a part of the above referenced agreement to the same extent as though it was originally included therein. This amendment modifies the original scope-of-work and the previously executed Amendment No. 1 to address the relocation of the proposed reservoir from the Rider School Site to the Price Property and includes certain additional services. Much of the work identified under Amendment No. 1 was suspended as project progress was halted. As such, Amendment No. 2 work program includes Amendment No. 1 work which will be completed along with additional work included in this Amendment No. 2. A number of tasks have been revised to reflect additional work associated with design of the reservoir at the new location. Amendment No. 2 work includes extending water piping down SW Bull Mountain Road from the new reservoir site to SW 125th Street and along SW Greenfield Drive, extending reservoir overflow piping east of the Price site to an existing storm drainage pipe, designing a half street improvement on SW Bull Mountain Road, developing a preliminary site layout plan for a future Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) well and adding design work for a park on top of the reservoir. The agreement is hereby amended as follows: On page 1 of the Agreement, in Item No. 3, Engineer's Fee, REMOVE the last sentence and REPLACE with the following: "The Basic Fee shall not exceed the amount of five hundred thirteen thousand, four hundred fifty five $513,455 without. prior written authorization. This total is based on the following: The original budget to design the reservoir in the south east corner of the Rider School Site is $268,355 and the additional budget for Amendment No. 1 is $129,062. Of the previously approved total budget of $397,417, $99,203 has been spent through June 2005 at which point work was temporarily halted. Amendment No. 2 is intended to update the budget to reflect design of the reservoir at the new location and to reflect completed work at the original site, alternatives analyses associated with the Price property site and to add fees required.to complete design of the reservoir at the Price property site. The budget Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Page 1 of 7 1APW\Council Packets\2006\091206\Amend 550 Res Prof Services - Amendment.doc adjustment requested for Amendment No. 2 to complete designs of the reservoir at the Price site is $116,038. Revised Work Plan A detailed description of the revised work plan is presented below and reflects specific changes to Amendment No. 1 and additional language of Amendment No. 2 to achieve an updated and current work plan. For clarity purposes, Amendment No. 1 changes are presented first followed by Amendment No. 2 changes, many of which delete, modify or add to the previously approved Amendment No. 1 changes. In Exhibit 1, Work Plan, is amended as follows: Item No. 1 - Task A Preliminary Design Amendment No. I - On page 1, after the second sentence of paragraph 1, ADD the words "The revised predesign will include predesign layout of the reservoir at the Price property site and will address hydraulic interests relative to the overflow elevation for the reservoir". Amendment No. 2 - Following the above sentence ADD the following: "Predesigns will also include preliminary analysis and drawings of the water piping along SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Greenfield Drive and preliminary site layout drawings for the park, future ASR well, drainage piping and half street improvement along SW Bull Mountain Road." Item No. 2 - Task B Conditional Use Permit Application Amendment No. 1- On page 3, REMOVE the first paragraph and REPLACE with the following: ° "Under this task, assistance with obtaining a conditional use permit for the project from the City of Tigard will be provided. The Engineer will represent and assist the City with the preparation and submittal of a conditional use permit application and supporting documentation such as renderings, maps and other such documents. It is currently anticipated that this application will be a quasi-judicial Type III application to the City of Tigard requiring a public hearing process. The Engineer will assist the City during the application processing and assist with presentations to City staff, City Planning Commission and City Council, if necessary. The Engineer will coordinate its work with the City staff and City legal counsel. It is assumed that this process will not be a contested one". Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Page 2 of 7 IAPW\Council Packets\2006\091206\Amend 550 Res Prof Services - Amendment.doc Amendment No. 2 - Following the above paragraphs, ADD the following: "Included in the conditional use permit application will be assisting the landscape architect (hired by the City) with development of a site plan and an elevation view rendering of the proposed park facilities. It is anticipated that the City will conduct a Phase 1 Environmental review for the reservoir site." Item No. 3 - Task C Geotechnical Investi atg ions Amendment No. 1- On page 4, in the first sentence of paragraph numbered 1), REMOVE the words "Drill two borings within the footprint of the proposed reservoir" and REPLACE with the following sentence "Drill three borings within the footprint of the proposed reservoir". Amendment No. 2 - After the above revised sentence ADD the following: "Two additional bore holes will be included for the water and overflow piping on the project. These will be drilled in the alignment of the respective pipelines to a depth of about 25 feet and are considered optional work with final determination to proceed following predesign of the pipeline alignments." Item No. 4 - Task D Public Meetings and Presentations Amendment No. I - This task will remain as shown in the original scope. Amendment No. 2 - On page 6, after the paragraph under Item 4 ADD the following: "Two additional meetings be included to address park facility interests on the tank site." Item No. 5 - Task E Final Desijzn Services Amendment No. I - On page 6, DELETE all of the bulleted items and REPLACE them with the following: • "Reservoir designs assume a fully buried prestressed concrete reservoir designed and constructed in accordance with AWWA D110 standards. • Reservoir top treatment surface feature designs and final site improvement engineering will be completed as part of this project. • Reservoir related drainage designs will be coordinated with School District site development designs. Reservoir drainage facility designs assume connection to existing storm drainage system located east of the Rider School Site. • Project designs assume that transmission piping will extend south from the Price site, adjacent to the Rider School property and extend east from Rider School site where connection will be made to the transmission piping improvements completed by the developer that is developing a subdivision in this area. The piping depth ranges from minimum cover to approximately 20 feet deep. It is assumed that the entire pipe Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Page 3 of 7 L\PW\Council Packets\2006\091206\Amend 550 Res Prof Services - Amendment.doc length will be constructed using open trench methods. The length of the pipe is approximately 1,200 linear feet. • Basic electrical features are included in project designs. Telemetry designs will be coordinated with the City's systems integrator. • Access road and parking facility final designs will be designed on the Price site for the new reservoir. • The half street improvements along the proposed reservoir site on Bull Mountain Road will be designed as part of this project. • Reservoir overflow piping will extend north from the reservoir and be installed through easements on private property and to a natural drainage way. Length of the pipe is approximately 1,300 linear feet." Amendment No. 2 - DELETE the above listed items from Amendment No. 1 and REPLACE with the following: • "Reservoir designs assume a fully buried prestressed concrete reservoir designed and constructed in accordance with AWWA D110 standards. • Reservoir top treatment surface feature designs and final site improvement engineering will be completed as part of this project. • The length of the half street improvement on SW Bull Mountain Road will be designed as part of this project and be approximately 2100 linear feet extending from west of the private road west of the reservoir site east to the easterly property line of the existing 10 mg reservoir site. Half street improvements will include an intersection design and realignment of the private drive west of the reservoir site. • The reservoir drain will connect with the reservoir overflow pipe which will be routed to the east of the reservoir site to an existing storm drainage pipe. It is anticipated that the existing storm drain line will be used in its current configuration with no modifications. • The water transmission line will extend east approximately 1,650 linear feet along SW Bull Mountain Road to SW 125th Avenue near the existing 10 MG reservoir. • The water transmission line will extend south from SW Bull Mountain Road along SW Greenfield Drive approximately 600 linear feet. • Designs will include a preliminary site layout for future ASR facilities to coordinate reservoir design with such facilities. • MSA will prepare complete reservoir structural designs including final drawings, specifications and calculations." • Basic electrical features are included in project designs. Telemetry designs will be coordinated with the City's systems integrator. • Access road and parking facility final designs will be designed on the Price property site for the new reservoir. Item No. 6 - Task F Permits. Approvals and Property Acquisition Amendment No. 1- On page 8, to the end of the paragraph numbered "2)" ADD the following: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Page 4 of 7 1:\PW\Council Packets\2006\091206\Amend 550 Res Prof Services - Amendment.doc "Approximately three easements will be prepared for the overflow line extending north from the reservoir and three easements will be prepared for the waterline extending south along the Rider School Site." Amendment No. 2 - DELETE the above sentence and ADD the following: "It is anticipated that one easement will be prepared for access to the site from an existing private road west of the site." Item No. 7 - Task G Assistance During Bidding This task will remain as shown in the original scope. Item No. 8 - Task H Engineering Services During Construction Amendment No. I - On page 10, ADD at the end of the first sentence in the first paragraph the following: "Additional engineering related efforts during construction of the reservoir at the Price site include construction observation and management for the longer water and overflow piping and the required half street improvement on SW Bull Mountain Road. Amendment No. 2 - DELETE the above sentence and ADD the following: "Additional engineering related to services during construction of the reservoir at the Price property site include construction observation and management for the longer waterline, the required half street improvement on SW Bull Mountain Road, the park improvements on the site and the storm drainage." Item No. 9 - Task I Design and Construction Surveys Amendment No. I - On page 12, REMOVE the first paragraph and REPLACE with the following: "Under this task, design surveys will be performed to provide the topographic and other information necessary to complete project designs. Topographic surveys will be conducted for the Price site and the overflow piping extending north of the Price site. Surveys provided by the school and various developers will be used for the off-site water piping. Construction surveys will be completed only to the extent necessary to set an elevation reference point and base line for the contractor to completed detailed surveys." Amendment No. 2 - DELETE the above sentence and REPLACE with the following: "Under this task, design surveys will be performed to provide the topographic and other information necessary to complete project designs. Topographic surveys will be conducted for the Price property site, the overflow piping extending east of the Price property site and the waterline and half-street improvements in SW Bull Mountain Road. It is anticipated that a boundary survey for the Price property site has been completed by others and local survey Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Page 5 of 7 IAMCouncil Packets\2006\091206\Amend 550 Res Prof Services - Amendment.doc control data will be available from the surveys recently conducted at the Rider School site. Construction surveys will be completed only to the extent necessary to set an elevation reference point and base line for the contractor to complete detailed surveys." Item No. 13 - Task J Project Partnering This task will remain as shown in the original scope. Revised Schedule A revised schedule is attached. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Page 6 of 7 I:\PW\Council Packets\2006\091206\Amend 550 Res Prof Services - Amendment.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed in duplicate by their respective authorized officers or representatives. City of Tigard By: <Client Representative, Title> MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Philip H. Smith, President Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Page 7 of 7 1:\PW\Council Packets\2006\091206\Amend 550 Res Prof Services - Amendment.doc PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING SERVICES DESIGN :OF 550~FOOT-SERVICE ZONE RESERVOIR NO. 2 Revised 6128106 Task Name D 8 JJ ec ..Jan. r . a . c - J.1 Ago - -S . -0ct 7[ v - a Peb -bAa -...J n -I -Jul - Task A - Preliminary Engineering A.1-A.6 Preliminary Engineering and Report Preparation - Task B - Conditional Use Permit P Task C • Geotecbnlcal investigation Task D -Public Meetings and Presentations (13 Meetings Anticipated) Task E _ Final Design Services E.1 BI-Monthly Design Meetings ' E.235% Design. Completion.LeveLConstruction Cost Estimate E.3 Final Plans and'Spec10ce6ons Preparation E.4 75% Submittal Bidding a _a. E.5 35%,50%,95% Design and Contract Document Submittal _ ♦35•% 050% ~95% E.6 Inco po ate Final Comments Into Plans and Specifications E.7 Final design Completion Level Construction' Cost Estimate : E.8 Electronic Copies of Plans and Project Documents : ;100%05H5107: Task F. Permits, Approvals and Property Acquisition i ~ Task G • Assistance During Project Bidding GA Respond M Bid Inquiries Advertise 06101107 _ . -G:2 Review Pre-Bid Submigals G.3 Prepare and Issue Addenda - G.4 Prepare Pre-Bid Conference Agenda and Review Meeting Details with City G.5 Conduct Pre-Bid Conference, Prepare and Distribute Summary : . . . _ _ . G.fi Bid Opening, Evaluation Assistance an d Recommendation of Award an Bids 07112107 4" Begin Construction 08113107 Task H - Engineering Services During Construction . . H.1 • H.2 Pre•Conilmdian Conference Assistance , Q H.3-H.11 Contract Administration and Construction Management H.12-H.13 &H.17-H.19 Final Inspection, Testing and Project Completion H.14-H.16 OnSiteObservationELM= Task I - Design and Construction Surveys - Task J • Project Partnering - Anticipated Constructi-on-Aclivltl-es--. Building Permit, Site Preparation and Grading building Permit, Site Prep 8 Excavation Final Grading Reservoir Construction and Site Work (Reservoir On-Line 5115108)_• ti Final Completion ! Project complete 0 Pae 1 Murra _ laly26os_____~,.~~,~_r....,_-...-_._._-•~.~_--.-._.__-_____.__,_.___._.__r.__._.-~_~~_.ti_-..-.--~_---~~-----------__.,-~•--_...^__--_-.------------ wo. euwaoaecrsns-0sreiorae~nsoenwapeme-scneemeszs-0s.moo Engineers and Planners Agenda. Item # CP , 5-(~' Meeting Date September 12, 2006 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Purchase of Seven Police Patrol Cars k Prepared By: Dennis Koellertneier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the LCRB authorize the purchase of seven police patrol cars? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the purchase. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ For operational and financial reasons, the City follows a police vehicle replacement schedule based on industry standards for vehicle length of service, maintenance costs and officer safety. ■ Due to budget constraints, the scheduled replacement of police vehicles has fallen behind, resulting in a higher incidence of out-of-service vehicles and higher maintenance costs. ■ With the purchase of these seven patrol cars, the vehicle replacement schedule will be current. ■ All patrol cars due for replacement are six to eight years old and have over 100,000 miles. ■ The City is eligible to purchase the patrol cars through the State of Oregon Contract, thus assuring a competitive price and saving the City the cost and time of preparing a solicitation. The cars will be purchased from Gresham Ford. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The LCRB could decide not to authorize the purchase of the police cars. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES The cost of each patrol car is $23,854; the cost of all seven cars totals $166,978. The FY `06/'07 budget contains $175,000 for this purchase. FISCAL NOTES The cost of each patrol car is $23,854; the cost of all seven cars totals $166,978. The FY `06/'07 budget contains $175,000 for this purchase. Agenda Item # 9 Meeting Date September 12, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Heritage Tree Nominations Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND KEY FACTS Should the Council award Heritage Tree designation to two trees? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Award the Heritage Tree designations. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ In November of 2005, the Tigard City Council established the City's Heritage Tree Program. ■ This program was developed by the Tigard Tree Board as a method to identify and raise public awareness of rare/exceptional trees due to their age, size, species, horticultural quality or historical importance. ■ The following Heritage Tree nomination forms were submitted by Tigard property owners. The nominations are as follows: Douglas fir Monkey puzzle tree Located at 8275 SW Ross Street in Tigard Located at 14530 SW 103`d in Tigard The tree: The tree: - Is estimated to be at least 150 years old. - Is the oldest known monkey puzzle tree - Has a unique shape and atypical form. in Tigard. - Provides valuable shade. - Is close to the maximum height for a - Is an all-around important tree in the monkey puzzle tree grown in the urban City of Tigard. environment. At its May 8, 2006, meeting, the Tree Board unanimously voted to forward these two Heritage Tree nominations to the City Council. ■ The final step in the process is for the Council to take action on the Heritage Tree designations. ■ These are the first nominations the Council has been asked to consider since the Heritage Tree Program was created in December, 2005. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City Council could choose not to approve the Heritage Tree designation for these two trees. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Tigard Beyond Tomorrow, Growth and Growth Management Goal #1 - "Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of established areas, protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community." Strategy #1 - "Review and modify development code sections to integrate open space preservation and protection into deign standards." ATTACHMENT LIST 1. May 8, 2006, Tree Board Minutes 2. Memo from Matt Stine to Dan Plaza dated August 9, 2006 3. Douglas fir evaluation elements a. Nomination form b. Urban Forester's Review c. Photos 4. Monkey puzzle tree evaluation elements a. Nomination form b. Urban Forester's Review c. Photos FISCAL NOTES Depending upon the health and maintenance requirements of each tree, Heritage Tree Program funds may be spent on pruning, soil treatments, etc. The plaque, designating each tree as a Heritage Tree, is expected to cost $100. Annually, the City anticipates spending no more than $2,000 on the Heritage Tree Program; these funds will come from the FY'06/'07 park operations budget. Attachment 1 TREE BOARD Minutes of May 8, 2006 meeting Members present Mrs. Gillis, Mr. Callan, Mr. Cancelosi, Mr. DeSelle, Mr. Tycer, Ms. Hagan, Mr. Sizemore Staff present Matt Stine 1. Meeting was called to order at 6:35 P.M. 2. Minutes of March and April 2006 meetings approved. 3. City updates a. SOLV's Down by the Riverside volunteer event will be held on Saturday, May 20, 2006 at Cook Park. Invasive plant removal and native plant mulching will be the events in Tigard b. Subdivision issue updates - Gage, Brentwood, Sunrise Lane, and Arlington Heights. 4. Heritage Tree application forms review a. Monkey puzzle tree - approved for submission to City Council b. Douglas fir at the Mangold's - approved for submission to City Council. 5. Costco parking lot. Discussed plan for approaching the management staff at the store. Also talked about how the plan for replanting the parking lot will be executed, including who the partners will be. 6. Tree of the Year Program - put on hold until Heritage Tree Program gets further along, and the Board wants to work on other projects first. 7. Agenda for June, 2006 a. City updates b. Costco parking lot c. Heritage Trees - members bring nominations of their own Adjourned 8:00 PM Attachment 2 MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Dan Plaza FROM: Matt Stine RE: Heritage Tree nominations DATE: August 9, 2006 The Tree Board has approved two nominations from Tigard citizens for Heritage Tree designation. Please review the descriptions that are below. I will be submitting an Agenda Item Summary form for City Council to approve the nominations for your review. Douglas fir tree located at 8275 SW Ross Street. In my opinion this tree does qualify as a Heritage Tree according to the guidelines written into the program's description. It possesses all of the required criteria except for the species, which is not unique to this area. It demonstrates significant landmark importance since has a strong connection to Tigard's history. I estimate the age to be at least 150 years old. Despite its unique shape and atypical form it is a beautiful tree, provides valuable shade and is an all-around important tree in the City of Tigard. I strongly suggest that we designate this Douglas fir as a Heritage Tree in the City of Tigard. A Monkey Puzzle Tree located at 14530 SW 103rd Avenue. In my opinion this tree does qualify as a Heritage Tree according to the "history" and "kind" of tree that it is. It possesses all of the required criteria except for the shade. It demonstrates landmark importance since it was planted so long ago, and is the oldest known monkey puzzle tree in Tigard. The height of the tree is close to the maximum size for monkey puzzle trees growing in the urban environment. The tree can, however, reach 135 feet in its native range in South America. I suggest that you seriously consider designating this tree as a Heritage Tree in the City of Tigard. Attachment 3 a City of Tigard HERITAGE TREE NOMINATION FORM (Please supply as much information as you can) NEIGHBORHOOD: Good Acres Person noticing the tree: Property Owner (if other than reporter): Steve & Debbie Mangold Name Name 8275 SW Ross Street Address Address Tigard, OR 97224 (503) 620-7331 Phone (day) (eve) Phone (day) (eve) TREE DESCRIPTION 1) Location (street address): 8275 SW Ross Street 2) Private Property X Public Property (park, parking strip, median, etc.) 3) Single Tree X More than one (give number) 4) Species or variety (botanic or common name): Douglas fir 5) Historical Facts: Older than the 100-year old home the Mangolds live in. 6) Height (approx): 120 ft. Crown (measure from one edge to opposite edge): Approx. 80 ft. 7) Approximate Age: 150 years 8) Condition: Healthy X Pruning Problem: 9) Noteworthy Features: Beauty_X Shade X Size X Kind History X _ "Allowing the annual loss of canopy cover in the urban forest to continue will mean an irretrievable loss. At current rates of tree mortality, over one-half the existing canopy cover could be gone in 30 years." National Arborist Association (Please Include Photo) Mail to: City of Tigard Attn: City Forester 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD Attachment 3 b In my opinion this tree does qualify as a Heritage Tree according to the guidelines written into the program's description. It possesses all of the required criteria except for the species, which is not unique to this area. It demonstrates significant landmark importance since has a strong connection to Tigard's history. I estimate the age to be at least 150 years old. Despite its unique shape and atypical form it is a beautiful tree, provides valuable shade and is an all-around important tree in the City of Tigard. I strongly suggest that we designate this Douglas fir as a Heritage Tree in the City of Tigard. Matt Stine Tigard Urban Forester Kodak HTML Email Attachment 3 c i r 0 d 4 rl a •x file://C:\Documents and Settings\mstineTocal Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/11/2006 Kodak HTML Email Page 3 of 3 9 4 c• -oS q`.a +Y 'i 1 Now to save a ple uire C-,v-o of o Ea s~ we Simply right click on it and select "save image as." Mac software users, click and drag the image to your desktop. Organize, print and share your digital photos. Click here to get the software. Copyright © Eastman Kodak Company, 2005 file://C:\Documents and Settings\mstine\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/11/2006 v. . e `i . ...R'=',:; . ..,>j,..,,...ry.::' .M.a, Y,. '.Aye:... NV- z4 a 4* t 3 t.. b•.t= ;:t. a' K.. R',;« ''~Z. w.,,»tk>ct~~~.,,>~.i 4,.~, gip, .S ` ~v1'~ ,r~ K. ~.A r,,-f '~.~t fd`l:Fi„' `:S~`, •-b:... .t:°'~ts..r n:.'A.K~r p~~` i;:~i: t:MT' ~1~.. r~ .r. ! ^ tY,',• rw_>sns`,':l wx I`, "5,:•.y= J., x....s,Tv";~, ~~t..;~a.>.>,?v n5~,~.eE.. yp~:.t..3._,~.,r4 r."F '",tir.-.. ~E _ e:x`.."r-*. .~.t.. "•~;rr » ,at;'. 'Y~ et' ty~S~>~_'. e r4r •J• ~Afi: `;"F ~ v s ww flt, j .mot,' a Mkt a".,:~ "a 'x.~4's. ,Y ! ^v- ~ Y n`;.r.r..,.:=~';`;~s. "..,..~tl:, as:. =";z»e,.:N<. _ ti'~#'-:,~'.:MY it"}`„r;- s;rc ~f ~^t4 v.:ta. 4 .m.,, ,'3... \ ~Yd:" ,a<r ',t:"<N :;:d'Tn-: ~•~`~e°'^~:-> "Et Ta ~ <E:.w~s t . :>,t=*;~~?r~'`< mh; ~y ^'ayy: ~ `a'`.~S.s~~'°,.;,•r..::~d7':^E,..,:xg:r,<r:~^:'.,.:~,» . ..t~::~"a"te E y.! '''Y•f. .a.H' °'v ~~FFS.~„,., Y.x S<. _'',c':}i< ~ 'e~Y':{"'tx'v ,..,,.YT_ ..i,.av rr:: ...wn..~:. ,r avr Y". .`sq,,,•. - r 5;•;.. zt: R£ r`: a! a:..;L ?tie k..-:: , ^ , x_'- vp,.t,n;..3_t,,"",~ri , L , hb'-,Ll:P "',e'4k..: ..`?`r,ri-r=:`d' ."+.^C uP « .kt?> , a,,. t a.~ "t,, ::..a.'. :`°.z~.o. ..v..< yf ,7 ^.*`Ry. +ck*+,.7'",`•"`n'',,'-ri:,s' .,~F•;.i~`'="„~f~„,Y,' .td°r"..._. r. g F _ a Nu? nb :°a , , • i s ' •yyt ~w d r r:. ..Z x... e• iw"'u=~,t",,t lat':l'J,'`%,b"::'.. 'M'E~.•`M~,~S..u 4 y, rkfv "~`'n:''` :Y.K"'„ ,"~''C'a,„' ~.$Yi e✓'1_,i§i .d,.. :s'~t;,^''"'=' - ,y". ~to.,~~ ~,~.,aEy Z's:`,,,.;;•~;tu,t, Y eye • yst X`,;,Y;, YaYG} :e,,,' "L'',~','.'";''!•"~«!'!y'w: r: ':'K`=:: ;:~ti. ..3+sdf-",<,+,r: afx rr>,s tK`.T +T".., `~'.~~,rC':?".':~,rit~„ tt~ ty.'~t`t~! :;,x~':`::':'x:;n~"i', ~'~"F3„=^r',~ s, Y~ae' :t~,"-, :,?'•"@~,a~ }~,",ty zt. 'r d` hw ~ ~~:~r'~,:r` ,,;YaR ~ ~.ru,~„'~; 'nd' 'Y", 1a~r •Stxf~'irhN', , .~7":,5.~. :'.:7,^S: ' 'ti`;` :'^•;?,t~.. Y',. - r~.',:...Y Fr ''C i, [J~a:.i;'d: , mat ..A ss .F w<. , : AMR , . R' ~ '~c:.'Y.?', " .SPPl?FrA`u :-.N" ~,Ntci;'n' Sl;.., _y:'^.'::~:,.~,="<r°i: i•;..p;.'-~ ,.~'.«?.Y~1::. , .k wk„,.~'`` Et:' low, a , > ,tae t~;~' ","~-'z ~ ';SFr 1;~ -K~~; ~r~}r ~(,,rt°,:` •::N"~^a`P~~ ~z~;~._a:~~,~i~`r'"•"'".'=a`'r,~-;;+~`rt;ryc`~ `~~t~ rx, _ w;. r;.:",':ad'x4y, s• a.'ia''', -a~.`.+x:.':~``~'".4~ • ~;a "`M-~fu' L~' i '~a- s , ..:.1: "~'=;,+3',i°?~,;:>... ,..du''::~' ~ -`y:'Fe~",:%y " ~a 0" h.-' ;~`s,.,,.-...~ ~~t`';F.'.:,~, r~~{-~:,.`.':_~t~;~','=i.. ..d•.., Y.x ~ry<::~ y.•;` v t~3,.....; Ryr ,~s'~ g. r a?, :AEa"c~,,. : r>s:~` ~~'t." ` ";3z' a-n m y h`:. n 4ai'N~1,u- "~a~,_ 64 ( 1*. 4d,: ~ ~ t4 a 1n sf ~,t`,.,' ~'t;'v,v~rt'` . C•Y`5, 'x. ;'~'-a~y. y:~.$L".'4 n a , 4s-!, JY'.,Ja _f `iJ`., ,~..1 - .,1r ':r4..: ,.z .b_ y>.v~ „{4 <d4v ~'L~'¢,r-:>"3" x,F •~~rt Ra_+x ;~7°,~.~.. av , 'fa'r`-~' n d'F«y. ,p' :'~9Z" . Y":=PYR'~ ~'?TE. ~:rr-« 'Lq.;, i'.k'-.x 'n- ;4= .iS " . ,',v'y4"4' i'.4,;r ~-.'.`Y: E,,>~.c,.a..<=^..',~;~~r4.:, ""•:s,. 'av- ~5,z; ~~"",.~,a r~~, v. ,a;t.:it'i:s;:.ir KL ,-a'.: t'r,, Pa+~. s, f~., }e,' ,,~.'t• :wt:,' ~s•,ti,;Y:, aro<.-., t.> ,y~ gicW .u ~Y •E?'1~,~' Y 5&` ~';Sh.., y,axtz ...c«YY~_<+.,'" 4 ~:,^'::='i,1y'ir s`, 5:,::i: ~.'"ir a,:a. ,'.w°4!_t'`?rm.'.us,.i,S's~r`go1r:_}':-,t,'..-~'? -~,y,d~'~,> Ru'~'sfrt,_ ~ SSI , t<,, .(h.. ' ~,"a' , 9> ~ qq .a4i. Y`° : :.Ft'.'y:"..' „ fr' & ~<"P,'i:,"i,' . 'S , <..vJ, "~'a;4:°V Y :.t, ~ 'k:.'Vr-k'~' -X hw3f.C ~>a'^Y_~w:u"!d'P.,i v N.t _}:i..b .`r~~v,~c..M"k•'.Y. ..d MMS>'~.g<,.a'S~.'~:~e , y':%°:fi^'.,. A. .~_'t~,'i w,~''1`<`~S'.`; Aerial view Of the Schmidt family hOr le. Attachment 4 a City of Tigard HERITAGE TREE NOMINATION FORM (Please supply as much information as you can) NEIGHBORHOOD: Canterbury Hills Person noticing the tree: Property Owner (if other than reporter): Gay Fantz Name Name 14530 SW 103rd Address Address Tigard, OR 97224 (503) 620-9576 Phone (day) (eve) Phone (day) (eve) TREE DESCRIPTION 1) Location (street address): 14530 SW 103rd 2) Private Property X Public Property (park, parking strip, median, etc.) 3) Single Tree X More than one (give number) 4) Species or variety (botanic or common name): Monkey puzzle tree (Araucaria araucana) 5) Historical Facts: At least 80 years old. 6) Height (approx): 60 ft. Crown (measure from one edge to opposite edge): Approx. 35ft. 7) Approximate Age: 80+ years 8) Condition: Healthy X Pruning Problem: 9) Noteworthy Features: Beauty_X Shade Size X Kind X History X _ "Allowing the annual loss of canopy cover in the urban forest to continue will mean an irretrievable loss. At current rates of tree mortality, over one-half the existing canopy cover could be gone in 30 years." National A rborist Association (Please Include Photo) Mail to: City of Tigard Attn: City Forester 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD Attachment 4 b In my opinion this tree does qualify as a Heritage Tree according to the "history" and "kind" of tree that it is. It possesses all of the required criteria except for the shade. It demonstrates landmark importance since it was planted so long ago, and is the oldest known monkey puzzle tree in Tigard. The height of the tree is close to the maximum size for monkey puzzle trees growing in the urban environment. The tree can, however, reach 135 feet in its native range in South America. I suggest that you seriously consider designating this tree as a Heritage Tree in the City of Tigard. Matt Stine Tigard Urban Forester Attachment 4 c I ~ I Teri, . r ~ t 1y ti ~~r t t . i~ t:. a ~ 3s ~ i 1 ally ~t.t ' i ti • , ~ ~ r' .fi. R.~ r ~ ins f ' ;u; ,yt, ISM ~,Ky ~,~:•t; tire: < ~ i. o }~a5 ~ `J. I t. ~ ~ i'~ ; ~ vT i% rr ,5~~: F~, ~ ` a~.. { ,F I~ . ; F ~ ' ,.r: ~'c r' "=°ti . 1F .`L t, •-'i M . `<r. _ _ -rte , _ . ~ i l Y, ~ ~ ~ ~ - ;4~~• ' Y d i t , \~\l ` f - ~ i -_v. :-t:rs: ,Y. r r • 5 t, i { ,r c c r i Agenda Item # o Meeting Date September 12, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Acceptance of $150,000 in Matching Funds to Construct the Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: lJ~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve a resolution accepting the grant funds? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ On March 28, 2006, the City Council authorized the City Manager to apply for an Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) State of Oregon Lottery Local Government Grant. ■ Grant funds were requested to assist with the construction of the Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park. ■ The City was recently notified that the grant was awarded, providing $150,000 in matching funds for skate park construction. ■ It is anticipated that construction of the skate park will begin this fall/winter and the project could be completed as early as spring 2007. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Tigard Beyond Tomorrow, Urban & Public Services Recreation Goal #1 - "Partnerships will provide a wide range of leisure and recreation opportunities that are coordinated and available for the Tigard community." The estimated cost of the skate park is $426,300. The City originally budgeted $335,502 from the Park SDC fund; $50,798 from the General Fund and $40,000 in donations to finance the park. Since this time, donations have increased. If the Council accepts the grant, Park SDC funding will be reduced by $109,202 and no general fund monies will be used. Funding will be as follows: Park SDCs $226,300 Donations $ 50,000 Grant $150,000 Total $426,300 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.06--rn- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A $150,000 STATE OF OREGON LOTTERY LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT TO BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JIM GRIFFITH MEMORIAL SKATE PARK WHEREAS, the Oregon Park and Recreation Department has funding available through the State of Oregon Lottery Local Government Grant Program for projects such as the construction of the Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard desires to participate in this State Lottery Program in order to receive $150,000 in matching funds for the skate park construction; and WHEREAS, with $150,000 in grant funding, the City of Tigard's share of the project's cost is estimated to be $226,300 in Park System Development Charges; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Skate Park Task Force has raised money and will make a significant financial contribution to the project; and WHEREAS, the skate park project is identified in the adopted Tigard Park System Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Tigard supports its youth and believes in providing opportunities for young people to be engaged in constructive activities; and WHEREAS, the Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park would provide such an opportunity for Tigard youth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1. The Tigard City Council authorizes the City Manager to accept a State of Oregon Lottery Local Government Grant awarded to the City of Tigard to construct the Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park. SECTION 2. This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. 1 PASSED: This day of RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 5"7 Page 1 v'r May - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 06 - CJ Page 2 Agenda Item # Meeting Date September 12, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title City Council Consideration of Writ of Mandamus Concerning 120-day Expiration Prepared By: Dick Bewersdorff Dept Head Approval:City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a motion to approve the staff decision approving the Longstaff Condominium project in light of the filing of a Writ of Mandamus? STAFF RECOMMENDATION As advised by the City Attorney's office, adopt a motion to approve the staff decision including all conditions of approval for the Longstaff Condominiums (SDR2005-00011). KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY A staff decision approving the Longstaff Condominium project was issued on 6-20-06. This project is 43 unit attached residential condominium project on 95 h Avenue and adjacent to Highway 217. An appeal was filed on 7-6-06, the 120- day deadline. An appeal hearing had been scheduled for August 28, 2006. A Writ of Mandamus was filed on August 24, 2006 in the Washington County Circuit Court. The writ asks the Court to approve the project application subject to the conditions of the City approval, to refund application fees or 50% of the total of such fees, whichever is greater, to pay the applicant's attorney's fees, costs and disbursements, and to grant relief as the Court may deem equitable. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Direct the City Attorney to contest the Writ in Circuit Court on the grounds that the applicant submitted additional materials justifying the application on 5-10-06 and should have granted an additional extension to the 120-day limit as requested by staff. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Writ document. 2. Chronology of Longstaff Review FISCAL NOTES Costs are estimated at one-half fees, which equals $3738.75, plus attorneys fees and costs. From: unknown Pa e: 2/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:21 PM Attachment 1 :'.iii ' - _ ',,'•a•'t:,;,:,: s::!~• RTLnND OFFICE s :f` - ~.,.,,?P:r'.,. ar' GPL in rlriRa ;"s;;.•~ ,suit aY.: e6e1'cnth flour 1 7011=5 nra; vorh. nru, +ork 1_11 sit, murrisuil Streri 3141 eattic, ,oushington porlland. orcSon 97204 :.~wss. d~'„ - } xr v TEL SUS ??R 3939 Fax ,.50.9 226 02-59 rooshinXlon. d. c. '•j{.G.~~, y- F p.,-..r! •F, G S B L A W. C O M Id-.nC}' • `,i : 'i `.:!^:%'0.b Please reply ro ADAM R. KELLY akelly@gsblaw.com TEL FXT 3303 August 23, 2006 VIA FACSIMME Gary Firestone Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: Palmer & Associates v. City of Tigard Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dear Mr. Firestone: Enclosed are copies of Palmer & Associates' Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandamus, [Proposed] Order Allowing Petition for Writ of Alternative Mandamus and Alternative Writ of Mandamus. I will be filing these documents with the Washington County Court tomorrow morning, August 24, 2006, at ex parte. Thank you. Sincerely, GARVEY SCHUBERT 13ARER By Adam R. Kell Enclosures c: Client Ed Sullivan PDX_P0QS:378137.1 [36248.002001 From: unknown Page: 3155 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:22 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 9 PALMER & ASSOCIATES, Case No. 10 Relator, PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS 11 v. 12 CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Relator Palmer & Associates (hereinafter "Relator"), on behalf of the owner David Abrams, 17 who is the party beneficially interested, hereby alleges: 18 1, 19 Relator is seeking to develop a 43-unit attached residential development on 4.98 acre parcel of 20 real property located at 10890 SW 95th Avenue, located within the City of Tigard, Oregon. 21. 2. 22 David Abrams is the owner of the real property located at 10890 SW 95th Avenue, located in 23 the City of Tigard, Oregon. 24 3 25 Defendant City of Tigard (hereinafter the "City") is a municipal corporation organized and 26 existing under the laws of the State of Oregon with principal offices located at 13125 SW Mall Page 1- PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF G A R V EY S C H U B E RT BARER MANDAMUS w PARTNER'MIP Or rnoFEBHIONAL CCRPORATIOKS P 1 e v e n f h f l o o r Ill x. w. nl orris an fire 21 porr1und, orogon 97204-3141 (S 03) 228-3939 From: unknown Page: 4/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:22 PM 1 Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223-8189 and has jurisdiction over the land use decision described in this 2 petition. 3 4 4 On September 13, 2005, Relator filed an application with Defendant seeking to develop a 43- 5 unit attached residential development on 4.98 acre parcel of land described in Paragraph 1 of this 6 Petition. 7 5. 8 Defendant deemed the application complete on February 6, 2006 as demonstrated by the letter s from Gary Pagensteeher to Jerry Palmer, which is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Petition. 10 6. 11 The application was approved by Defendant's Director of Community Development on June 12 20, 2006, subject to several conditions of approval. The land use decision, including findings and 13 conditions of approval, is attached as Exhibit "B" to this Petition. Relator is amenable to these 14 conditions. 15 7. 16 On July 6, 2006, an appeal was filed challenging the Defendant's approval described in 17 Paragraph 6. No hearing has been held regarding the appeal and no final decision has been made by 18 the City. 19 8 20 Pursuant to ORS 227.179(1), if the governing body of the City does not take final action on an 21 application for a limited land use decision or permit within 120 days after the application is deemed 22 complete, the applicant therefor may apply in the Circuit Court of the county where the application 23 was filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body to issue the approval. Relator's 24 application seeking to develop a 43-unit attached residential development on 4.98 acre parcel of land 25 is a land use permit application, which is subject to ORS 227.179(1). 26 Page 2- PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF G A R V EY S C H U B E RT BARER A PAMNLRSHIP OF PROrcSICNAL CORPORATIONS MANDAMUS r l e ue n r h floor 121 s.w. morrhon sheet pnrtlond, v►egon 97204-3 14 1 (303) 228-3939 From: unknown Page: 5/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:23 PM 1 9. 2 The 120-day period expired on rune 6, 2006. Relator has not requested an extension of the 3 120-day period and this application is not subject to any of the exceptions provided by ORS 4 227,178(5) and (6). The city has not taken final action on Relator's application to this date, and 5 Relator is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus pursuant to ORS 227.179(1), compelling the 6 City to approve Relator's application. 7 10. 8 Because approval of the application would not violate a substantive provision of the City's 9 comprehensive plan or land use regulations as defined in ORS 197.015, Relator is entitled to approval 10 pursuant to ORS 227.179(5). 11 11. 12 Pursuant to ORS 227.178(8), Relator is entitled to a refund of either the unexpended portion 13 of the application fees or deposits previously paid by the Relator or 50% of the total amount of such 14 fees or deposits, whichever is greater. 15 12. 16 Pursuant to ORS 34.210(2), Relator is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees, costs and 17 disbursements incurred herein. 18 13. 19 Relator has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 20 WHEREFORE, Relator petitions the Court to issue its writ directed to Defendant and 21 commanding as follows: 22 1. Immediately after receiving the writ to approve Relator's application, subject to the 23 conditions set forth in Exhibit "B;" or in the alternative, 24 2. To appear before this Court or a Judge hereof, at a specified time and place, to show 25 cause why it has not done as commanded; and further, 26 Page 3- PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF G A R V EY 5 C H U B E RT BARER MANDAMUS I-AATNER9NIP or PRorr*zIONAL CORPORATONS r l e v e n r H f l o o r i 111 a.w. morrison srreer porlland, ara on 99329 4-3l4l From: unknown Page: 6/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:23 PM 1 3. To return the writ thcn and there, With its Certificate anncxed, showing that it has done 2 as commanded or showing cause for its omission to do so; 3 4. To refund to Relator either the unexpended portion of the application fees or deposits 4 previously paid by Relator or 50% of the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater; 5 5. To pay Relator's attorney fees, costs, and disbursements incurred herein; and 6 6. To grant such relief as the Court may deem equitable'in the premises. 7 DATED this 23rd day of August, 2006. 8 GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER 9 10 By 11 Carrie A. Richter #00370 Edward J. Sullivan, OSB #69167 12 Adam R. Kelly, OSB #02343 Attorneys for Relator 13 14 i 15 16 f 17 18 19 ' 20 l 21 22 23 i 24 25 26 Page 4- PETITION FORALTERNATIVE WRTOF ARVEY SCH U 6 ERT BARER ?PARTNERSHIP Or PROrc.3iONAL CORPORATIONS MANDAMUS elevenrh floor 121 r.w. 1norrl,ron Trrecr porrlond. orcggnn 97704-3141 (503) 3?8-3939 From: unknown Page: 7/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:24 PM ebruary 6, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD Ez F OREGON Jerry Palmer ; Palmer & Associates 9600 SW Oak Street #230 Portland, OR 97223 RE. Completeness Review for Langstaff (SDR2005-00011) Dear Mr. Palmer: The City of Tigard received your supplemental application materials for site development review on February 1, 2006 for the proposed 43-unit attached residential condominium project located on property bounded by SW 96T Avenue and Hwy 217 on tax lots 00100, 2401, 2500, 4600, and 4700 on Tax Map 1S135AC. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the submittal materials and has determined that the application can now be deemed complete. Staff will now issue a request for comments and begin the development review process, which may take appr9ximat6ly'eight weeks. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner C: SDR2005-00015 Land Use File i Exhibit A Page 1 -of 1 ; i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171; TDD (503) 684-2772 r From: unKnown Hage: W= Uate: b1ZJf2UUb 4:15:24 F'M Cor-MMON9 OF APPROVAL THE FOLLVING . CONDITIONS SM4 BB, S 1?ID PRIOR TO''FE';ISSi~~ANCE~ OP`SM 1 : 91, e app ant s prepare a cover ttcx an s mtt IT, ong wt a`t~uL ANNN G and/or laans that address the following regmrcnaenis to the pmSYON, AM.- ~ Pa enstecher 50}639- 174 1, I XT 2434! The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required info~latxon is found: a lo-fm side 1. yard Prior froem ttherr !1 rop~~line ab~mg H&vay 2 m The e~stera most uM shbwkg y~ & 2. poor w the issuance of site permits, the' applicant s1~all submit I lever from Tvalaria Valleg Fire lQue ("i'VPBzR) demonstrating that the Uniform Fired Code s lords as contained is TT`PR...F z comment letter have been met. 3. Prior m the issuance of site~permits, the applicant shall 7evise Llandscape plan to include street trees .as roved by the C E7 Forester at. he proper sparing along A Street m accordance with Section 1T74.5.040.G ' 4. Prior to the issuance of ske~permits, the tip licam Shan revise their landscape plan minclude a 4-foot hedge along the subject sites boundary Tax Lot 17% consistent with the standards in 18.745.2. 5. Prior to site work the applicant shall submit revised site plans that $haw two (2) ADA compliant spaces. p' 6. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit rimed ad deha;l of tl= show the bike rack tb to (e) add Tonal bu.7d&pa&ng spaces bcated at the guest parking 7. Prior to site vodt, the applicant shall submu a revised site pl showing wheel stops in proposed parking spaces, 8. Prior to my sae work applicant shall install all proposed tree piotection fencing. The fencing Shan be inspected and approved by the Cry Forester griot' m af any site woric The t=ee protection f $hall remain in place thrgh the a*ationl oall rot the bufldiag conmuttiou phases, untl the e of Occupancy I= been approved. h the Project Arborist has 9. Prior to any Certificates of Oe the app ' shall ensure tat submitxed Vnirm reports to the~orester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protec uOn zone (Tl'fenculgmstallauon, through the (b ' consnvction phases, as he monitors the construmon. acarvlaes and.pro&=% This mspectiooo Ibe to e'vahdm the tree protection f , de==iue if the fencing was moved at any point dur6jg oonstrucaon, and detemaine if any ppaar~tt of the Tzee Protetnnn Plan has bees violated .'These reports crust be provided to the City Forester wd the time of the issuance of aayCercip4tes of Oce~xgancy. The reports shall include app changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condmoa aad location of the tree~protemon fencng If the amount of M Ws kd=d then the Project Arbor k shZ jtlst~ywhythe fencing was moved, and shall cert' that the conswaction activities to the trees did not adv&selyzmpwt the ovwA long- term health and stabLyof the tree(s). If the reports are not subtlarted or m by the Cry Forester at the scheduled i rvals, and if it appears the 'IPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub- coutmcror, the can sa wozk onthe pro ect until ah inspecrieu can be done bythe City Forester and the Project Arbonst. P for to issuance of any Ce Fes of ; , the PrO''ect Axborist w~l submit a final cemflcation ca=g the elements of the Tree P otecn ire followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. NoncE OF 'I'm II r%asiw SDRM05.0061VWNCi TAM a) ~ D PAGE Z QP 3B Exhibit B Page 1 of 39 From: unknown Page: 9/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:24 PM ' i 10. The following text shall be included in all construction .documents; Notwithstanding other provision 'of this title, any parry found to be in violation of the tree rennovaI chapter (an but not limited to remo'rral;:or damage to trees not a proved for removal) shat[ be subject to a civl penalty of up to $500 pursuant to Oapter 1.16 of the Ti~acd Mun_ idol Code and shall be required to rmae y any damage caused by the violation. Such reuse ' on shall -uulude, but not be limited to, the following: A. ]acen~enti of unlawfully reruoved or damaged trees in acconfaace with Section 18.790.060 of ligatd Developmeni Go and presenting the estimated value of an tu:lawfull B. ayment of an additional civil pey re removed or damaged tree as ° determines um the most current InUemational Society of Arboricvltaue's Crude for 1~lant AppmisA It, Only those trees authorized for removal by the Cites Casdile No. smoo5-00011, and nay trees that are exempt maybe removed byre a~plk= If in the process of constnicung , it is found that removal of a tree desigsat~ad fior-pzeseratioa occur, th ]ica~S- be.sipl4err to -ion for M'd of the cabpe-Finches of thati;iree. Any trees damage~or removed wiaheut prio author ration wl co=ot = a;vicildon, The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit;it, along with anY su pOrt.m documents and/or Plans•that address the following re meats-to the ENGINEER DEPARTMENT, ATTN: MM MCWLLAN 503.639-~1T1, W2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify whew in the submittal the requited information is found:.' 11. Prior to issuance of a skee Comic, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) yerr~nu is req i+ for this pt to cover half-street rmprovemenrs and aay other work inithe public n&-of--way. Sic (6) sets NOecDE thepse bpl nsarom add' plus lihall n CIM.esubrrmed for A b th- a Bta the E~ on'and should o y include sheers relevant to p~ 'cimprover 1' . . Pubrel:c Faa7ity Impzuwveir [ per 'u phis shall conform to Cap of T>gardPPublie Tuzpavenoeat l7es:gro Standards, which are av~ile at CityHa]I and the •C~s web page fwwwV,gard-or*4. 12. The PH emit plan submiaal shall include the exaek legal name, address and telephone number of the iadiv iral dr o0rporate entitywho will be des' For ted as fu the ;"Permittee' and who mill provide the, ]med' parhip, LI, petc. ~Also k nvemenu ec the entity ss ~ iaI's a carpodae d mpvide t6 name of the corporate c6im= person..; Fa:1ure w provide aecumte information to the Engineering Department vM delay p~ocessing of pralett documents. 13. The applicant shall provide a, co~nul" 'on vehicle a "ceess and pad= plan for approval. by the Cry Engineer; The purpose of tEs plan isifor'parking atul traffic comaol during the public improvement coasauction phase, y.out 14. Pr EpOnataxing ior W issun Depoartm It the applicant u u (sure how it =7 ~sumes w1I be useey must. estuna-e a number. The City avilT t7;en' assrrggnn suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be e.bp;;;thE at;~prior to issuance of the site permit (STAFF CON C D BetbanyStewart, n~neeting), ; 15: The applicant shall provide sWaage ail the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served bythe given dnveway or street. 16. Additional right of wa shall be dedicated to the Public along J frontage of 95`s Avenue to increase the of-vay: to 27 feet from t86. centerline. I!I:The desvn hll as be tied to the roosting =me dedt. ~ docum= s be on, fonw.. Luul~arons aye available fx m the r,7 ce erittg . he i N M O P E O F r ME H Mss= Z = 0 0 - &M U t I A ING57AFF'OONDOt+ffiVTUtv1S PAGE 3 bF38 li Exhibit B P O2of39'' From: unknown Page: 10/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:25 PM :i 17. The W7 Lcant shall submi con= ca ba the yE'' " eti Depam~nt as a pan of the Public F rovement const " a half-street improveitient along . the frora~ge of 95" Afee= The unpraL-1pavernent. erits .adja to this sball include; A. Czy standard pavement secuo & Neighborhood Rrai to from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, but in no case shall the,width be-T ess than 24 feed B. pave am tapers. needed to tie the new improvement ba iek into the existing edge of pavesn= C and 11 aasgj enbedeC4 cos Frei 6yr b guar 111 D. storm drainage, iu dn+~ a~rPoff-site storm ~diainage tteoessary to convey surface and/or subsurface Aiciff; >r, 5 f oot concrete sidewalk wish a f obf planter smp; F. street trees in the plainer snip aced per' iDCrequuements; ~E Street stpp. H by applicalses;Ilengmeer, to he proved,, CtyEngineen, under&ua t signs (if ap,P cable fi P , stree i~. driveway apron FW applirab~2e)~ L adjustments in verEd and/ or horizontal to construct SW 95 Avenue in a safe manner, as approved bythe Es~gineezing Dn= 18. A profile of 95d' Avenue shall be extending 0 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed fudue~e.' 19. The applies construction drawings Wrl. Show thai'' proposed tablie pedesman access from the developmeru frontage to the Tri-Met lies si op will be;a 4 foot cone sidewalk. ravide connectio' of ' osed w the lit sanitary s 20. The applicant shallp rf p r titul pub ewerage system A connection per= is required to co~ecGt %osed. pg pu hc~ anna~y sewer system. 21. Tire applicant shall provide a 15 foot publk sewer ' `I mat south west ' . property bmtmdm =gel ic sauitaiysewer shall be extended m the no, side of die wetland buffer, teiminmmg with a the.T 'Va11eY ~I titer District for the proposed v=r 22 'rhea licarn's1iaII obtastt approval connection prior to isstianCe of the Cupl'uthc F i , Irov~ement permit. i 23. 1he AVeIItie and 676 rchaige into _ As, Creekwrrh * ' Cens~ for the ofLn onhI.aue~S bdtvisinr 24. Fiml design plans and calctilaaons for Rpr De ed faclayshall be submitted to the Engm D as a of l~ublic Faciluy rovmpert plans. the E be rMed vide Management v pond or swa The Stormwater Management manhole wr11 not be sha mvement 25. An erosionThe plane baIl conform l "Erosion emi ' and edimen Control D ' Q and plan~ain Mariuai, February 2003 won." 1 26. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C P remit sued b rhe Chy of 'ITrd piusuazit to ORS 468,746 and the Federal Clem Water 27. The app 'ca&s engineer-sbaaU submit trei =emava~ to s' t distance requirerne= to the north. An trees removed pursuant ro the/ tree sha copply wish the standards of Section 18790.050 for tree removal o' salve lands submittal of tree removal pennas. r`I NO'= OF THE U DEQSION 5DR20D5-00~1/7.O1~STAFP PP= 4 CP 38 Exhibit B 'i Pa 1'3 of 39 :I'i' From: unknown_ Page: 11155 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:25 PM Y. I ,I 'I 11~ THE POYLOMNG CQM~' -'!T I~?1L:I{ BE Sg. I? . PMORTOISSUANE OFT- HL~1II:I~Il~fG:P}?fi1VII'I`: The applicant SbAlL preparg a cover rI sub I or- an s HE oCuments and/or plans •ttiat• address the folio ;j!Ire the NG AIVISION, AZ°l'N: Gary Pagenstecher 3;639- XT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where inthe submittaI the re qui di nmati found-.: the 28. Prior to of all service fati>~'es an ] I I a the Co swkh tube ~ e s~ p lards of l ter 18745 f the Tigard Development I C~. 29. Prior to the issuance of build II PDMMMM 2P shall s mit verification from the franchise ~ waste hauler indicating that th no~f~;the pro' used trash enclosures meets their requirements, 30. Prior to the issuance of ermrrsl , e a h I'sitall submit for review and proval, of CC&X or deed language P. cx g ' ' u internal street or in front of units '(t e specified) with less than- 185 feet of setback from a internal driveway, ne language shall also note that parking in violat~oA of Sbis n is • onsWered a•violation of -the land use approval subject to civil court citanTo>~, 1 addixio any o " remedies pzovided by law. No pant g signs shall also be posted on 6th-' des of I driveway. 31. Prior to the issuance of building pe develo ~hall ' a copy of tl ~ C rf s sip compliance 32. Prior to issuance of budding P ~ th Sul [bit ~ ~PP I site plan din~v~ngs in • d= t1 the location of the trees that were pre erved~ on ` durm~,site developm,eut, locations o tree protecdon fencing, and a signature fI I: royal f tie prn~ee~ arborist re the placement and constxtu-tzon tec to be is b thefstructutes. A ged protection fencing shall be installeanii ' dl riot to cozistruction. lphe fen shall remain In place through the duratio of f the coon phases, until the C'cate of Occupancy, lhas been approved. ~1f app mY Forester, the tree protection measures maybe removed 33. Prior to issuance of building pe pli subrevised plan and elevation drawings of the proposed units consismat with 'or elevam standaljds of Section 18360.090.A.3a 34, Prior to issuance of building p ti demons~te in a revised site plan that the 183E fou units ~vr11 also be p tie o' ' area consistent with Section 35. Prior to issuance of building ,the app ' sha'a a lig t4 plan addressing the reyuirernents of Section 18360. O.Al1~}.e '1 THE FOLLOWJNG ~pIN1QJMo i E SM-SPMD MORTOAI I LSD II~S 'G'l`it app cant s p are a'cOWr z aild s n an su o ocuments ral artd/or lass that address .the folio ; re is t CI~RpT DIVISIC , ATM: Cary Pale rastec1W ~0 ~ 9- 17 248 I~The cover letter shall clearly identify W exe fa the submittathe re g d xmatio , founal~I 36. Prior to final budding ins licxat Co ' the ro osed ipprovenonts in substantial conformance wuh the final approved 1'.4 hiber of the plauu4 division sh4 conduct a wzakurough of the site to t n i= 37, Prier m final bind~ inspecdo$ I a~ sub 3e<ter from Clean'Pates Services indicating that.-the con3idous of rherc pruvid fret ha been satisfied. h NOMCE OF TYPE U DECMON 5D STJ N I PAGE 5 OF 38 r- 'bit B rti l ag I bf 3 From: unknown Page. 12/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:26 PM I, fi 38. Prior to issuance of any of OCcup the applicant owner shall record a deed restriction and include in the QC&Tt's a to rye effect that any eacsting tree greater than 12" diameter may be. removed 'only if tree or trss hazardous accord g to a cert&d arborist. no deed restricton maybe rt moved r vnQbe considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision shotilii either die or a removed ail a haazardous tree. n~ documents The applicant shall prepare a cover lette and ~eibmi it, alo wl ith a s or' and/or plans that address the foll gtrir meats the E C IEE DE aAR!' ME , ere ATTN: MCMILLAN 503-639~41Tf, E2ST 2.. he over letter shall clearlY in the submittal the required information fo lurid: b n )scant sh com letejttie required public imprvmr=ts 39, ob - mond do to m y 11 and provide, a one-fir maintenance assurance for M improvements. ,I 40, Prior to a fugal buil ti on, ap HL-x s rovide City with as-buit dm, ' s of the public inViovemen as Bo ws 1) r~ylar, 2) ofl;the as-butlts in uD~U ormat, if avarlable; otherwise "17 FA.w>Zl be a citable, a 3 the as-btrili drawings shall be tied to the Q Vs UPS network 'The a s shall pact a file ~tya►uh an electronic file with points for each structure (ma>zltoples catch ~ valves,~hydiants ar other water system features) in the development, and their rL ecMe X , YS, a PlaAe Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 41. The applicant shall akher place rho a averhead t tyliues ng SW 95h Avem~e andergroand asa ppart of this project, or they s pa the' fee ~n.~eu of F1, lines. The fee seael c a l c u l a t e d b y t h e f r o n t a g e of t h e s i t e t n i p to fhe u►a1tt~ be $35,00 per lrn foot. If the fee option a chosen,. the ttt~ vM a $4 30.00 and it shall be paid pfior to prior to final b a*finaInspection. l bwldin Ili mm shall demo lus[rate that they have entered into a 42. Prior to g inspeth Da, demon~tates th main maintenance "ementw~ Srormw er ar another company that they r meet the mmnxu ce- of tlse 21 , for the proposed onske storm water treatment facility. j ; 43. Prior to a final building 'ittspecti the applican s engineer ( ball submit a final sight distance certification for the access bnto 95'~ ante' ' . II ' 1 ~ I IV TMS APPROVAL L B►Ei.IV O R`EI, EE ((8, , THIS DECCS'1 N. MONTM FROI'di.TFM GT;IVB DAT_ E OF Glad SE 1 nal ~P• Staff Isuniect, Fa~' tat s rag ProP~3' is .Part of t Ic ~ a ;Mu Rd on the . conducted a seaa of Cuysrcords~for the act property ytmd that no land use cases were associated vAth the subject property. Thy mp Was Cdevelo with a 'single-family residence prior to its oration into, the City of '1:' A B u oB 's demolition perzart was issued for removal of the 88 0 square foot dove]~ oa T~ax'iot 25 Adgust of O:IThe smile curreatlycoatains two small sheds on Tax Lot 2500 and 4600,both ~roposed f 'rEmaval. I , Y ' _ ' orma~ ' . Tie sire is east of S CO 956 vennre, s IShady' and of Irongstaff Street The majority of the site's northeast boundary a~,~s the 217; cif-way. The entire site is zoned R 12. T Ye site's southern boundary along '1'a 1 Lot 4600 R; ,5 SO Info Pao a1 Des ' tia - i The sge slopes doTuiM from rqi sdurhem, f~v f n o£ 1.74 feet to the werhnd area, which ranges from 171 to 168 feet near 21 1 s' ,ithen at approximately 171 feet in the center of the sine, before sloping dAwri tt; S I wt, 1jGvemre at an elevation of 168 feet. Average slopes range from less than 5% a 'tire soufh si of ' v~ et]vand to less than 1% elsewhere. 'the site is a mrg of open ace and forested ivmh. sli and pin "itnees p dominant. A 1.43 acre wetland and buffer covers the sites sau4xtn flack, I 6 I I I~:I r II i , I k. NC7anCE CAP TYPE II DEC MCNt I I I C~O1~C) PAGE 6 CF 38 EX~blt Cf 1 age 5 f 3 ; ~.1 I I I•I , From: unknown Page: 13/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:26 PM it I .:I; • II T= proposed eight block 43-unit i' Ondom+nitim developraacnt is out on the in~egular shaped site south of the proposed access Street A and entirely outside of the Cd= , md:buffer areas. CA T19 1V. NEI uri~QWQOD ILI owaets within 500 feet of the subject site Tire T Community DEadadx~ meat Code requires tliatiprjoperty be aatfied of the proposab.given an oppon dn- ~*v wxVOr oral testimony prior to a decision being staff 1~ai posted a! nbtice at the; drivevmy w' the sire, visible from the street. Staff receive d three written comment letters from crozem. i I Sue•Hie)Ise, Pat Whiting, and johd Hewing ~ cornea letters within the comment period which raise a number of issues, - including appropriate .type -6f i repro, idequacy *of the Vplicant's subn*ml materials, sensitive ]ands, tree pscrvanon, streets, `,sewer,l!'stoim drainage, buffering, and transit rmprovemen s. j . I RESPONSE: The' applicant submitted a! ]etter to t~ file elated ApPI 3, 2006 "Response to Public Comments", address' * the issuu~esp ' ' .1 in t ►e three comment letters, which iacwed Exhibits Iddreis.3 ia ed t~ese If Additianallyl staff flthe a fitant's pproposal and n=ative findings. issues M appkable sections *of this decision. SECTION V. DECISION MAg1NC•PROCEDIT~tES, PERAMS AND'U'SE Use C_i11' assification Sects 8.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. ! The a licant is seb royal to construe 43-condomrffiun2 lirr 8 buM' Attached d units and fam~ystyle d"evpetopment are o~ar~ it'penu-ed,•irses che'R 12zon4 classificatio dwelling 3 ! Summa Lan e p W. Qatar De es a ecision• ' , type to w 'c lards app canon is assigned. The application is subject to Site De4do r13CIIt Revreoir for t he s Me. No new lots are proposed No Panned development is proposed Site Development'' ~an adtninistrarnre 'Type`II review rocess Although some sensitive land revim =ISt be reviewed ,tinde ITT M wamgs pfficer) and ~ IV (T'lanniag Commission and G.iy Gomel hearings) processes, The not applica review will show these processes . are ble. ~ ,i ' ' Dec' i n Malvin Procedure : Cha r 181396. Describes the cism- n- T g procedures. Tempe n procedures lyto quas>-judiaal Pe tinier, az~d',aaroas*that contain some discretiona criteria. 'T'ype II acnons provide uD= notice and ate adm ative''r ne vvs ~eci,d bq the Director. it any party wnh. standing apDirector's Type fII decision, the apReal of " decision will be heard by the Tigard • j ,il ifl I , N=CE OF7WEUDEaS'ION !6R2005-00011/wNG'; ' I r PAGE 7 QF 38 1 Exhlbt~Bb Page 6'!o ~ r (l I ~I: i. Flt X11 'l From: unknown Page: 14/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:26 PM x 5 i i SECTION VI. ,Y~NIlVIARY OF .APPLICABLE REVIEW CRYTE.RIA F .h II li• The proposals consistencywith these Code Chipters is Mvir,M in the following sections: 5 A. ZO' Districts Districts 18.510 Residential zo,%& B, Applicable Developmenauda I> j' 15:705 Access E ss and Gteulation 18.715 Density Computations 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards 18.725 Environmental Performance Stapuda:ds i~ 18.745 Landscapin and Scieerting c 1. 18.755 Mixed Solidaste and Recyclable !Storage 18.165 Off-Stmet padting and loading requineatents 18.775 Sensitive Lands G ~I 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tire Removal c I , 1 1S.795 Visual Clearance C. Specific SDR. Approval Criteria P 18.360 D. Stye et and Utility improvement Standards I E 18.810 ii 'i I' . E. Decision Making Procedures 18.390 Imipact Study LE DEVEIC PA CODE,,STANDAWS SECTION VII APPLICN C I~ ' A- ZONYING DISTRICTS , Residential Zoning District: Section 18.510.024 Lists the description of the Residernial Zoning Districts ~I ' The site is located ' the R 12 zoning district. The roposecl II e, condonuniums, is outright permitted in the tone. CAndom;nn►ms are asype of muki family el'' ine In 14 I Devel cement Standards: I Section 18.510.050 States that Development scan rds.sn tesidentbd 'zoning districts fare contained in Table 18.510.2 below: i ~ TABLE 18510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDAP05 IN RESIDE QONES I R P -STANDARD Mfidwum Lot sze IMFDILJ 3,142 S.F. 9114=1e Detaclud unit f 3;054 S.F. peirunit based on netBo ,1 , mo house area ve of Width [ I~I,tt one I Minimum Setbacks 1;20 - Front yard ft 20 ft Side facuig street on comer & through lots 70 ft 10 20 f it - Side yard Side or rear yard abutting more mest6utin1e1 district 200 ft. - Rearyard 0 ft 20 ft. Distance between front of a Sz pro rty line ; : abutting a public or private street 17 11 ~0 ft NA 761mum . I' It !f 5 34 hoight ximum site very a I III It :11111800/0 48% mintinum Landscape meat .I ;II !120 0 2% [1] lnch~ au b, ,mss and t~p~vioas ~a it it , . ` ~G ~III~ !~I III' 1,=CE OF TYPE II DE=ON •5DRYCOS-9001 ]J I'AZ?P OC8~m01,~`IIZ S ' PAGE 8 C1P 38 Ex~hi ' 131 i Page 7 f 39 From: unknown Page: 15/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:27 PM f Since no individual lots vM be created in tbis*mllltt Ifannny condominium development, lot size and width do not apply, except in dea=king It should be noted that the interior access drive is considered a driveway and not a privatb street as by the developn- code. As R4 The approaches to the mdrviduai units need not be spaced 20 feet fro1n the dtivewa tl1 y are o*subject to a 20 foot setback from SW 95`° Avenue, No units recseive access directly. from S~ 9 Avenue, Nevertheless, many of the units rovide insufficient distance in froth of the ^ ' to' park vehicles vs Aout' encroaching into the iote nal pdriveavay. T1* issue is addressed {Umber in Sec on "8.765 below: I The setback from the pnopectyline; for the eight buUnp are'mat~excV for the side yard setback for the eastern most unit adjacent to Highway 217 as shown on thi aapp~pli~cant's szce plan The setback ranges from 5 feet at the front end of the unit to 12 feet at thd back end'Ihe smnd requires a 10-foot setback for mtulti-fam~y dwelling Units, Thez+efore, this standard;is rat met. , . The applicant's narrative stasis and the elevation Ihovi that the proposed height of the buildings at 34 feet wl~ be less than the modmirn height aIlowdrd zone. Due to the significant wed=d and wells buffer on site, the 48% sue coverage is substantialEy !;clown the maximum coverage of 80% allowed in the zone. Based on the analysis above, the underiyiag zone's development standards am met. FMING: Based on the for goitlg analysis, ttot of the dex*pm standards in the R-12 zone have been met. T the foIlo~aving,condition of approval theentstandards may be met: CONDITION 'Ihe applicant sM submit a rwkedis, he lan showing a 10-foot side yard setbackfrom the property line abunng I~ighvvay 217 eastem most unit. B. APPLICAB DEYELQMMha DE ST I ~I The Site development Review appproval.staiidai f equue ;that a development proposal be found to be consistent with specific development standards the• Cotm misty Development Code. The appppIcable standards m this case itfelude C haptersl.18.7%5,18.745, 1&755,18,765t 18.775, 18.780,18.790, 1B.795, and 18.810.. TIw proposnl's consistency with,theise Code C2mpters is reviewed in the following sections. ; Access, Egress an ulation_ i j Required , Vaikvyay location, ~ pedestdan wd4mys shall comply with the following L Walkways sball extend from the ground floor entrances or firm the ground floor laauliaz of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional; -and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways 'shaII provide convenient connections between buildings in mulbuili* commercial, institutional, and n Austria hmplexes, Unless impractical, walkw* shall be constructed between new and exislxng.de lopmezrts and neighboring developments; Ibis' is neither a commercial, i st uzzonal, and indu's tnaI Use, therefore this standard is not applicable, 2. Widen all attached housing (except two-&4 dwellings) and'multi•faF!Ay developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway, to ttre vehicular panting area, and common open space and recreation facilities; ! i ~ I.G ~I coonnep 'S'S 9revised vensite ue p wi the t 5tumaro _u* a ley 10, iaus of includes a sidewalk A Street. Each ralddeentitial ofdwellg is located south of A Street and is connected by a walkvPaym the, uzremal, sidewalk system, parking areas, and cousmoa open spaces, consistent with this standard' H. !i r 3, Wherever required walkways cross vehicle it=s driveways or pa lots, such crossings Shan be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Require4;walkways shall be physicall from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either'a 'ffiuumum y separated 6-inCh verpcat separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot hns;zontal separation, except ]that pedestrian" crossings of traffic- aisles are pennitted for distances no greater than 36 feet,4 apprnpps~~~a~te landscaping, pavement marking,,s or contrasting pavement- materials are used, W Fa" yyss shall be a :minuend of four feet in wrath, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions s ch'as whilboxes; benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA s ; tlin& ids NORM OF TM A DXCMCN SDMOV,00011/1.bN ATM QUUI~ID02~IIL]I 5 PAC.'L 9 OF 38 E~ettibit B. Page 66f 39 e tl , i From: unknown Page: (16/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:28 PM r d above. Where the c leTe internal sidea7alk s em as descrbed in The foring WaThellsarays applicant cross has Street prop A" osed mp are marked colrtrastrn by g (concrete in an asphalt drive)' The They materials . walkways are a nainiirn3m of four feet, consistent wtth this stapdar+d. 4. Required wAways shall be paved with bard ced r aterL* such as concrete, asphalt, stone, uqp brick, etc. Viralkwv ys may be required to be li ' d aiid/or signed as needed for safety p e Soft surfaced ppublic use pathways may be pro N d only if such pathways aye provided in adtion to required pathways. The proposed W*W-ay is concrete. 'The a pliant shown that the 'interior d&1EWap'o M be lit Vkhh pole urounted. lights as sh&m on Sheet 5. ThE app has not proposed any soft-sudaced patk ys. This standard has been met 1Vlrnrm access requirements forresidential e: Section18.705,030H. man Section 18.705.030M.1 states that an access ort shall, be subrz>iud with all mcw development proposals which verifies design of driveways d, streets are safe bar meeting adequate stacking needs, s~t distance and deceleration Stan as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AA91gT'O. I The a 's eeaa,gg~rn~err has submitted the p sight distance cenification for this development. The speed~n 95`~Avegue is 25mp h~ which 25Q feet of sight durance in both direcnons. Required stopp~g sr~t distance is ,155 feet. ~Ihe applicant's states thatl's~'gbt distance to the south meets the required 250 feet `1"he sight distance to the nordm >s appraaima rly'; 205 feet, which does not meet this criterion. 'Ihe'engineer further states that sight dis" can be improved to the north by removing trees in the creek corridoa The CityEagineer requires that sight distance nts be .met for I~afety and that stopping s4hT distance is deferred to on1v in unusual circwristances. efore, the. appp)l zant''shiU remove the trees in the creek corridor, with proper approvals, to acbieve.the miz;innrmt dLStanoe.' The engineer shall provide a plan showing which Trees are to be m=ved and the ble sighs distance. Upon completion of the public improvemeres, the plicaut's' engineer shall provide the final sighs distance certification. Section 18.705.030.X3.2 states that driveways s not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. In*nee area' of intersections is that area wbe= queues Iffinn of traffic commonly form oar approach to an ection, The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterW street intersection shall be O feeti measured &lom the right-of way line 'of the fntersect~ street to the throat of the propose driveway.. ''.he setback maybe I depending upon the influence area, as detemminedpfroru City ;Engrneer ateview of a tiimpact report subm~d by the applicant's traffic engineer. Iu a case' where ~aiproject has less than 750 feet of street frmrtage, the applicant. must explore an E lion far, shared access with the adjacent pareeL If shared access is not possible orpracdcal, the vmyshiff be placed as, far from the intersection as possible. 95'b Me= is classified as a Neighborhood Route; orp this c' i op -does not apply: Section 18J05.030.F3.3 and 4 states that the minimttira ;spaeiagi of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spa 1% of ddveways au+d streets alongg an arterial share 600 fleet The minimum spacing of local street! awng'a teal ift l~sball be US feet. SW 95i° Avenue is a local neighborhood- street. criterion does no apply. Vehicular access and cg=ss for s' le-famil ' duplex or attached single-family dwelling emits on individual lots and mule -family rrsidental us shall'not be less than as provided in Table 18.705,1 and Table 18.705.2. NCMCZ OF T YM H DECL510K 5DP2005_Mi ~ST. I ~IDO~[~IlV1S PACE 10 OF 38 Exkbit B Page 9 of 3;9 J. . From: unknown Page_ 17/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:28 PM ' i TAB 16.70 VEHICULAR ACCESS/E CUSS ~POQU=MENTS: WZTIPAMEI.YIRESIDENTIAL USE um er o =.I., less 1mn vepient ' units/I.ots Ivewa Re 0.4 30 eet I 24 eet The applicant has proposed an access road (A Street) 24 feet width ~h a ¢foot wide sidewalk al on side for the length of r1ie prylca sue. A Stred t~ ' ~ *+~rp~ id al humnuund.-In addition short Streets b, p rovide lateral access offof A Street for appitrxiruatdy l of the'proposed units, As propose , the app on complies with the minimum access r~egt nts #orserving 43 onus. Vehicular access to muld• structures shall be broght to within 50 feet of the and floor entrance or the ground floor lan ' of a stairway, ramp,/ or eleva r leading to the dwelling unit. Vehicle access is brought dimcdyto each unit as each unit is seived by i garage, 'Phis criterion is satisfied Private residential access drives shall be provided and ine in aaeor&nce with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. The individual homeowners will maintain the access drives once the roperty is developed and sold. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue district has reviewed' tli proposal and their comments have been incorrpporated at the end of this Decision, The ap lignt sha~l submit a letwe from TVFR demonstrating that the•Urfform Firle Code standards as coin TVFIeg comment letter have been met. Access drives is excess of 150 feet in len ; shall be ~irovided with approved provisions for the fuming around of fire apparatus by oae,of t)ie"followurP i A circular paved surface having a mirnanuIIi twin radius; measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; A hammeread-config~aed,paved s cc witlieath g of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width l i 20 few • The =dtnuia cross slope of a required turna:aoufld is nd terms in a itiirnaround with an outside radius of The access drive is app 600 feet long" approx=tely 130 feet Altho this outside* radius meets the TDC 35 foot radius standard, it must be reviewed byy7VFR for consistency hvtth their , udands! tiumarouuds for fire apparatus and a letter submitted By the applicant demonsfmting compliance, as co i oned ibbve inthe previous imIng. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a n-an mumz total driveway~l dth of 24 feet fora distance of at least 30 feet), maybe required so as to reduce the need for iexcessrve vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite.diriections meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. ; •I' I The vehicular access is 24 feet iii width to for tsvoi: WAIJ y on the she. This standw is not Wherebl pemoitted tniuimum width for drivewa apprn ~ s to aerials or collector streets shall be no lessthaa•20 feet so as to avoid traffic turdmg-from a street~having to wait for traffic exiting the site. ~t I 'here are no driveway approaches proposed to a~rarterials r collecto 'Istmets: SW 95th is a neighborhood route. This criterion is satisfied. ; I R:~MING: The proposed development is not co all of the nolivable standards for access, egress, and cir~alatidn; but u:ay, be consil t rovirh• the fdMoving conditions of approval: 1~ k 111' NC MCA CP TYPE U DEaSIC7N - SDR20(1SOOD1 i I :I it s PAGE 11 CF 30 EX"libit B Page 10 of ~I E' } ; ' I~ I ~ i`• ':s From: unknown , Page: 18/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:28 PM OONDMOW • prior to the issuance of a Sine the applicant shall submit a letter from Tualatin Valley Fite 86 Rescue . 8tR) demonstrating that the Uniform Fire Code staadaais ss con65ned in 8e comment letter bave been met. h ~ Ali , The applicant's enginee shall subs a tree removal plan m meet sight distance to the nosih. Auylue'ds removed pinsu= to the tree removal plan re 2n with the j standatds!t of Section 18.790.050 for tree zemwval on sems>xrve lands, including submittalIof =e-removal pemaits. I' Prior to a.final applicant's engineer.shall provide The final sight distance cert~iCa ion. 1 Density Calculation; 18.715.020 Definition of net development aiM i ~ . Net development area m acres, shall be deterimiined by~srxbtractb: the foliov n it land area(s) from legal 9scription of the property to be W 1, the gross acres, whiel'i is all of the land included M" developed , j All sensitive land areas- a.-1and." th 100-yeaj ffaodplain; b, Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage wall ; and[ Wetla . AD. id dedicated to the . ublic ar pazl purposes; All land dedicated for public rights-o ay.•, 'enactual infonnation is not available, the following fo minas maybe used: S' faro dejvelopmeal+ allocate 20% of gross acreage; AMlllandp~to~yo ed;pment sate a ~o of groin reage.; • A lot of atleast thepize•xequirea btldthe•a lrclable b e zoning district, if an existing dweUing is to remain on the site. Calculating maximum number of residential To calculate the maximums number of nesi ' . emit; er netacrc~ divide the number of square feet in the-net acres by the minimtun numbe of sgtxatt '~eet req for each lot in the applicable zoning district. Gross 10t-are2 225, 5 squa 'feet feet ROB/Street dedication 1S Private access drive • •26 49 sq feet ens- Lavids ste 6 3 12 squad ' MTDEVELOFABLE AREA 1351 rl ; ' ff l TO calculate the maximum allowed density, net d velopal~7e~aiea•is 'ded by the minimum allowed square footage wizbin the zone, as follows: ; ; 12 III' 135,712 3,050 - 44.3 dwelling 'units I Catcula nrmimum atrmber of residereial 'ts. I.; any As required by Section 18.510.040, the minirimurrt n>~ er of residential. units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the ma im numl3er of " Actaemtu're'd in Subsections B above by 809/6 f~ The minimum required density is determined by I fallowing `calcur}a 3 In: 44.3 X 0.80 = 35.4 units III FROING: The applkaut has proposed 43 intent ,the minimum and -rimima densit'y' requirements. I ' ' i 1I N=C 8 OF TM 1I r)E ~~I II' IpN SDR200~000 T1#FP ~IWi~IDO I PAGE 12 OF 38 E) ibit Pabe` 11 of" g, l Y l ~r I I From: unknown Page: 19/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:29 PM 0 { Y De ' Com ati ' ' Standards s provis oas a y to a tta h~ mdy a attache le-family residential pRects in zoning districts R 4.5 through R 40 that abut prop red ~n"~g e-farrOl residential development 'Ihe subject site abuts an R-45 zone to the south an A. 'zone to the south and west. The northeastern boundary of the pproarty abuts HvOy 217. stal", !would apply to that op trio of the Property adjacent to the R f Yzone where nnrltif d ale not -Portion oaav PP development is separated from this zone byy ai80 few o~dand vt~tlan buffers on the subject property are, the design. standards this chdptl !are not applicable to this proposal E nmental Perfo a Stand2rds 1 I' f T e sta a sta lerrviro btal laws, rules and regulations be applied ~meat' , ty: of. Tigartf. action! I .030 Performance Standards regi&tes; the to der►elo Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise: I i For the purposes of noise regulation, the p visions' f' Sections 7,41130 through 7.40,210 of the Tigard 1Vi1unicipal Code shall apply. y li. Visible Emissions: Within the commercial zoning districts and' in," park (M) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity wluch'results in ,a j~tack or''ther point source emission, other than an emission from space treating, or the emission of pure b combined water (steam) which is visible from a prop~ity line. Department of E tai ty (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340- 21-015 AM 40-28-070) apply. Vibration: No vibration other than that caused by brig vehic and aircraft is rv%itted =1 any given zoning distrietwhieh is discernible without' c at the property /lure of the use concerned. Odors: The emissions of odorous ggaases ar other air ins guarrtides as to be readily, detectable at an ppoi beyond the property Crne of the use cre g tire' ors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340- D28-090) apply. Glare and heat:' No direct or sky, reflected glare; whether fi fights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is lble at~ lot line s}iall be emartted, and, 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat r heate , a1r which is diseermble at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall a apply. ;j : ~S~ignts or -floodlights in paridng areas or constaIction equipment at the tune of co, Elton I11excavation wo otherwise permitted by ! I ~I this title. Insects and rodents; r ! I I j All materials inchuling washes shall be stb and : rounds shall be maintained in a maaaer which will not attract or aid the propagation f inset o rodents or create a health hazard. This is an attached rri It famny projeey is •an i permitted use within the A-12 zoning classification. There is no indication wrthln the ` plicati that these standards will not be met However, 0 orag efforts to meet these standards shall' and any violation of these standards will be ad sad bythe Cary of Tgard's Code Enforc F311-DING 'lireEnvironme=9Perfonnance fiMM I,atldscaVing and._Samening(ip j 5 - i i I I Street Trees; Section 18.745.040 states that all. developme projects I sting on a -public street'or a private drive snore than 100 feet in len shall be re" d to st street trees in accordance. with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.0 re wires t street ' s be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification o~ the at j (srnallpmediurn or large). . ' I l I II' ~I N=CS OFr2E II DEQSION SDR2005-00 1 NGST I A I ONE PAGE 13 OF 36 ~ I Ibit BI Pug 12 of 1 .d _ From: unknown Page: 20/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:29 PM I The appli= has ravided a Prelirrminary 1?lan Plan (I t 10) that includes street aces. The trees proposed are included on the Caty s Sam Tree h' but do t meet the stuxiaards. The applicant's narrative states tat h the site layout precludes the srarj daxd spa=g. srandatd is not satisfied "Ibe applicant shall revise their Preliminary P Plan to include street trees as approve/ by the C.y Porestex at the proper spacing along A Street rn act' " ' Section 18,745.040.C suffeI' and. Screening: :I uii ed to reduce the icy oil adjacent Section I8 745.050 states that buffering and c neg uses which ate of a different type in aecordan jvith mataces in this. chapter ( ables 18.745:1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed deve rnent isl fespomible for the tasta~tion and effective rgaiattenance of buffering and scre Vhe uses would be abumn& one another except for separation by a right of way, buffe not sc ning, shall be required as specified in tfie In lieu of these standards a detailed buffer [n, 3 lands ping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's apP 2s an alterrra ' bux area lands'caprr'r~ and screening standards, provided it affords ~Se same degree of b and sc rung as req=edby this code. Buffering and scr-eeming uents. 1, A buffer consists of an area within a sedW1 adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the find screening matrix and corrtainnmg a Iength equal toihe length of the property line of-die a t.se on ues; 2. A buffer area Ma only be occupied b" ri screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and ndscaping. No buildings, aecessways la or~p shall be allowed in a buffer area except ved by where an accessway has been appro b The proposed develospmeat is multi-#amdp in of I 5, and 6 u . ne exOgg/abuttireusg~u~ses are CL site and 64 unR43 and R- 12 it bu.4dmp require bu7f Pu scant to Table 18 745.1,, 1-5 unittbtinldiu~ f The 'i W Table 187452 includes standards for f' buffer ac", T knit's narrative states the 11 proposed development v;M meet the 10• oot btdf wbiCh 15k Mie ap / in the size plan. It further states that the R-45 zone is adequately buffered ' a 90 ton 00 foot setback of wetland and wedaud buffers. However, neither the narrative nor the~ans s ° that s~andasds have been addressed for the 6 unit buildings adjacent cc: parts/ 17 . which f a' ' fain y "dwdmg. No alterative landscaping and screening plan was submtted for the Dtrecxo ` appro ore s starxlard is not tam Tr apphcaut sW revise their landscape to Lde a i oot:Ihedge along the subject sine's boundary with Lot 1700, consistent with the standards in 18745 I , SPe. Ecial~lvisions: ISection 18.745.05O.E re wires tire. screepsn~ and loading Lax eas. Landscaped patiring areas shall include special feawres ' luw effect! screen paritiug lot areas from view. Planting mnatenals to be installed should a ve a rove balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be pla1)* lands' ped islands in all parking areas,. and shall be equally distributed on the basic of one (1) try or ea"r- own Q) p spaces in order to provide a canopy effect The TThe rainirnum ditnensron qn cape islands sba be thmx (3) feet wide and the landscaping sba 1 be protected from velr~e d ge-by some form of -wheel guard orcmb. The landscape plan provided by the applira ' tes fat the P °g areas vM be )<uodso4nd with a mixture of ground cover, low lying shrubs, and " es. re, tlmis erttermon is satisfied. Sereenwg Of service Facilities. I Except for'one-family and two-fWoy d I ' e co finer or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air condrbi w ch would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident pariang area, try p ' faeikj or any resid=dal area shall be screened from view by placement off a so vvoo a ortnasonry wall between five and eight feet in height All refuse materials shall b ntaineil within the ~Iscreened area; GSl' a O=C~~ U[ir~ . PAGE 14 Cr- 38 N=CB CF TM II DE=ON sr)=-F"= fibit P 3 of 9 From: unknown Page: 21/55 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:30 PM ' I The applicant does not show the location o ~ seiv ce facilities especially air conditioning, v.nits, so compliance Wish thrs standard cannot be v tlLq t; I . 't'herefore, this standard u not satisfied. the 1'' bons of all service facilities and deulonstram he applicant shall submit a site plan 1'8.745 of the 7DG compliance with the screening standards of Chi Sc:een' Of Refuse Containers, Except for one- and two-family dwellings a y;' refuse Contauuer or refuse colleetion'area which would be visible from a public street, pa. Ilat, zprsidential or Commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be s ed or!euelosed from view'by placement of a solid wood fierce, masonry wall of e'verg~reen he . All ' e shall be contained within the screened area. The applicant's ==five indicades' that II lopes will be served by individual trash bins characteristic of the trash bins util=d in s' fa{ y res:?lences. Individual trash bins are typically stored on the site and onlyviale from the sweet on ]1 n dhlIlIys, 11us standard is satisfied.. FMING; - Based ao on the aaalps bove~tbe ' and 5 ' enine standards have not been fully met. -If ~va c'. s diaons listed How, The standards vM be met CONDMOM; Nor to site world p ' shall revise their landscapephn to include street trees as approved 1t ~C~tty'[Forester at the proper spacing along A Street in accordance with 5e " 18.745:040.6 Ptior to site wodr. II lit shall revise their landscape plan to include a 4-foothe along i 3b leCtlsue's baundasywith'rhxLot1700, consistent with the ~ in Sewc 1874 I~` - II Prior to the is b perms the tipplic = shall submit a site plan Mustratiugthe koadlodi of all'siRce facltres and demonstrate compliance with dbe screening srandabc of Cho I r 18.745 of the 'riigard Development Code. j Mixed Solid Vaste And n 1a les Stn e 18.7t5)- pter 28.755 requues t new constnlcdti incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficierrt coUectiou of mixed solid " ' source separated Recyclabks prior to pick- up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the ,our (4) methods to demonstrate cornpliames NEnin3um Standard, Waste Assessment, Co ive cycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and SIM'Off. The applicant will li~ave tol ;submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section., Xigardless of~w 'h method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a wrrtten sign-off from the franchise haulergd ing Ithe faciil y location and compatibility, The appli=nt has indicated that the homes wpl a 1 yindividualjgaTbage bins Ttyyppical of a Sing~fa_m`b~ resider However the tippplicant has not ;adry evidence that a fr~nAise hauler would be satis With this style of collection f-ir this type of devellI i T ole, this standard is not satisl F M I N G ; Because the a p p li r a n t has iro :Iprovided evidence !of ccoossuupptanCe with the LEwd Solid Waste and Recyc]ables Stoag' design standards, the ssaridards of the chapter have not been met. If the applicant mpfies wrrlh the condition listed below, the standards wl be ail I~ OOND IION Prior to the of b ' peimits,-the applicant shall submit verification from the franchise v, sste hauler' casing that the location of the proposed trash enclosures meets dhei3 re~l,;•P••,P*,rm, s Chapter is a p cable • s- pm p !'eels when there;jis new construction, expansion of existing use, or chinge of use in accordan , ' .Section 18.765'070 N~irnum and Masrmum Off- 5 et Parking RegWmmcats, I~ADrITCE 0Q TYPir YI I?)rQSION $DR2005 o0Q11 GSTAFP OOHVL70t~IICBviS , PAM 15 OF 38 'Iblt B I I :k Pa e 4 of 39 From: unknown Page: 22/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:30 PM The proposed pro-ea wdl create 4 condominiums. Ondo~niJUS are treated as muttEfaun1y developme~ and tiro DI n! M Q Ukivig stag= are based on the number of bedrooms in l dual unim. The required is addressed later sit this discussion. puking Location of vehicle parlung:' Off-street gaAcing spaces for single-family, and duplex dwe ' and side-fatnil attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot wathlhe dwellings. O-stmet,parking lots for uses not listed A cove $bill be located not further than 200 feet from the b or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight Hoc frIom the build' g with the fo owing exceptions: a) commercial and indiistrsal uses which :equine arose than 40 pang spaces may ptvvtde for the spaces- in excess of the required ficrst 40 spaces up to a distance of 306 feet from tixe primary site; The applicant has proposed con&winhwn units id a multi-family building eonf iguration with 16 three-bedroom u~ and 27 two-bedroom un~it. a alit, narrative states each unit wi11 contain 2 par , paces. Guest parking is also provided 2 0 feet of the proposed units, consistem with This 'lrtsitor'Parhing in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 requiteda pspares shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the mitueium uue d or the use o guests of-residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally loud or, distributed tlunughouR the development~ Required bicycle parlang fatuities shall Aso be centrally located witlua or evenly distributed throughout the developments ' The units configured as described above would' requixe''64 parking spaces. The applicant's proposal includes a total of 86 spaces Qprovided ovitbiu the units. The. $ units on Street "B" and 6 units at the terminus of Pri M Street "A" Can accommod-up an-addkiopal.-l-space- m=ide the ~praees for an additional 14 spaces.. An additional 33 spaces v M be created for visitor parldng in four parE court s adJacent to and distrbuted along Street W. Overall, the applicant has proed for an additional 47 spaces (660/6), consistent with +ii standard. T ate two bicycle spaces are required at 1 for ev 2j units per Table 18.765.2. The applicant has provided for indoor bicycle padang within each of 43 condomiruutn units, consistent with this standard. r . Disabled Accessible Patltwg: I . All imking areas shaU be pto Aded with there quired number of s aces far disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Unifoauuikl'mg Code {i7BG~ `and federal standarcU, Such parlung spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as xei =d -by these regulations, 'the app has proposed 33 accessory parking spac~i therefore; M (2) ADA bamii ap spaces are required. ~ applicant's plazas do not deuwamare any AU, A spares, but the narrative spealis to providing them. This standard is not =t As -a condition ofrmanl9ed pliant shall sua r revised site plan showing two (2) ADA handicap spaces sized, signed,.and mgnired byt,C Access Drives: I i . With regard tr, access to public streets from off-street poding: access drives from the street to off. staeet asking or loading areas shall be deligned and constructed'to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide marnmtpu safety for pedestrian aad'vehic, * traffic on the site- ~ the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with tie ;requirements of ampter, bs.7p~, Access Egress and t r+culatiorr access drives shall be clearly and~em~aneni3ymaked and.defincd throtq,A use of rails, fences, wa ar other barriers or marltezs on rrta~ge not occupied by service drives; access drives shall bavie a txunimum vision clearance tin accaxdaxtce with Chaptar 18,795, Visual C3earance; access drives shall be unproved witft as asphalt orj concreti~ surface•!-~aud excluding single f taii1y and duplex residences, excegC as provided by Subsection' ~18.810.0361.P, groups Of two or more paridng spaces sha11 be served by a service drive so that.no baccl~lg movements or other maneuvering within a street orotherpublic right:o-way will be negnired; MMC E OF TAE II DEQSION SDR2ooroo0lVL&IGST "C)DNDCMR4rLM5 PAGE 16 C P 38 Exhibit IB Page! 15 of 39 q i From: unknown Page: 23/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:30 PM i The access drive, has been designed to facilitate traffic flo is identifiable; and paved. Vision cleu=a is expressed concern, as addressed later in this decision under the discussion of C6pter•18.795. Staff Paved- bas the Fire Marshall th= the 24 foot wide driveway is tie minimum width for two-way tmveL Any obstruction of this travel way wM jeopardize residents' sa~fe;ty Several of the uuitc are situated '4 A less than the minimum distance required to park a vehicle. The' Pire Marshall has commentecF that the private drive be signed with "No Parr' s'rgru on both sides of the drivewalr Additionally the C~ttywill,rt=gtnre that the apphcarn submit for review and approval, C~CAW, r deed language stating that pangs Aot be allowed in front of units {specific units to be identif>ed) with less than 183 feet of distance w the internal driveway or pedestrian sidewalk. The haguage shall also note that parking in violation of this resmction is considered a violation of the -land use appro is al subject to civil coon citation, in addition to airy ocher remedies provided by law: - - i~ Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access thro p lots shall be provi~ed in accordance with Section 18.705.834.F. Where a•parldngllarea or othea rve`4sicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the ppnexty, owner shall install a wa , railing, or other barder which will !prevent a slow-moving vehi a or dm►erless vehicle from. escaping such area and which-will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. All parking areas lain pedestrian access by way of the interior sidewalk system 'T'his criterion is satisfied. ~ I: Parft Except fo sStriping; ily and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street padnng rec wrcmerns as contained in this Chapter shall have, ag pazidng spaces clearly mar3ced, and W intmor drives and access aisles sball be clearly Mi&d and signed to show d catlou of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. if. The law submitted show the pang spaces w11 be 4enbr marked witlx' striping. This criterion is satisfied. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewa shall be provided with a wheel stop at leg four althea high located three feet back from the front of ttie' parking stall. The front three/ feet of the patiung stall may be concrete, asphalt dr low. lying landscape material that does nod.exceed the hheight of the wheel stop, This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant has not shown wheel stops on the site plan for any of the proposed parking stalls in the accessory parking areas which are loCat'ed along the bbundaries of the lot and adjacent to interior landscaped zmas. Ah 2ore, this standard is not met. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a r lmsed site p4a sborov4 wheel stops in proposed parling spaces' i~. Space and Aisle Dimensions- I Section 18.763:041N states that: "except as modified, for angled!•pmking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking 5~paees;pre: 83 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7S feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space', aisles accommodating two direction traffic r or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in•;; dth. No: more* than 50% of the iequsted spaces may be compact spaces. i The applicant's plans and narrative indicate that no more than 50% of the required parking will be developed as compact spaces, This criterion i.4 satis&d NOUCE of T m n DEQSIoN S=0or0001Y1ANGSTAM1.. L ti PAGE 17 Cr 38 Exhibit B it Page 16 of 39 :,E. From: unknown Page: 24/55 Date: 812312006 4:15:31 PM fl { I' I Bicycle Puking Location, and Access: Section 18.765:050 states bicycle patitistg areas shall a provided at locations within 50 feet of ptinsaxy entrances to structures; bicycle parking anasis =11 notP'c located within parking aisles, Iandscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle, parl* I: shall be visib!e from on-site btuldittgs and/or the street When the bicycle pa$nng atear -is not visible frorrl the stz+e~t, directional signs shall be used tb locates tbe' paorkin reae; o and~ f it cl 1 ~pr ocahoa wa tth use ' iz:side ri b n oa a floor which has a rsbd does not require the bicyclist to use stain do ,gain acc" s to theme ce. Exceptions may be made to the latter requir mentfor parking on upper stories a story residential building. The site }an and narrative do not indicaie any exterior paling spaces. According to Table 18.7652 Of the Tigard Development Code, the ro;r ffi n b' a ar " ' „nt for a Imalfi fam~guse is 1 space g spaces. theiConsidering the for every two units, ore,proposal is~reIS ilot quire~to,I o* the2o'lcyCle pulp r bikes ivill the premise that each unit pons erveuse'the residents' ' ~I Iir,~vever, -no~accommodativns for rac1i' 'Mc-garages 'w3 most hks lucle g'shwild account for I5°o of % the guest padnlt arC rovided. Uiuelyg the preuzise that guest fire required par'Ug,of 22 bik-, spaces is 3 guest spaces. ~ s n not satisfied, Bicycle Parkingg Design ents• ' Section 18.765.a50:C. ThRe fotlo rowing design regnirem apply the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle paging spat " ; S. e ' that bicycles maybe securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. P~rovssion ~-bicycle lockers for long-term ((employeel parking is encouraged but not required; tcycle ra must be securely anchored to the ground, *A or other struchuE; bicycle paid aces s „ be at least 2% feet-by six feet Long, and, when covered, with it vertical clearance of s ven feetrt access aisle of at least five feet wide shalt be provided and maintained beside or btween e fi row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be-accessible j; out another bicycle; • required bicycle parltmg aces may not be rented br leased cept.wh required motor vehicle is rented or leased. At cost or deposit fees; for bicycle !ea exempt from this re uiirnnen Mus ~be c y " serve for bicycle PaAlii only. and areas set aside for required be ycle arItirog Inus Outdoor bicycle pars facihaea sbal be surfaced~~arith a W surfaced matnriali.egavers, asphalt, concrete shnflar material. This surface m t be desi ! ed to remain well d'raMC The applicarn has, not provided a detJ of the bk rack to a used; th 'ore, Staff is unable to. confirm that • this standard is met ~ ~ ~ ~I • ARiniiYitim Sic eke Parking Irequtiresnents: er of re aired bie le aces each a is s cif ed in Table 18.765.2 in yc p A, n The total nu nit yc Section 18.765.070.H. Jn no case s7ta11 fhere~• Ibe spless ' i two paricing spaces. As discussed above, according to Table 187652 of I 1 Tigard eveloprbam' Code, the inininrnim bicycle-parking requ irem m for a tnultN uX for every units. The applicant is pro viding a garage with each unit. Thgi~ore, three %ko bicycle-par spaces shall be ~cated at the guest Fiik4 areas. This standard is not satisfied. A inimum Off-Street Parkin . Section 18.765.070.H states t the minfinum and tttn p ring shall be as required in Table 18-765.2. I Table 187652 staves that the minimum Qrkhg I for multi uses 1.25 spaces for every one bedroom dwelling unit, 15 spaces for every two dive ' " unir,'and ! 5 aces for every three bedroom dwelling unit, 'fie proposal calls for 16 three- (bedroom II ( and 27 bedroom dwelling =ts, ! i e 01 Unit I ace per l i -.o nun TotaIRFEE-zReauired 12 Bedroom 1 1150 I 2 11 i 1 om 5 1 I 16 III I !0 Z8 3 III! ! 168.5 • Ili ! ~ j I I I NOTIciz. cF ran u DEasioN 5DR200r0DQ11/I ~TGST I PAGE 18 OF 38 EIKhlbit 7 Page 17 of I I From: unknown Page: 25/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:31 PM I I ' - I The proposed units would re 69 spy., The a cant's roposal includes a total of 86 spaces rovided within the units. Indiii M famgy uses : to provide an additional 15% for ' 6 ill, at the terminus of Private visitor puking (an additionw 10 spaces. The 8 units on street "Ran" Street A° can accommodate an additional 1 Space outs' `.the for an additional 14 s An additional 33 spaces will be create[/ for visitor parking m our par ' courts adjacent to and buted alon~gg street °A Overall, the applicant has provided for a total cif 133 spaces, consistent with this • standal'd, I , IJ~ the-off-streee I and =ndasds have not been F1 n,-4G: Based on the above, padung admg fully sawed. The has the sing ie irce nt for resident and guest parldng. However, the sate plan does not; accountor~ 1mquue~ A spaces which occupy more area Ll,.an st., &rd §Y , tdWJ stops in the guest,parJ paces, or a rohtbmw on parking on the*private dri*aPayan Ii from of Inns w goat a irmnr of 10 feet between the garage and the driveway,. ; The site plan will n to be ' ed to reflecr these rea menu, Provided she apPurult complics with•'dse ccamn ns below, the standards wl*be met. CONDITIONS: i Prior to site work, the app ' ,shall sub i revised site plans that show two ADA compliant spaces; • ' Prior to' site worlt, the applicant Ball subi rit a revised site plan showing wheF1 stops iu. proposed parking spat i Prior t0! site work, the applicant Ball s ' ed site plans that showtbree (3) additional bicycle-paiki. 8 spaces located at guest parting areas and a deta oft the bike rack to be used. . • Prior tp the issuance of, Ipermits, Lae applita=u shall submit for review and approval, copies of ~:,or deed It i ~s+A~+*+g parr on the mal sheet or. ~n;front of (to be ~e =withvi~less than 18, feet of setback oG ~fmi ft~v~6i6ti done s klernd a io ]a tionn hall of tthe land use P~*I i approval subject to civil co citation, inn addition to- any, other remedies provided bylaw, hive Lands T Fuspose- Mainrainintegrity of rives, streams,, and c M Seusitivc land regulations cbnUaed in this Chapter * W=de to maintain the rtty of the rivers, strears>9, and creeks ,in Tigard 'by. ! ero ionpromo" stability, maimaining and enbancing 'VMt er quality, and fish an habitats, and preserving scenic siaetro and recreation otienttaL The rens al u~ple nt thr, compxeheruiva rtan_ and in magement rogra n - d (G'WSand Construction TJrhan Grvwtii 11~Ia gerrrent Punctxortal r Stu a Planning- Goal 5 (Natz= Resoukes), and protect public )sealth, safety, and welfa4e. Sensitive lands are lands potentO unsuitable for de ~Pment ecause,of their location within the Myear floodplain or 1996 flood' inundation chever ' avTen aattunl dm=i geways- wet a] nd areas which are maudAted by the oti~er a ncies ' U.S. Army Cbrrps o Engineers and the Division o State Lands, or are des. dasiln a ' ' cant wetland on the ty of Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridors Map; and. s slope I! 0 25% or greater and unstable ground. The subject site is located apprommate 200 lineal feet' :14 Ash as it emerges downstream of the Hwy 217 tuhrert. Acconding_ to th ei FE141A klood Rate Agar rbe flood elevation at tlvs location is 161 feet. The subject site's elevation ranges from'168 to 2 feet,' propposed developmein is lotxted outside the 10ayear floodplain. Acct to -the Cir/s IS the 1~J96 flood inundation line on Fanno Creek does not extend past Panne ekPark west clfl~ ty d is, therefore, inapplicable. The Citys steep slope inventory slows that no'steep exist on I subject site. The sire is almost flat with oolyfour.teet of elevation d feren[e =ws its length !app 1,000 lineal. feet. NuncE OF TaE 31 DE=ON D=D5-=VLONGSTAiV PAGE 19 OF 38 Exhibit B .i~ Page' 18 of 9; : i % I I 1 1 ' J From: unknown Page: 26/55 Date: 8123/2006 4:15:32 PM i I i The subJ'ec' pro perty does inclctde a' at ~he so end that drains a s' wetland as indicated on the Gry of 'Tigard Wetlanddaut Corrldah Map (Wetland G12 iaU3it 2 - Lower Ash Creek}, The vmdatd inventory, condvcued by Pishh" Env onmeaual Services in 1995, tbaracm im the wetland as a 3.0-acre Palustriae Forest type wuh ma 1 ~'i to e, hydmlogic, and aestbedc values and low values in the other listed categories, i ; Pursuant to TDC 18.775.050.8, "precise boundaries [of 4 ] may from those shown on wetland mays ecific delineation of ixAaud boundaries ` be [an delineatioa wsll be dope by a ackaow~' T1~az~,s significant wetlands itsye~ory noay glifieprofessianal D This provision 1dL de lands dat are not ace' wedaas if not. bebyv~etland delineation. ~~ence the Goa15 safe harbor standard in TDC 1SJ75.130~ winch a N Counal hearing and decisio does not necessarlyapplyto alllands mapped:as signCant, safer orsrandand is meant to aplslyonyto these lands that are acn*' wedmi as del~eatcd. The , se a Type rti Counal review is to apply a high level of discretion *i ough an evahratiQa of an ESEE Ianaiyysi sat the value of the sips icant a►edand rescn=a~ aunt other community values. Ilse; ESEg: aualys wouldiaelevant if the mapped lands were not actualtywetlandS. I) ~1 The applicam submitted a Wetland, Delineation and l3eso=e Assessment pre by SWCA Environmental Consultants, dated September, 2005 which identified al 1.4 acre woad on tax lot 100. Pursuant to Section 18.775.020, the applicant- obtained a an Water!Sjerv' service rovider, letter (FRe Number 05-004325, dated December 20; 7005);: for the roposed' develo nt. provider letter (Cnndition # 13) required a makul~*n buffer from delinea wetlands 'cif 50 feet, The appppRanes site plan shows the delineated wedands and required buffers, c§nsistent with condition M. All proposed developnw= is located outside the delineated vvedaods and Jsaciated buffers. PTowever, if a sewer line extension from the sub'~~eeet site is r j}r11~d to tress the land and buffer w serve tax lot 8400 south of the VX*nd (aplicam ss Sa aty S ExhibitOption. # 3 Shen a sensitive lands triers be re as indicate ITT the bo aline under tl ee and buffer may be ghee seewer~~ 3 ne MOWNoNorh Ddm% in wF ir-h case no's ez. vs ld be req~edd. be served by 1 Sensitive lands pennies shatl be regtxirea foiee wa i wetlands when arty of the following circumstances appland disturbances) or Iand fmm alterations invohnng more than 50 cubic yards of matena repair, reconstructs for it4p ment of an existing struca= or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 'p'ercent ;;the lxii&t value of the structtue prior to the unpmvement or the damage toQU XIM reconstructi -4esideri~aland non-residential sfiiuctaues intended for human habitation; and Accessory itx= which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside floodway areas. An proposed deydopmern is located on the Qornon. Of ' subj1ect sale outside of any sensitive lands, 'Therefore, a sensitive__ annds permit is not required fprthe p sed d~bpmenr. . M DING Thene bas obtained a Jsixv Ir .-vider let I'r from Clean Water Services. The p letter contains conditions of a~liuval for proposed subdivision. To ensure sensitive lands located on the subject are p tectec the applicant must comply with all conditions of approval contain Xt the I CORD MOX Prior to final Melding inspecdai; =he , { licant subunit a letter from Gear Water Services indcatmg that the cond>suons servicd provider letter have been satisfied. Si ns 18.780 • :it ~ ll Cliapt6r IS. 80.t30.B lists the type, of allowable; signs sign area permitted in the R 1Z Zoning Dlstdct II I No signs are proposed in con} n with thisThe apR ' t = a Sign ] m o Y erect,entry signs as authola 'zed in Section 18J80.130( (3 Any futurF s VA e ~nage a subject to the s, ign tints req,l;_ ^ts in Cbapret 18.780. There, has a ;a ptvlife uozu 6t sip violations from new development. Tu accoreiaace with a new policyaiyopred X,rhe Dire es Designee, all developers must C= into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate, isnore ' 'our urt process for citations. NM7CE OF TYPE II DEMON MR2CO54411A L , T', } PAGE ?A QF 38 Ekh, bit B Page~19 of 3 From: unknown Page: 27155 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:32 PM ' I I a'• Iii I I FENDING,. To expedite enforcement of j ' violations, a sign compliance agreement wM be requirid. J ; i CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of bunting permits, ;the apl li ant shall sign a copy of the Cir/s sign coangliance agreement, 8.~9 Tree~~~g anorequire~ 'A tree plan for the pla'Its ing,'rmoval and tection of trees aced by a cent ed arbonst shall be provided for nay lot,lpasti+el or cornbina 'on of lots or parce. or which a development apAcation for a subdivision, pa,o~T tte ~d~oE t:+eview~planned development or conddii -oral use is fried. Protection is preterre women verposs le. As required for subdivisions the applirasn sub a tree Fled ((dated j4uary 26, 2006) conducted by Walter Knapp, a oertzfied arbor m tee report contains die Taus required comp m. quirements. The tree plain shall include ie following: Plan re 1. Identification of the location, size and stir ' of all}existing es including trees designated as significant by the city; I' i ! I 'The Arboris : Report identifies the loc~taon, size; and species of 470. ' entoried trees on the subject site, conBisteut with this standard 2. Identification of a program to save a trees ort~ciit gate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation mast fo1EpW the rt cement g'ur3elinm oft Section 18, 0,0601), in accordance with tine following standards' and shall exclusive of t,it es required by oth development rode provisions for landscaping, streets and pad mi % lots: a. Retention of less than 25°k of e ' i tiers over .72 inches is caliper requires a mitigation gram in accordance wit$ Sectx0.060134 no netla}ss of trues- b. Re ention of from 250!6 to 50% of exbst' fill trees over 12 inches in capper rreegqwires drat two- thirds of the trees to be removed be rnitt~gatied iii axordanc4with SeetWa 18.7g0.060IT C. Retention of from 50% to 75% of edg7mg trees over 12-rtlches in cali per requires; that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be rm}pganed ih aeeordande with Section 18.790.0601; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existingit'Ws ov' erjl2 inches' caliperrequires no mitigation. The arborist report shows a total of 125 non-harm I tis or rseased trees ('including 3 trees in the 95'6 Avenue right=of-way) greater than 12 inches of which 106 are'to be d Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper inquires no 'niganon! lliesefore, o maigation is required. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed t-o be runloved; AR of the trees proposed to be renwved are d ' the app ' s Paristing Canons and 'T'ree Preservation Plan (Sheet 2). i ' 4. A protection program defining standards hand methods that ' be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Guidelines forme protection are outlined in the ' grist repoxt I 18,790,040.13 Subsequent r=oval of a tree. A tree preserved or, twined in accordance wii this section ma thereafter be removed only for tf?reason set qut ' a tree plant, is accordance with section 18.190.030, or as a condition o 'ap „ for ai conditio use, and shall not be subject to s hall record a deed restr iction as removal under any other section of this chap tE r:The pro &5e, a conditi on of approl of any developmentpit 't;a ffectedection to the-effect that such tree ma be removed oily if the tree dies or islrzaxdous acca certified wborist The deed resTotion ma be removed or will be consW`ilif reserved in accordance with this section should either die orbe removed as a hazaOUS e. of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. i A condition of approval wfll ensure that this is imet NOME OP 70E U DE=ONT SDR2005.=1 1 ~ ~ . ; I;I i PAGE 21 OF 38 E ib;t B i i Pag' 001of 39 i i ~ I From: unknown Page: 28/55 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:33 PM U =ING The applicant has pp_rovided an Arbor's, Report that addn es the four parts of the re tree removal plan. No tree on is re,q=d. Floweyer tree protection measures for those trees to remain are regmredladdressed sa the follawmg ons of approval C)0NDMONS: Piiflr to any site work the ~ shall ' all posed tree protectioa st2U femcing. rXia festaing shall be ~wd Vru fSpro~shaity Fremain m phce •tD Ca 2Frysire W_61rx p thro ~tion • o'f• all of the bui7 ' construction phases, unto tkie Cate of Occupaticyha Itbeeii approved • Nor to issuance. af•ibuildaig; rmirs, the appkant shall submit sire .plan drawirip,, indicating the locaitfon ~of the trees it were preserved on the lot dur ~i+o site p rv -____n rya Of fro= the pmj= arborist-regardirng the place ' 'and construction v to be erripl*d in .-An posed protecdon fencings all be installed and uisk~pribr tol constr=on. Tice f shall remaut inppLace ugh th~ehl dur~uon of all ' the constriction pP ases, until the Cute 0, Occupancy has been' raue~r approval from the cityForester, the tree , on measures ~e removed. Prior w any Certificates of 4 . aney, the licaut shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted writ$en i~epCM to Cay Forester, at least, once every two week, from iniq trep'~pra ecaon zone fencing installation, thraugh the progress. This insp, , 3> w behm theU Ute protectio:a fenri dete>zrsme if the fencing moved at int dturiEg co anCj determine if arty part: of Tree Pro Plan has been viDlatecL reports must be provided t`? the City Fares r u>ml the ti= of the issuance of AhY Certificates of Octvpancyl . re po shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well m: AS condino and location of the tree protection fencing. if the a aoiurt 1 11 T . VMS red then the Project Arbork shall justify why the f " * was moved, and. cemfy that the coromcdon activities to the trees did not ely imp the overall, long-tee health and &Y of the tree(s). Jf the reports. are not sub 'muted' • received the Caty t at the scheduled intervals and-if it.appears the `nPL's or the, tee Protection Play are not be'r'g follotrd by the conuaetor Or is*sub-can r, the Cay can stop work oa the ,rbeq usual an inspecdoii. pn[be done b' the City Forester and the Project oast. Prior. to issua~ice ;of any, ter of Occupanc)r; the Pro a Arbosist will submit: a fm ~on caring the elements of the 'free Protection Plan Weie.folto~veda ~d =au g trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in;rfleir modifi growing timer,, Prior to issuance of any C ernfJcates of aacp, the applicant/owner shall record 1 .deed restriction aldld include m the s hnguage to the effect that tree q st. be or is. us :to a, cemfied m The vdeed resawtion u~ay he removed or twill be eons' " ,invalid F a preserved is acoordanoe with this decision should either die r"~ be'•fl~moved as ' ous tree, The following text shall b~ included in all conssmiccdon doaunents: foun violation of the tree ~re~mo3 chap n;~iacl' abut not 7omited to remo be or dauraga to trees not appi~d~ed~ removall~ be subject to a c'u'ff of up to 500 to p !1.16 6f ard R Y C tip bpe Munlc~ rerdmaliauD ' n shall but not be;hmuedlt'lo, following:/ NUnM OF TYM II DEC15= SD1=5-0M1-i/V0NGi GAFF 00 0. PAGE 22 CP 38 Ezhibpf Page 21;, of ' 9 From: unknown Page: 29/55 Date: 812312006 4:15:33 PM A. Replacement of unla removed or damaged wens in accordance with Section 18.790.460 ~D) the'I'rgardNvdopment Code; and B. Payment of lair a civ~T penaltp represermpg the estimated value of any, unlawfully removed; edd tree, as deterined. using the most current Iz izizttonal So of ric&ure's Guide for P adApprairA VIstral cigarance Aras e 18 ' Ater 18.795 requaes that aclear visioniarea shall maintained on the cornets of all property adjacent to intersectm right of ways or the, mtersectio of a ppublic street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle jhedge, p " 'n , Tent wall stnuture, or temporary or permanent• obstruction exceeding three (3 feet' un her The coder provides that obstructions iflat may be located in this area shalTbe vis clear b en three [3) land e~~ght (8) feet in height (8}} (trees may be placed within this area p d that all hes below eiglrt~8) feet are removed). A visual clea=ce area is the t7tYarlgular axes farmed by "easuang a 30-foot ddiisstance along the street t 1 Ewa, and the driveway, and their connecting i ese two (2), 3o-foot distance points with a The applicant has indicated in-the narrative and the- site p that a clear vision area will be maintained. Staff vR review the areas at the time of final occupancy to ensur. complicce with the standards. This criterion is satisfied. FIlJDINC. Based on the analysis above, the vision clearAice, standards have been-nim SPECM Q SITE DE3 LQPMENT MWE W I PYtt7'YAI, SIANDARD5 Section: 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.09(i(A)(15) prpv1des additional Site Development Review ap~ r~oval standards not necessarily covered by tthhee pm Ions of the ptzviously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed below Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of: tide including Chapter 18,810, Street and Utility Standards; • Those titles of the T'~ Development Code hav een addressed'elsewhme in this decision where a plicable. Chapter~8,810 is d~setused later in this r,. Compliance with the chapters has been dPenwrfstrated, or conditions have been imposed on the de ' opment to ensure compliance where applicable. Relationship to the natural and physical emviroMnent: Buildings 'hall he located to reserve a acting tre topography .and natural drainage where possible based upon exisdng_ site eonditians; loca n areas not suiect to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance betwee adjoitiing buildings for adequate )i8ht, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and Orienticidi tlx Corsi 'rationifor sun and WWI `llze a plic gat has rovided a tree plasi The sml a is pos~ to be develo ed ~cvith ect to the namral and physi al environrnpesit reta~ a Farge number of t=es, to red in the wetland and Nidand buffer areas on the southern portion of the sire. The mtnimunc distance en;buildings is 10 feet with most distances ranging from 15 feet to 58 feet. The applicant has been ful TO ensure that there is adequate distance between the bqs to ensure that ad light, cinculatton, and fuefightulis attainable, The burl are one primarily to the se quate hand so such that all b vvr~ receive same sun dual a day. Twenr~four second level decks face sourth, II face southwest and face west. "T"his criterion is satisfied. Trees shall be reserved to the extent possible, Repla 'ement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. Tree preservation has been addressed pn:viouslyin this d "on under the Tree Removal Secdon. i . I i . N=CE OF rOE 11 Masi N sDPMo5_OM1]/LQI~ pL4vl5. PAGE 23 OF 38 j'Exhibit B Page 22 of From: unknown Page: 30155 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:33 PM Exmrior elevations: Along the vertical face of single-family attached and m tiple-faintly structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30.feet by pm-iid'uig luny two of* following recesses c.g., decks, patios, cutrances, floor area, of a nunimusn de tb of eight feed Extensions, e.g., dee,patios, entrances floor area, of a minimum depth of ei 11eet a maximum length of an oveihang shall be 25 feet an~ Offsets or breaks in roof elevations o three or mote fee in height. The applicant has inlcared in the nary &d that) offsets wX cur st a minimum of every dirtgfeet through a combstaauon of mcesses and extensions, and that the. m:nimnrn depth for all dec1L pats and enuaaces is 8 feet. Aceo~ the definition of buibd~ng plane in TDC 1' .720. o.A24 a stn ig a b=Ww' pplane includes Ianes with offsets less than four feet, but does not inch roof pland, It apppeals from ilie Prdk utars► oor Plan that most of the building planes re set6aciK pproximitely two }eet at 35-foot intervals. In addition; the Preliniwary Floor Plans and Elevation drawings show that proposed decks are approximately 5 feet deep, ezttranees are approepmatelpb feet deep, and floo~'area projections are approin m yI -2 feet These recess and extension dimensions are less that the required foot m;nirMIm_ The ap licant's narrative states the mof lines are roposed to be offset every0 3 feat- 4 ' hes. However, it is lit that since the vertical bus7diug planes a e offset onl. 2 feet, that rhe~roof line ets would be correspondinggly 2 feet and less rhan the 4 foot minimum. Theref ore, the exterior elevawn staadar~s are riot met. As a condirion of approval, the applicant shall subrnu revised plan and elevition dnv&p of the proposed units coasisteat with exterior elevation standards of Section 1 S i 60.090.A..3-A Buffering, screening and co tibility'b en adjo' uses: Buffering and screening's ha11 be rovided between clifterent types of land uses, for example, • 'between single-family and m le- residential, r d residen*al and commercial uses, and ibe following factors shall be cons" red in d' tetrntning a adequaycy of the tape and extent of the buffer. On site buffering and screening' from view ~ om adjoining properties of such tgs as service areas, storaareas, patkzng lots and mecha al-devices on root tops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, OUR be provided and A;' following factors wiM.be considered in detemrining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening Buffer- and screening " of abutting single-farnilly uses to west and south of the subject site has hmm addressed above under t-he analysis in Chapter 18745. This srtandaxd is satisfied Privacy and noise: multi. or group hvin8 uses: Structures which include rMesi dwelling units fl provide private outdoor areas for each around floor unit which is screened from viewiby,a oirung units as provided in Subsection 6.a below; . The buil ' shall be oriented in a manner which tects rrvate spaces on ad'oining~mp zrd ernes ~ bu~e &orn from view and noise; On-site uses -which create ~~¢Ciise,, l1ght;, or glare shall ad'o~nua residential uses; and buffers s)raU be -placed on the site as necessary to mitigate noise, 1@2orglare from off-site sources. ' providing a buffer and hall been' cord" Dried to provide sa~erung to ensure that the The applicant is adjbinmg propperties wi11 be prgrecred from views and no' es chat are nuisances. In addmoa, the applicarn proposes ll between subject site and ad"scenthwaY21 7 to the an 8-foot high concrete s wi northeast to provide attenuation a Ic noise and a tamer to the hig nay f!r t`' benefit of the 'Ihis Standard is residents in the proposed development. Private outdoor area: multi-family use: ' Private opens ace such as a patio or balcony she be- provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use oy individual units and. shaulbe. at!leasi i 8 square feet in size with a muinnum width dhnension of four feet; and balconies used fore es or exits shall not be considered as open ~~e except where such exits or entrances axle for tine ole vse of the unit; and required open space include bled riUe outdooro pen s~ asuch es sh Wherever bereonented ward the nn; picnic ared pri vate out door.spaces shi lpbe screened or designed to providi ptivacy for the users of the space. NO'IYCE OF TYPE H DE=CN SDR2005-0MA/T.0~1G5T (JO1VfaCbMT. to PAGE Z4 CP 38 ~EXhibit B Page 23 of S9 I i i i From: unknown Page: 31/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:34 PM i The ap licant has indicated in the narrative that all units E;ave a Mate seepnd-floor der: 5 x i t feet (55 squareeet) in size. However, the site plan shows that four units the proposed Street "B" do not have these delis. Decks for 24 of the proposed units are5 souutts are fac and 2 units are facing east No proposed deck are facing north and face smy,from highway 2i7 proposed private outdoor areas are consistent with this standattl, l-lo , the appli cant shall demonstrate in a revised site plan that the remaining four units will also be provided; with private outdoor area consistent with this i Sbared,optdoor recreation areas: m family use: In ad on to the regwrements of subsgetc . the op a ve usable outdoor recreation 'sp~Ca shall-be rovided in residemral developments for the strattrd oc-commo$ use of all the residents in thg oUow* amounts- Studio up loo and iuclud}ng taro- ldxo%gs, 200 square feet per unit; and Three or more bedroom u~~s, 00 square feed per esquire recreations ace may be provided as folloFs: It may be outdoor space; ox may be pair outdoor space art parj indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court, and rn o recitation •Oom; or It may aU ublic or common space; or It may be part common' ce_ . part p ~¢i - for exam k, r coulde an outdoor feints court; indoor recreation roQm a a~~D:nes on eaeh tun and white balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less .tian 48~ quaze fleet:, Share outdoor recreation space shall be readBy observable to promote came p,aevention and safety- Of the 43 residential condominiums units, 27 vZ be 2- in and 16;wi11 be 3-bedroomudts. Therefore, 5,400 square fee1Qof~ace is required for 2-bedroom and 4,800 square feet is required for the 3- bedroom units; ,20square feet in total The a,~plic proposes that the 17,763-square foot wetland buffer serve as the required useable outdoor recreations e. An apply 10,000 square foot portion of 'the site perimeter will be enhanced with ]andseap' ..g left as gpea space. 'This common area is traversed by a +foot wide concrete path for access and tioual tile. ]n addition, there is a 1.+acre wetland aid associated stand of trees in the • southeni' ' riion of t~e slte. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the standard for outd6or for Co use of all residents. Where landfill and/or development is allowed withiyi nd adjaeepit to tl'ir: 100-year floodplair,6 the Cl yr shall require consideration of die dedication f sufficie open land area for gmenway adyouriog and within the floodplain. This area shallchide portimns at a suitable elevation for the construction of ape destrian/bieyele patimy within a Boodplairi id accordance with the adopted pedestrian/ bicycle plan. 7be ect site is located approyy200 Lineal feet ei~ of. Ash as it ezoerges downstream of the. Hwy, 21 , culvert. According m Tim MA Flood Imirance to Maps the flood elevation at this location is 161 feet The subject site's elevation rr~~ng_es fr=,168 to 72. Eeet i ce proposed development is located outside and is not adjacent to the 100-year~l00 dpLaiii, Tlaiis daes~not apply. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces r, ci~e prevertpoa: The structures and sine ilit9=' vements shall be des ed'so tha(public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas aad avatie uli~oor areas are clearly defined to establish persons- having. a ning~ht to be in the space, tpo de, ,for c ' prevention and to establish ainGenance responsibility; and these areas rosy be fined by, uc not limited to; A deck, .patio, low wall, hedge, or drap' vine; A trellis or'arbor, A ge in a tion or grade; A change in the termire of the path mate Sign; or landscaping. The applicant bas stated in the z anau've thatpassive o r areas WE not be pawed in any fashion, wbere other areas are paved 'with curb delineating t5e stuf aces. ' ~pplicant provided a landscaping Plan co demonstrate compliance, and the public areas are. oz :,%e site lan. The site itself is served a pavate drive that will be marked with alaemative sigziage: i mphanm~r~h this standard as with all a standards r>slated to privacymall be verified at the tune stafF oes a final ir~pe&don. M is standard is satisfied. Cti~e preve~onandsafexy: . Wm owe shall be ocattccdd so t3aat areas virlnexable ; c" e c be s d by occupants- ntenor laundry aiu service areas shall be located in a" yt can be o servedy otheis; Mai ores shall be gca~ed rn ligkited areas ha ' velne or, pedes n tmffic• The exferior li d to levels shall }2e selected and the angles sbalbb Oriente wards vulnerable to c e, an fixtures s be proyr'ded in areas having hca~y ped' Irian or ve 'cigar tic and potent ly dangerous areas stuh as lots, "ramps ii i abrupt de changes. Fi Kftuis shall be placed at a height so tha h patte,ms ovedap at ; ght o vin feet which is sufficient to illumin ate a prison, NVnC F OF TYPE H DECE90N SARM05-000 ~AFF PACE 25 OP 38 EAlbit B Pagb 24 of From: unknown Page: 32/55 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:34 PM I' The applicabu has indicated in the narrative that theymbea to =et th a standards. Perhaps the area most susceptible to crime is the wetland and buffer area. welve~ f the prop tied imits will have second and third floor vmdovs chat look over this area. Each unit wM ba its'own p to laundry area; mvlboxes wiIl be along the private drive or located out on the public streedi Ile applicant bar not provided a lighting plan to address the tiype and location of-4bk ng requued under sta~ard , refore, as- a condition-of approval, X= f ms o 360.090 A.10,e. the appncam s submit a kghting plan a sing the pp' Public transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for pr+o ' for it if the development proposal is adjacent to or within 500 feet of eidsting or ppropos' transit 'ime; The requirements ,for transit facilities shall-be based on: The location of'ott<er facilities the'area; and the size and We of the proposal. The applicant submitted revised Site Plan dared IYray , 2006, on r+Lich. the applicant roposes street improve~tas on SW 951 Ave for pedestrian access to T Met bus 76 eavertoa-TWa* and 78 (Beaverron-Labe Osweggo which operate z~earby,alo S. Gre Road. 'the swps are located within roughly 1,400 feet and i,00 feet of the site, respecttvr i• sraard met,, . Landscaping. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance girth: ,l require ents set forth in Chapter 18.7.45; I.artd~scap mg and the applicable landscaping standards bav en III previously in this deeisim This ss satisfied. Drainage: All dra ge plans shall be designed in aecortlancc! 1 the c• in the adopted 1981 masher drainage plan; Discussion relann to co Rance wrrh standards) been AL-Lsed in the f discussion of streets and unlidd. 'This simdard is satisfied. I o~ Provision for the disabled-' All facilities for the Ad shall b'I designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447; and this o otbi bddua bw7dingssandsi s work ite p~ ernarc. ~ ' this St 2dard i is I emzrred during plan review All of the provisions and regulations of the uncle zone 's apply unless modified by other sections or this tide, e.g., Planned Developments,'" pier 18 50;• or a variance or adiusto=t granted under Chapter 18.370. These k= have been discussed elsewhere in this dens' • Where : t e standards have been found to be def bent, conditions have been unposed on the develop to ensure " mpliance. This standard is satisfied. FINDING: The appli don bas not demonsnnrrd? Hance' all applicable Site Development 161 FI Review Criteria, Vuh the follorovidg " as of a' roval the kandards can be met. CONDMON5; • The applicant shall subnik re plan 2n,'' devaciou driwui of the proposed baits coos= = Vitb extEmnr A star of Section 1360.090.A3.a • The ap Brant shall demo in a sicE plan that the renuffin four units also be provided private oor area consistent wirh Action 18360.090A6.a. j Zhe aapppplicant shall submit a i . g pbn liessing the requirements of Section 18.3 60:090.A.10.e. NO' cE of TYPE II mass N S CIRM05 1 a ?AM 26 OF 38 Exhibit s' Page 25 of i1! A From: unknown Page: 33/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:35 PM D_ STREET Vl O'h AND 0 Cbaptcr 18.810 rovi construction standards r the ementa 'on o ppu "c an pnva facilitiies and utilities sucprovides as streets, sewers, and drainage. T pplicable ids are addressed below: Section 18.810.030,A.1 states that streets within a ' velopmeand streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the, TDC standai ds, I l Section 18,810.030.A.2 states that any new street or ad "oral s yI,~r'dth planned as a portion of an ea sting street shall be dedicated and ' roved in acc ' nce wi tire.= Minimum Ri hts-of- Way and Street W~t I Section 18.81 .030X requires an arterial street to have ' 100-foot Vi -of-way width and a -foot paved section. - Other improvements required may inc on street sidewalks and bili&ays, underground utilities, street lighting, storm dtamage, ' d street This site lies adjacent to SW 9P Avenue, which is classifi! as a Neig I orhood R=6 on the Cary of'I'1~ard T ortationlan Map. k present, there a appmxizna' 20 feet of " of-w;:7 (RO~ from centerline, acct to rise most recent rag assessors map. The I? sho dedicate the additional ROW to provide 7 feet from centerline, I ODOT is not requiring additional ROW along the 217 SW 95" Avenue is currently paztaallyiQrproved• In order 1 mitigate uupact from this d pme~t, the applicant should consuuct half-street improver rents along ithetr fro e. In addition, the appppl=M shall p o de a minimurn of 24 feet of paving on 95 Avenue a point i the paving meets this minimum Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030-F states that a f rbare street ,plan s be filed 'ch shows the pattenu of exis and proposed future streets from the boundaries of '~a' propos land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or . a satis cto furore division of a i nom land, streets shall be extended to the-boundarg line so tract to d&mloped-and a b2.nicade shaD be constructed at the end of the street. -'these::str+eet s s to ad, properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs; since they are intended to continue ; through s et ' at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be ;corns at the~nd of the street by the proEpity owners which shall not be removed until authorized • ' 'doe tray Eli*ineer, the cost of whn 6 shop// be included in the street construction cost Temporary rhea turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constnicted for stab streets in excess of 0 feet in le Mth. The applicant submitted a &culadon plan. Due to exs I develo I Highway 217 and the wedands' there ate no opposnmities to provide for fi m re sheets or ex ensions• Street Alignment and Connections: , ~I Section 18.810.0301L1 states that full street. connec as with s acing of no more tan 530 feet between connections is required except where vented b ! barners such as topography, railroads, fiieewapps, pre,exrsting~developments !ea 1provis10, easements, covenants or other restrictions ea;ist3ng prior to May 1, 1995 rovich hrdd s t' connections. A full street coffieto may also Be exempted due to a regulate i ater fea ' ; if regulations would not permit Section 18.810.03o.I•I.2 states that all local he'' hborh od routes tad collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within sr to provi• through circulation when not precluded by environmental or toopp~ographical cons ts, exis g deveeloprn=t patterns or strict adherence to other standards in tTiis code. A street ection! r exmension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or redonfigum the street' 'therm top 'de re aired extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the sl greater 15%~or a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of e6imuzucntal or, topo hrcal co traints,the rxrcru presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a st' of a etion is t possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable et cone Iron. The applicant submitted a circulation plan. Duero e. ' develop t, Hghway 217 and the wet:Lgu d , there are no opportunities to provide additional street co ons. i I I NMCE of TYPE 1i DECISIM SDR20DS0M1 0 PAM 27 OF 38 Exhibit r Page 26 o 9 From: unknown Page: 34/55 Date: 8123/2006 4:15:35 PM cul-de-sacs. 18.810.0301 states that a eul-de•sac shall be no more than 200 feet iong, shall not provide access to Oaterdnn 20 dwelling units, and shall only be ~tued when, ermronmental or topo pbical constraints, existing developmett pattern, o6trict adherence;.to other standards in code preclude street extension and through cir+culatibm AD c6de-sacs shall terminate with a tuimamund. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall, be apppproved by the City E r, •arxd • The length of the cul de~sac shall be mess along the eentedine of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting streetto the farthsst~ oint of the cul-de-sac. + If a cu~de-sac is, more d3an 300 fe=II g', a ' direct pathway to an adjacent street uny be requited to be provided and ded to title city. The proposed development is served by an access road and not a public or private street Therefore, this standard does not apply Grades and Curves-. Section 18.810,030.N states that grades shall -not exceed ten percent on attetials, 12% on collector streets, or 12010 on za other stet (except that focal orlresidenttal access su rots may haves is wkh.grades up to 15°76 for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves sh~as determined by the City Engineer. The grades on 95* Avenue are less than 12%; thereby tre= 9 this criterion. I Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 1S.gloA30.Q states that where a d lopment abuts or is traversed by an existing or Proposed arterial or major collector stree Ithe development: design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and sha separatb ~=sxdenti Il access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conf icts. The design shall include any of the following: • Aparallel access street along the arteal orxt3orcaIlector, • Tots of suitable depth abutifng the axberial o major colt torto provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; ;l f 4 Screen laYtting at tiie rear or side property a to be contained in a nonaccess reservation - alo t~e arterial or major collector, qr C • Othir treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 4 If a lot has access to two streets vrltltl dtf£e 'nt classificitiops, primary access should be from the lower classification street` Ile subJect site abuts SW 95`h Avenue, a neigwpihood street and H&vidy 217, a freeway. 'therefore, this standard does not apply. i Private Streets: Section 18.810.03o.T states thatdes'xga starch s forprivate strew shall be established by the City Engineer. The city shall require "legal asstuance9 for the cent4wed maintenance of private streets; such as a recorded maintenance ;ja L. Private . streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned d lopments,'mobile home pzAs, and multi- familysesidential developments: Since this project is a condominium developpment, the ezi time iaterml access network is classified as a private driveway to be privately mairztained 5ylt4e conitxium owners. State statutes set out spec regulations as to how ownership and- maintenance of Gammon areas is established The internal access system will be-revkm ed and inspected by the Building Division as a pa4t of The Site Permit. Block Desiggnnss; Section 18.810A40.A• states that time length, width and1 shape of blocks shall be designed with due regaid to providing adequate building sitesi for the i ise contemplatcd, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, eo aro and safety of stet traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. F i nncm cF YoE n DEQSICN SDMY,000111L. GSTA6 00MOl t Itv1$ PAGE 28 OF 38 E~x~ibit B i Pa' 27 of 39 • I i i From: unknown Page: 35/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:36 PM I ' I ' I ~ I I I " I Black Sizes. Section 18.810.0402.1 states that the perimeter, of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured alb the right=of-way line except; • Where street location is p*zWed by Mural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre- existiri,gAevelopmeut'or, • For blocks adjacent to arienal streets, /rat,ted access highways, major coIIeetors or railroads. + For non-residential blocks in which int~e~nal-public ckiilati { ptoAdes equivalent access. No street are being created by this develop Ilmer►t, Future sweet connection for this development is prohibitive due to the wetlands on the suurherra portion of the site andj Hwhwa 217 w the northeast. The applicant's COlan (Sheet 4 of 10) shows SW 10 ngstaff Street and 593 Avenue cormec~ng to e west of the site. Ibis connemm would c ate a block length bf approximately 1,850 lineal feet, consistent with this standard. I Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bfi ffle and. pedestrian connections on public easements or right=of-ways shall be provided when ug itieet connec6ozr is riot passible.• Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, 'except wher' precluded by envimakatal or topographical constraints, existing developme',imt patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. i There are no opporumiit es for a blcy , or connection to surroundin sweet other than along the prrraie drive to- 5W 95' Avenue, which is proposed. The proposed Street D which goes to the property tine at the end of the.private drive, cotiild be e)end'ed through to a future SW 93" Avenue when the adjacent propenyto the west is developed, consistent with this standard. Lots - Size and Sha e: Section 18.810.060{A) prohibits lot deprh fioai berg more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less d= L5 Mimes the mini:` wu lot size of the applicable zoning district 'lbe subject site, comprised of four parcels will be re-platted into a single parcel; tb.e applicant is not proposing w creare arrynewpameh. 'I'bis standard is satisfied Lot Front4 Section 18. 10.060(BIn) wires that lots have a least 25 feet of fro~ge on Qu~blic or private streets, other than an alley. the case ofa land partmon .c ,18.420.050.A,4 a Zies, which tegtm~es a parcel to either. have a mmitnum 1.5-foot fiontaSe or a nirnnnum 15-foot widepiecorded access easement in cases where the lot is for an attached single•faniily dwelling twit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet,' Time panel is pre-a&ting and has over 117 feet! of frontage onto S 95`e Avenue, consistent with this standard. ~ . Sidewalks: , . Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to et City design standards and be located on both sides ofarterial, eolleetorand local residential stye The ap licant's. plans indicate they will be a c~ny~t :'v I ling; public alone their frontage. In addido~ -ne the app ' s plan indicnres They wX extmd pe estrian access m the Tri-NrEt bus stop. pedestrian access shall be a minirzwm of a 4 foot wide concreie sidewalk Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A re brat sanitxty sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to ' mains is adcordanee with the provisions set forth in Design and Consp*tion aids for. anita and Surface Wager Afi ement (as adopted by Clears Waer Services in 1996 and including y fiat revisions, ' r amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Overssr'zrngSection 18810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall inc a consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the'I ConlprehensiWw p>a NDZCE CF TYPE ITMag) M? 39Sr :.fir of * F:Q•^„32~3bE3.}':' Ffw"E2S~r3S Ex ibit;'B Page 18 of 39 From: unknown Page: 36155 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:36 PM 'The applicant has proposed to extend the public sevver'into the develop ` in two locations. The applicant has provided maps showingg hoW future coruaectiores from other proEEe~ es might be made. Because of the wedands the exter~sron of t~1c sewer along the s corner of tl~e party is difficult, 'The applicant has shown how the renla=g unserved properties can connect to the p b11c sewer in North Dalwta- 5n~eet The plans also show that the .applicant 1s i-1114 TO provide a 15 foot, easement along the south westerly I r 7 boundary, in the event an extension of the public sewer, the vuctlands becomes necessary. The afore, the app'ltrant will provide a 15 foot p~bhc sewer easement along their south' westerly proRerty boundary and the public sewer shall be extended to the north side of the wetland buffer, terminating wuh a manhole. Storm Praise: General Provisions: Section 18.810,=.A states requites develope • to make adequate provisions for stoma water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section. 18.810.100.C states that 'a culvert of other drainage 111ty shall be large enouuggh to accommodate potenal runoff fmm its entire 110tr a= drainage whether inside or outside the development. e City Engineer shall approve the necessary!!, of the facility, based on the revisions of hest and Construction Stall for Santa and Surface Water Management (as adopted by dean water Services in 2000 and ding any fii ut, ions or amendments), ne drainage pattern in this area is irrainlyfloww-n noit$ towards I~ig ` 217. 'Ihe iuuoff is then directed w the norlivest into Ash Creek Some of the uuppstream drainage i enters the devdopmmt will be collected and even=ly discharged to Ash Creek. A6 of the upstreairS runoff will enter the wetlands area. Effect on Downstream Dminage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the I 't► Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from-the development will.o oad an existing ge facility, the Director and Engineer shall Withhold approval of the vclopmertt un i revisions have been made for unprovement of the potential condition o unttiiI~ Provisions I1.ve been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the developnain accordance , the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Wafer ~Bgement (as ado led by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or nd aents). Ia 1997, Clew Water Services (C;WS) cou~leted a Win Study of Fannin' and adopted the Fenno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section Yof that plan i Wu es a recd lion that local go_vemmears institute a stornmt er detention/effective u eni)psi area reduction p" =dung in no net =rease in swim peak flows up to the 25-year event The Cary VM require ddtj, new developments res in an QU, increase of =e mow surfaces rovrde nestle detention fac11n"es, the development is located adjacent Fanno Creek, ale, inorm water runoff vM be permitted to Reno ~i'~ & For those developments adjacent to to discharge without detention, 'the plans indicate the installation of a detention I ipp e~ on-sitie. 7be r will then be discharged to a pubhc storm sewer that vvdl be constructed by a&&ir developmo. p the west side of 95`° Avea5z. • The applicant has agreed to share in the cost to ups this pipe Ito rnclrlde i from their development 'the bcooordimte their design with ,appproved ' develop nt's engineer. If the approved adppliciot saIl for th ss den~ velo ku ppmeat, then rh' applicant Sb U nsmi lamoi the public rm seVAT in 95' Avenue and the discharge into Ash Creek. Bikeways and Pedesuian Patfiwayyss ! {I Bikeway Extension: - Section 18:810.110.A s 'sj tllat,devel me ad'oitring proposed bikeways identified vu the City's adopted pedestria , ewey plan droll ' cludje promons for the futuue extension of such br'lseways thr~ouglr the dedication of easernerrts.'4 right of-way. • . { ri: SW 956 Avenue is not classified as a bicycle facilirr, NOTICE OF TYPE U DECMON SDFM05-00011/I. MUAFP'~ . PAGE30 OP 38 E Ot Page 29 o~ 39 From: unknown Page: 37/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:37 PM Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.11O.B states that development 'pemuts issued 11 for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally bone' it fcoxu such bikeways small be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikewaysmprovements, Since SW 95" Ave= is txn classified as a bicycle fac4y, this standard' noz applicable. . i7tilities: , Section 18.810.120 states that all Irons,, but not, Enike to those r'egt>ued for electric eomaauaieation, lighting and cab~vusxori services' and elated fac~its shall be place underground, except for surface mounted transformers;isurfa ' mounded connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, tzmpor~, y utr7ity service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 4 The developer shall make all necessa=On I is w h the serving ud'lity.tD provide the unde undservi"ces,~ The M .0 the rxgkt apprMan ur fac mounted facilities- 4 All un rground uses, indliA rta' severs and sto= drains installed in stiteets by the developer; shall be constructed Prior ta,-the sudaci o the streers; and • Stubs -for service connections shall be' lo' g enoug to avoid distutbing the street improrpements whey service'conaectiotls are made.; Exception to Under-Ground Requirenirntr. I Section 18.810.120.C states. that a developer shall ppa,yy a,fee in ltnder•gmunding costs when the development is proposed to take place onla streetl;vhere eaiisting ,tlLltlties which are not underr~~mmund will *serve the development. and the approval autho~ rrs dete that the cost and technical diffictalty of undergroundin the utilities outweighs thelienefit~depgrounding in conjunction with thi development. - The ZIewnuination sluAl bje on a case•by ase basis. The most couunorn, but not tire' only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undengwanding would result in the placement of additional olesr rattier than the removal of move-gmurW ulibitees facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by `titiliries which die not underground and which are located across a public d&-of-way from the applica:rt's prop shall pay a fee in-lieu of under grounding.'. There are existing ~overhead utr'li lines alo the of of SW 951 'venue. If the fee in-lieu is se, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the ead•liues, The fronltage along this site is 118 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be 130.00.' ~ ADDMONAT. C['tY ANIQ/OR CERNS EVIFROVEMENT Wate S e ~ ~ ' ' Tualhbn Vailey our . isuict (TM provides se;bice in this area. ' applicant shall provide approved plans from 7VVD prior to iss lance of permits. Storm Water Oir. I e Cr has agree to enforce Surface Water ]U iagemerit (S redons established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction:,tandards (ado' ttd by Resolution and Order No. 00.7) which negaiie the construction of on-site water .ruafi facilities. The facilities shall be designed-to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious sutaces. ] ad di sr, a maintenance plan shall be sribmitted indicating the frequency and method to benused " keeping the facility maintained tfarough the year. , Prior to conduction, the aapppplicant shall submit plans - and caleulado for a water quality fac k7 that wig sheet the inrem of the G~5I3esiguS7atrdarsis, z add rk.t3~c~aP shall ~ut amarnrP►MrwP nlon for the fac7itytirat must be reviewed and approved bpthe atyprior to co' on. ` Nary OP TYPE E DECISION 5DM5•CC01YLagdiTAFF OpIb. 0 pjyt2quz PAGE 3101138 Exhibit B Page 3.. of 39 From: unknown Page: 38/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:37 PM I , The proposed manhole unit from StormwaterlVlattago~ is not acceptable. The, Stormwater Manageuseat approved equal) two vauh is acceptable, rovided the pro p~y owner agrees to hire the mamtfaavrer at qw~ed mairarenanEe of the u~ -Pnor to a final building inspections, the app provide there demonstrate that they have entered into -a mauttenance agreement with Stow ter Managemem, or another eompanythat demonstrates they can meet the m=e=nE`e requirements of the manufacturer. Gra ' and E I _Q9 MtMh CWS Lftsign a Constniction Standards also regulatie emsion'contzol to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutar s teaching the public storm and surface water system r's,.1il from development, construction, grading, excavating, clean' , and any other activity which ae+`elezates erosion. Per CW5 regulations, the applicant E required to,.subm><t an erosion control plan for City re-hew and approval prior to issuance of City pernuts. The Federal Clean Water Art requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES erosion control permit be issued for any develo 'm mtgthat will dnstuib one or more acre of land. Since this site its over five acres, the developer issued r at gd in with obtain availoE bwldint from City prior to construction. T'las permit wM b g pen-nit. The'applicant will be required to obtain art NPDES 12M C pm=L S' Pernti a uired• '$uilduzg Divisi to cover all on- she private uUIW app u required to obtain a site permit from the on iststallanons (water, sewn', storm, etc.) and driveway consmrction. Tb'ss permit 64 be obtained prior to approval of the final plait. As ' Cponsible for as gaddresses for paibels withiis the Cty of Tigard and within the YNiM= y (I3SB). An ad dressmg fee in the'amaunt of $50.00 per address shall be assessed 'This fee sball be' paid to the Citypnor to issuance of the Site pemmit. For nnulti-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to. the d then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The CMA ponsible for assigmag the man acGress suite cumbers. 'This information is needed so that permits for tenant improvements can be adequatrlp tracked be pemut 13 g ys Based upon the info maation rvvided bythe a_ppLc M this biu'ldiig multi-tenant building. sP ort~o issuance of the site permit, t ie ;applicant shallprovid a suite ya map so sumo numbers can be ' ed. 'The addressing fee win then, be ealczulated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed Fw It level smxmes, mod. level suites shall have n u"n s preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded bya "2', 6.. The developer will also be requir-ed to provide sigaage! at the'entrauce of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served, by the given drive-way or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more em)rfind a parriailar home. FINDING-. The application has not demonstrated compliance -%irh all applicable Street and Utility Standards. Wash the following conditions of appswal thesrandas>3s can be met. CONDMONS: • Prior to issuance of a site pexmiti, a Public Facr'b'ty ImFrovezxreht (P1~ per= >5 re quuecl for this Pro]ect to cover half-street ><mprovements and aanuyy other work in the pubhe az& of--way, Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOM these plans are in addigon to arty draarings mqd 6 the Bur7ding Division and should only include sheets relevant to ublic rovements:, ublic Facs'lrty Improvement Mar. lams shall co~afaan to Cry of Tp Pub T.mprovemerit Design Standards, which are ava>le •at NO and the Caty's web page and or . V The PBi pe=k plan submittal shall include thi exact legal, name; address and telephone number of the kdivrdual or corporate entity who wM be designated as the' "Permittee", and who wt~ provide the financial asp ce for the' public impravemrmts. For, example, sgecr if the een~ is as ~which the corporation, irked partnership, Ur, etc. !Also spectify the state mites ty t I=CE OF TYPE II DECOON SM=_I •=IVLC0GSTAFF OC M' PAGE 32 OF 38 Exhibit IB Page 31 of 39 From: unknown Page: 39/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:38 PM i incorporated and- rovide the name of the co oratejponmct persbrL Faihue to provide accurate information to theT*eering.Oepartr=nt w delay processing of project documents. The applicam.sliaIl provide a construction vehicle access and p plan for ap rrwdl by the qty E . The urpose of this plan is for parking and.t, -air s construCtIOn tir I~g p Prior to issuance of the sue pp~en % the applicant shall submit a suite layout ma to Beth Ste'wrart, Enj ineering Departrncnt. It the pliant is not sure how many sums be used, must estltnate a number. The City will then assrrggnn suite numbers and the address fee vM be calculated. The fee must be pad by the appbeant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT, BerJ=y Steam,-Engineffi4, • The applilicana shall provide signage at. the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or pm~te street that I is the addresses that are served bytbe given drrnta orstmet Additional *i c of--way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of 95th Avenue to increase the n&-of-ray ro 27 feet from the arnedk6. 'Me description shaII be tied to the' existing right of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on atytomis.- Instructions are available from the B4gneering Depaxtmens. ; i • Tie applicant shall submit construction plans to the E Xeerlg Depar'ts' =t as apart of the Pubfic Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they, construct a half-street improveme along the frontage of 95th Avenue. Ihe improve== ad* mt to this site shall include: A. Cat~•standard pavement section for a Neighborhood Route from cub to centerine equal, to 1619 but in no case shall the total pavement Width be less than 24 feet; B. oriemeut tapers needed to tie the =wimp IUVement back into the exisuug edge of pavement shall be bi beyond the site frontage; . C concrete amb, or curb and gutter needed; D. storm drainage, m~, inv aup off-aSsite storm e necessary to convey sulfate and/or subsurface runoff- E. 5 foot cbncrete sides -Jk amh a 5•foot plainer 'snip; F. street Trees in the planter strip spaced per' IDCirw,quvreruents; G. street striping, TI-]. ulapout applicant's engineer, to be ppr ve byCity E g raper, L street signsnV ap Iicable); i K drivewayagroaif applicable); and. I., adjustments ut vertical and/or horirAnral alignment to construct SW 95" Avenue in a safe manner, as approval by the Engineeang Depa~ent required extending, 300 feet ;either side of the subject site showing AA profile of 95th venue sib fimui 4. The applicant's construction dm es shall show thai the posed public pedestriasl access from the development frontage to the Tri--Nkt bus stop will be a miarmum (foot concrete sidewalk . The applicant shall provide connection of proposed , , ldings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is reT red to connect to the -exrsung pubhe sani arysewer system . ' The applicant shall provide a 15 foot public sever ease' ent at the south west propeny boundary The public saairarysewer shall be extended to the north side of the wetland er, tennwaang with . a srrasdlole. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley~ater DI%1 i for the prDposed water connection prior to issuance of the Cty's Public Facil t lmptovewant permit, The applicant's a er shall coordiniw that des~'gn'and co on of the public storm sewer in 95th Avenue and the discharge imo Ash •Cseek ih the ears for the Iivingston Lane Subdivision. N =CE OF T'YP'E n DEMON SDR20DS-M1/LCM ST M ODNDOUZIa vJS PAGE 33 OP 38 Exhibit B Page 32 of 39:i h L. From: unknown Page: 40/55 Date-., 8/23/2006 4:15:38 PM i Ity aci laps' and .calculaions for the roposed pa+rate way f shall be sabred .7-IM, We aTUdity Final design pans the Engraeenng Depuztment (Kim IPMMA) 25 a 0 art of TheI?I rovC t (Pq pest~vt plans. The lass shall be revised to provide a mTwater;MauagemenL pond or sivak The Stormwater Managemem manhole a not be'allowed. rov erosion t Coement ntrol DA esrgr► P and The i p~hallrif orm wothe Eroosioon P~enliou anad Se ~n p1 g M=4 Febnrary 2003 edition.' li • 'lae applicant shall obtain a 12MC General Fa# issued by:.d:ie Cky,of Tigard par u= to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean 1Water Act, obtain cor nal. acc&p a from ~ the yU d p ovide o a lone`! 1~e menancee =u~rance for said, irrrprov~ments. ~ *in e Prior to a final building cdon, the apppplicam'shall ' tire! I City with'as-btult drawrmof The public iu3provemenrs as funs; 1) 3 rritTntylar, 2) a' of~ the as-btnlts in "DWG„ oat, avaLble; otherwise "DXF" will be acoeptxble, and 3 the as-b dha, i s shall be tied to the S GPS network. The ap~pplicant's engineer shall pwt i& the O y lh an elecaoaic file with points or each structure (6anholes', catch basics, water valves, hydtanss and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State flame! Cowdinafes, referenced to XAD 83 (91). The applicant shall either place, the ~ang ~_overhead utihiy lines along SW 95th Avenue underground as- a ppart of this project, or they shall paythe fe& Len of =d The fee shall be calculatedb the frontage of {fie saethan is parallel to the utirayliaes =V21535.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option as chosen, the amount Iwdl'be $;130.00 and it shall be paid prior to prior to final bwlding inspection • Prior to a final building inspection, the ' licant shall demo~re that they have en d into a ~jnt=== agreement wcth•Stornrrwater or ano company that demonstrates they can meet the maintena.mce requirements of r41e acturer, ~'r the proposed onsite scorru water 1 . E. Il.WFACI' STUDY OU90) i Section 18.360.090 states, lie Director shall make' a finding witli~ respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying arij.pplieatiom" Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an ruto.I t study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities aiservices. For each public I8 ility system and type of impact, . the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet Ciitistandard, and to. minimize the impact of the development on the public at4aIge, public faeis systems, and affected private property-users. Jan situations where the Comrrrunity ]7evelo rrt Codlexequire the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifica yll concta with a re' anent for public right: of-wa_ y dedication, or provide evidence that supports,,-flip{ the real p" party dedication is not roug proportional to the projected impacts of-the dev+elo'pwent; . Sic,tlon 18.390.040•states that when a conon of a~ppiova~l :equines the transfer to the public of an interest in real' property, the approval authority shall adoop~t findings which support the conchrsion thaf interest in real pznpeny to be transferred is mug .y proportional to the nnmpact the proposed de" ' opment will have on the public. the applicant has provided an impact study addressuig the pro} impacts on public systems. The Waslrragtoa .County Traffic Impact Fee is a mitigation mead that is required at .the time of development. Basal on a transportation impact study prepared lay; Mr. David Larson for the A Boy Expansion/Dolan H/Resolution 95-61 UP's are expected to recap{ 132 percent of the traffic uupact Of ne cv development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. T rare is cuarently $285 per average we4daytrip- Resulend2l condominiums have a weAdayavdrage trip "'te of 5.86. Therefore, the applicant will be required m payM of appTw&nately $71,814' NoncE op T'Yp'E A DEQSroN SD1UOO5•00011 LCMSTAFF 00IVD0 ~ ~ PAGE M QA 38 ~ I Exhibit g Page 33 of 39 I • II From: unknown Page: 41/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:38 PM - I i Based on the estimate that total W fees cover 32 percent of The •impace on major street m=ovement a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic is $224,419 ($71,814 divided by The difference between the TT ~iaid, and the f ul1 impact, n cwas'tdered tuunitigated impacx on the street system, In this case the value of rge unmitigated impact is $152,605. i The appli,caat will be dedicating app 1 square feet of right-of--way on SW 95' Avenue, and wM also be required to construct a new sidewalk. The vAk.'af these egacaons is: Riaht- of-waydedications, 881 s.f. (117.48 feet of frontage x73 feet) @ 3,00 per sd S2,643. SIn' rowmeat, 450 If. 20,00 per l.f. I $9,000. Half street improvement along approximately 117 lineal feet of SW 95`t veai $200/ lineal. foot $23;400 TOTAL ; $35,043 FINDING: Since the value of the exactions is less Than the value f the mmain'tng unmitigated impact, these exacxions are proportionate and jtrstired. SE ON VIII. OTI-fF.R STAFF COMMENDS The City of Tigard Building Division has mvie~ d t6 proposal and has no objections to it, The City of Tigard Public Works Departonent has reviewed-toe ppI roposal and has offered'comments regarding storm outfalls and culmting at 10940 SW 9P that have beeli incorporated halo this decision. The City of Tigard Police Departn=t bm reviewed the proposal I d has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Forester has reviewed the proposal whose 'eom lens have been included in the body of this decision. SE MON DC AGENCY The Department of State lands states that 1&e wt tlaiad delineation, associated with the wetland located on site has been submiCted, but not yet approved. A Tier II level review has been assigned to the delineation as the proposed development does not,eq,~ any removal of fill inthe: 'wetland Wasldngton County has reviewed the proposal in the has rovidrTd comments regarding access and improvement to SW 951 Avenue, which are included nthe bodpyOf this decision. The Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and 1i~' no objections to it The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal'and endorses a predicated on the following mimzia and conditions of approvah In an eman from Eric McM, n, T'VFIt D l~irre A~Tarshall, to "I ert Castane4 Alpha Community Development, dated January 31, 2006 W. hy~ states tha,pro' eel location for the fife hydrant is acceptai le. Fire ap ratus access looks good also as 16. as parl~g allowed in the spaces shown on the plan only. The ro ys throughout the developaa~at wa11 need to be osted as a fire lame, The above stated conditions one predicnied on the instgarion of fire sprinklers in all b In addition, in an April 5, 2006 le= to the City, John ]?ashy subulutecil a follovkg general comments: la AODAM R uJ ;~i mQza OAD DI ANC' DIv&U NO -Axes roads s 1 1150 eet o p mans The exterior Of the t story of the as me =d by an approved route artthe e~or of the budding. An approved t] n=o is required if the nemarning distance to a i approved int=acdq roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet NOnCE OF TiM U DEasiON SDR2005-00011/M~5'TA7 0CM PAGE 35 OF 38 Exhibit B Page 34 of 39 I From: unknown Page: 42/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:39 PM i z) nEAr) Ew ROAD Dead end fire apparatus Iaecessi roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provideewith an apprbved tumarourA I ( j 3) I-= p RO EXCEPTTO POP, A MATI MTKTOY ER PRO CTIO When buddMgs are comp eta, yprotecte an approvedautomatic ire s system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the fn code opfficiaL 4) ITIO I - R - • Where Mulditigs exceed 30 feet in height or stories in e' shaU have at east three ~seParate me= of fire appparatus access. 13uld6gs or fatilifles Having a gross area of more than 62,000 s care feet sbl be; proaed with at least two separate rw= of fire apparatus access, Buildings up to 1 000' square feet provided with fire sprinklers may have asingle access, Ann AL AQMSS RO - N-E-OR TV 61P SmE : where Them are more t2m than 30 aver or twa dweUmg udts not s dian taut separate approved means of access 15494- shall be rovided. Where there are more U)Vil 10 dwr>li~ units' , ~aad A are protected by approved reside sprinkler systems, a single access will be allowed.. I , 6) SS ROADS MLJLTIEPLE-F' MII. I SMENTIAL Vh= there are more thari 100 p e- dweU4 units, not kss two sepaiaae approved means of access shall be provided. Projects up to 200 dvRft units chat are, protected by approved residential sprinker systems may have a single access. Pro ects i mdse than 200 dwelling units shall have two separate : approved means of access regardless of` whether j . I are equipped irk h fire sprinkler sysr ernstL7 7) IAL PTRE PARATU.3 SS-- Buildr 1 F ax of buildings or fades ea~eeAing 30 feet in owest o department vehu~ 's'ball be provided vkh apparatus access roads capable of aocommodmg fire dtipartri]erlt aerial'apparaars. and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire /apparatus amessl roadway Fire paratus access wads -;ha have a mM;rm unobstrb~ width of 26 feet m The mu~diate' ~v~cinuyof arry, bu4ng or P=on of burl ing more d= 30 fwr in height. Ar least one the required access routes meetutg this cunt on shall be located within a miu; Um of 15 feet and a um of 30 feet fiom the bGHing, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. .I1 e) 1VI ENE • Where two access roads are required, they ill be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one hait of the lez~ of the .,,ni; mil over al ifkgml'~ dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line betweed accesses: Ih 9) FME APP R AD'WW AND VERTI I I' CLE -Fire ap arativs access roads s have an una dot 20 jl eet, 12 en or up to two drivelling units and accessory buildings), and an umbstr=ea vertical clearance'o not less thaw 13 feet 6 incbrs,* Where fire appara w roadways are less than 261 feet wide, "NO P iKING" steps shall be installed on both sides of tine roadway and in turnarounds as weeded:' Where fucc aratus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO P signs ~shE irstalled on one -side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire/ apparatus roadys are 32 feet wide or nzcre, parking is notrMnric ed. I~ 11 1o) FIRE APPARATUS • Where a fire hydrant u located on a ire apparatus access roc minimum roi I **Lshall be 26~ eet. '11) S. When any fire . access road ei meds 400~fen in turnouts 10 feet wide aad 30 ea long shall be providtU irr addition m the required road width a~ fall be placed no more than 400 feet apart, unless otherwise approved bytl~e fire code offic~ Xbese distances maybe adjusted based on visPY;ind light distances. (O'FC Chalptt^r;5) 12) N G SIGNS- When fire apparatus id*yvs aze not Hof si fficieui width to accommodate parlod v hid an 20 feet of unobsrnicted driving Surf "No " sisps shall be installed on one Ply] a-% V 26 and in turnarounds needed Itoadseet wide or less shall be posted or borh sides of the roadwa on both sides as a fire lane. ads more than 26, feet wi&to 32 feet wide shall be osted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read "PTO PARK]NG ! FIRE LANE" 2 shall be ied with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12' nch ' wide: by 18 inc&s high and shall have red letters on a white'Aflec ive background 'I TgUUCE QP TYPE II DEasioN 5DF. 0X I/LOIt~ ~ MMOMMS PAGE 36 CF38 Exhibit B Page 35 f 391, nil f i III I ; ~I _ From: unknown Page: 43/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:39 PM I 13) AND LOAD ACY'I'I ' • Fire apparatusaccess n7ads shall be of an al~weatlter surface u ens' m the surioundmg , Ma an ':is rapal;k of supportiirs trot less than 12,500 pounds point load (!6eel load) and 75,000 pounds five. oad (goss vehicle w}. You may, need to proyide docu non from a registered engineer., t1m.t~lie design *M be cap le, of supporting such 11odd~inng. P2 be 14) Where a bra or an elevated stufaee is part of PM. ,m s ac f ro4 the bridge sh ao d aud'maintained m aocordancc with AASHTOiSor Hi B Bridp and elevated susfam shall be- designed for a live load siAdi to cany~imposed loads of fire apparams Wide load limns sball be posted at both Chum ices when regcrii~d byrhe fire code offices -where dqgwd elevated surfaces or e~ncyvebi& us nt to surfaces which are not. designed for such use, a amers, approved sages Qr both sfiall installe and mainwined when requited by the fire code i G RAD The inside ruining radius and outside turning radius shaU be not less than 28 ea and 48 eet respeccvelp, measured from the same center poiru.: 16) ED S: Where appam w-s access roads curbs shall be painted red and "NO PARKING FBE L~ faatze approved intervals. shaU have a spoke of not less than one inch wide by six inches hig, Lettering shall bey hite orz reed ba Ind. 3 17) GRADE: Fire a~ aratus- access roadway, . shall!,uot exceed 10 percent. Inteasections and turnarounds shall be7evel (u irnum 5% with r~ ' e=emonof c 6caning for water runoff. When fire roval of fm sprinklers as an sorwam art installed, a maximum grade of -1 inaafllowed.I'804'95.610(5). Aernate shall be accomplished in accordance with the pro~ions of 1s) TATES: Cues secu ingfire aa~~p=ws roads shah~eomp with all'of the folloTxW. • Nfiniim3m unobstrutttd width shall be 16 feet, or;two 1{3 cot sections with a tauter post or island. i ~I + Gates serving one- or two-family hall tie a mini 1*n of 12 feet in width • Gates shall beset back at mininrnuR of 36feet-frdm-the ecdng roadwa), • Gales sbaU be of the swinging or,sli. type Manual operation shall be capably one p anon 'I Electric gates shall be equipped with a me for 6ratiori fire departnlern personnel • Loclang devises shall be approved.' a ~s) SINGLE FAMIL'Y' DWLLLIN iJIRED a FI : The ixiin;=•w: available fire flow or a serve a mdoicip water sup 1~~1 shall be 1000 gllons per minute If the stxMApps) is (are) ,600 square feet or Urger, the ~quiredPtue flow slial~ be determined according to IFC , , I s 2a) HYDRANTS ONE- AND. T app re a poraon o a sutiu Aire is more thai'-1600 eat trom a hyd= on a fire access fuE rarmuts and u~ ms shaIl provi~d appwvedro around r exterior of the-strucmre@, on-site 11 HYD ER ANDiDIST UB Th f` number and z~) disnibusdon of ~re *rants a to a s not in ender C, Table C 105.1. r i. iderations fbr lac' fire be as falldws: Existing h)orants be in the area may use to meet. a requured munber of hydrants as appruved. l'riydranrs that are up, to 600 feet awn from the n II point of a sub)ea buUding that is protected with fire spruiklers may co io Itbe &=ber of hydrants. ydmm that are separated from the subj b by trwk shaU.not comriburr to the requited number of hydrants :'unless a rove j fr. code official. . Hydrants that are separated from the'sub' ct'b by ed higEiways or freeways shall not contribute to the r d uushbei' of .r~eavil traveled coIlector streets only as approved bythe fire cgod official. „ i j Hydrants that are accessible onlyby a e slaalk be ac ble to contribute to the required number of hydrants only if approved bytb code offi rmncz W TV.B A DECMON MR20M-0001 PAGE 37 Ole 16 [_xh= Page 36 f 3 :i!~ Y if 'i From: unknown Page: 44/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:40 PM ~ ! I 221 FIRE - DJ ANCE ; A C ! M S5 ROAD Fire hydrants shall be loafed not 1~ more than 15 feet from an approve ire apparatus access ' y ' I 23)• REFLE iveC mar rsp ire loca ions sha he identified bythe installation -'UNI the is s I ey shall be l ad)acent and to the side of the of reflect. ma centerline' of the access road way that the fire hpdra>zt is located ori. case that there is no =W line, then assume a centerline, and place the rt+flectors'accordingly EjGWQjG zal A WATER S YON: Approved fire apparatus access zd r an ' W=-sup °a ' fled and operational prior to any combustible con5tnu'tion or storage o coaustible n Trials on he sna, I it SECY CN 7L PR DX RE ' f PEAL_I~TFORMWITION Noti - h~ ~ ' Nouce was posted at utyI3all and marled to; j X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required disiance I X . Affected govem*ne= asmiss 9~ I I Final Decisim ~k THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON f ! ',I 21, 200% 1 ND BECOMES EPFEGTIVE ON JULY 7,1006 UiAM S AN AI E.AL IS FILED. ' I Rev~e~qq~~ Authority (T Il Administrative App. 7 a edsion of the Dim= ('T'ype U Procedure) or eal or Type III Procedure) is final for of ap "I on the d~te that it si AzryparT as provided in Section 18390.040. .11.. m~ appea'!~this'decisioullin acco ace VhEh Section 118.390.040.62, of the T , Coamo oky Developmextt Code which provides that a mrnt appeal together wixh the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (Tb) -biisiness dajs of tbeldate the notice of the decision was marled. The appppesa]1 fee schedule and fo=% are available f the P Division of Tigard Cay T-T 13125 SW HMoulevard, Tigard, Oregon 972ZT, I I I Unless the ap lica ' the the hearing on an app Ffrom th is Decision shall be confined to the specifi tissues ulenri wrrtl commentMS submuted by Qarties during the coziameat Period. Additional eviderue conceit issm proEEerly raised in the lfotice of ' peal may be.submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, sublecrm any additro' Hiles bf t may be adopted from u= m time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING ~W APPEAL. IS AT 5;00 PM ON JMY 6, 2006. I~e ant's ors, plena can the City of Tigard IP]affiing Divisn, Tigard City Hall, 33125 SW Hall Bc;Wevard,.'I"igard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. i Time 20 2006 PREP D B Pagenste er DA soaate Plaru~er j it i (,Gum I: une 2'0206 APPROVED BY Richard BAkndoyff ai DATE Plating W=ge.a NOTICE OF TYPE II DF-(3SJON SDR2W5-OW2 Ala O] GSl'AFP l PACE 38 CAP 38 t'x Nibit IB Page 37 of 3 ,11, afaap •vms c im F-4Ila u 11 E71 Y vlomny ptw -SDR2005-0001 I SLR2005-00021 n _ 10NGSTAFF _ CONDO-I~III~IUMS = 0 N N 0, mw- 0 C3 LO in Q _ W rn cu 1 r lp Y DA!(O A S A 3 N E 0 - - LL o~oo NO ND goo Feet UF] i~ ~n rtat CR C"ityo"pw Io&muatn an Ihla ary3 bf gonoW bllka arlpanj MaiAfL~~ee7ldvM U. Dlvmp-t 6-iut DAW ta. 1312SSNY H146Hd r1arQCR 9=2 ~ - 1700pm3t RI mplWwavardLwm Comm unity Dmlopmertl Plal date: Feb 7, 2006; CimaglcVWAO IC03.APR From: unknown Page: 46/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:41 PM 1-0 ;.5: r:ti`:M k: a r _ I e 0 ! r 9 rte: f~, Ss~, I ~ Min ° r ~ ~ $ n r~ 4 m I I~ 63 I~ R Vt 3R m t 3 ;g Mc • Exhibit B << Page 39 of 39t:,' From: unknown Page: 47/55 Date: 8123/2006 4:15:41 PM .r 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERA CE ~I I 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing PETITIONS FOR I TERNATIVE WRIT OF 3 MANDAMUS was served on: ~ i. 4 Timothy V. Ramis 5 Gary Firestone ` 6 Ramis Crew Corrigan &; Bachrac LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 9209 ~.i Attorney for City of Tiger; ~ 8 Fax: (503) 243 X2944 ' ' 9 If by faxing to them a copy of the original thereof on A igust 23 2006. 10 11 ~ 12 Carri A! Richter, OS 00370 Edward J. Sullivan, B #69167 13 Adam I R., OSB #02343 Attorneys for Relator 14 I 15 ~I 16 I 17 ' i. 18 19 20 21 22 I23 r! 24 25 i ' 26 I Page 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G A R V EY S C H U B E RT BARER A PARTNeASHIP OF PROFE9910NAL UAPORwTION9 elVVCn9 JIn0r 121 s.w. morrlfon srreer parrlrrnd, oregon 97204-3141 (JO3) 228.3939 i i I d From: unknown Page: 48/55 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:41 PM • I I, 1 1 I it 2 3 i 4 II 6 j 7 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ' HE STATE OF OREGON 8 FOR THE COUNTY:OF WASF INGTON 9 10 PALMER & ASSOCIATES, !i 11 Case No Relator, 12 [ I ROPO~Sl ED] ORDER ALLOWING V. ; P TITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF 13 DA1VlUS CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of 14 the State of Oregon, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter came before the Court on Relator Palmer & Associates' Petition for Alternative 18 Writ of Mandamus. Based upon the petition of the R I lator, and the records and files herein, 19 i 20 21 I; 22 /ll I I 23 111 24 111 I 25 /ll 'I 26 111 • I ~ l ~ I Page 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING PIETITIONI' G A R V EY S C H U B E RT BARER FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDI SI I A'P'ARTNERsMIP 07 PROFESSIONAL CORPOUTICNM eleventh floor 191 3%. mo►►Json .rrrecr ' I plortlcnd, nrvxon 77304.3111 (508) 228-3939 From: unknown Page: 49/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:42 PM I i 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Relator's Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandamus is 2 allowed. IT IS FURTHER i 3 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forthwith issue the Writ of Mandamus 4 commanding that the City of Tigard either (1) upon receipt of the Wni t immediately approve the 5 Relator's application for the development of the residential development described in the Relator's 6 Petition; or (2) appear before this Court or a Judge hereof, on the - day of , 2006, at 7 in Room of the Washington County Courthouse, Hillsboro, Oregon, to show cause 8 why the City of Tigard has not approved Relator's application. 9 I 10 DATED this _ day of , 2006. 11 12 CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 13 14 Sabrnitted by: i 15 G'AR'VEY SCHUBERT BARER 16 Carrie A. Richter, OSB #00370 I, Edward J. Sullivan, OSB #69167 17 Adam R. Kelly, OSB #02343 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1100 18 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 228-3939 19 Attorneys for Relator 20 i PDX_DOCS:378118.1 [36248-04200) 21 22 23 24 25 26 ~i Page 2- [PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING PETITION G A R V EY S G H U B E RT BARER FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AIPARTNERSHIP OF PROFEa SIONAL CORPORATION I eleventh jloar 131 s.w. morriaon arreer parilond, Oregon 97304-3141 I (503) ?18-3939 II. From: unknown Page: 50/55 Date: 8123/2006 4:15:42 PM 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING PETITION FOR 3 ALTERNATIVEWRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on., 4 5 Timothy V. Ramis 6 Gary Firestone Rarnis Crew Corrigan & ,Bachrach. LLP 7 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 g Attorney for City of Tigard Fax: (503) 243-2944 9 10 by faxing to them a copy of the original thereof on August 23, 2006. 11 12 Carrie A. Richter, OSB 70 13 Edward 1. Sullivan, 69167 Adam R. Kelly, OSB 02343 14 Attorneys for Relator 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G A R V EY S C H U B E RT BARER A PARTNERsnIp Or PROFESSIONAL cpNPORATIONS eleventh floor !31 a.w. morriaon arreet porlond, Oregon 97204-3141 (303) 228-3939 From: unknown Page: 51/55 Date: 8/23/20064:15:42 PM 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 9 10 PALMER & ASSOCIATES, Case No. 11 Relator, ALTERNATI'V'E WRIT OF MANDAMUS 12 v. 13 CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, 14 Defendant. 15 16 TO: City of Tigard City Council: 17 From the petition of the Relator Palmer & Associates ("Relator") on behalf of the property 18 owner, David Abrams, the following facts appear: 19 1. 20 Relator is seeking to develop a 43-unit attached residential development on 4.98 acre parcel of 21 real property located at 10890 SW 95th Avenue, located within the City of Tigard, Oregon. 22 2. 23 David Abrams is the owner of the real property located at 10890 SW 95th Avenue, located in 24 the City of Tigard, Oregon. 25 l/l 26 111 Page 1- ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS G A R V EY S C H U B E RT BARER I, PAU NCPRHIP OF PROFEUZIONAI CORPORAT10MB elevanlh floor 121 s.w. murrison slreel porrland, oregon 97304-3141 (503) 228-3939 From: unknown Page: 52/55 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:43 PM 1 ' 3. 2 Defendant City of Tigard (hereinafter the "City") is a municipal corporation organized and 3 existing under the laws of the State of Oregon with principal offices located at 13125 SW Hall 4 Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223-8189 and has jurisdiction over the land use decisions and limited land 5 use decisions described in this Writ- 6 4. 7 On September 13, 2005, Relator filed an application with Defendant seeking to develop a 43- 8 unit attached residential development on 4.98 acre parcel of land as described in Paragraph 1 of this 9 writ. 10 5. 11 Defendant deemed this application complete on February 6, 2006. 12 6. 13 The application was approved by Defendant's Director of Community Development on June 14 20, 2006, subject to several conditions of approval, Relator is amenable to these conditions. 15 7- 16 On July 6, 2006, an appeal was filed challenging the Defendant's approval described in 17 Paragraph 6. No hearing has been held regarding the appeal and no final decision has been made by 18 19 the City. ~ 8. 20 Pursuant to ORS 227.179(1), if the governing body of the City does not take final action on an 21 1 application for a limited land use decision or permit within 120 days after the application is deemed 22 complete, the applicant therefor may apply in the Circuit Court of the county where the application 23 was filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body to issue the approval. Relator's 24 application for development is a land use permit decision and is subject to ORS 227-179(1). 25 26 I Page 2- ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS C ,A R Y EY S C H U B E RT DARER A Pn RTNERBNiP OF PAOFCESiONAL CORPORATIONS elcvenrh floor 171 j. w. murrisan slrcef pnrrfand, orcgon 9 7104-3141 (503) R1a-3939 From: unknown Page: 53/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:43 PM I 1 I i , 1 !9. 2 The 120-day period expired on June 6, 2006, Relator has not requested an extension of the 3 120-day period and this application is not subject to any of the exceptions provided by ORS 4 227.178(5) and (6). The City has not taken fnal!action on Relator's application to this date, and 5 . Relator is entitled to the issuance of a writ of maztdamus pursuant to ORS 227.179(1), compelling the 6 City to approve Relator's application. ; 7 ,10. 8 Because approval of the application would not violate a substantive provision of the City's 9 comprehensive plan or land use regulations as defined in ORS 197.015, Relator is entitled to approval 10 pursuant to ORS 227.179(5). 11 11. 12 ' Pursuant to ORS 227.178(8), Relator is entitled to a refund of either the unexpended portion 13 of the application fees or deposits previously paid by the Relator or 50% of the total amount of such 14 fees or deposits, whichever is greater. 15 12. 16 Pursuant to ORS 34.210(2), Relator is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees, costs and 17 disbursements incurred herein. 18 13. 19 Relator has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 20 21 111 • 22 111 i 23 111 24 25 111 26 Page 3- ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS G A R v EY s c H U B E RT [BARER A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFE*!;IONAL GORPORATIOWS eleventh floor 121 V.W. •morrixnR atrceT porrland, oeegon 97204-3141 (303) 228.3939 I From: unknown Page: 54/55 Date: 8/2312006 4:15:43 PM 1 ' WHEREFORE, you are commanded, immediately after your receipt of this Writ to approve 2 the application; or to appear before this Court or a Judge hereof, on the day of , 3 2006, at a.m./p.m. in Room of the Washington County Courthouse, Hillsboro, Oregon, 4 to show cause why you have not approved the application. You are further commanded then and S there to return this Writ with your Certificate annexed, showing that you have approved the 6 application or showing cause for your omission to do so. DATtD this ,T day of August, 2006. 8 9 Court Administrator 10 11 12 .I 13 14 1 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 a 23 24 I I 25 i 26 Page 4- ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS G A R V EY S C H U B E RT BARER A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL COPPORAYIONs eleventh floor 121 .r.w, marrison strear purrlund, ore on 97204-3141 i (303) 18.3939 i From: unknown Page: 55/55 Date: 8/23/2006 4:15:44 PM 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS Was served 4 on: 3 Timothy WRamis Gary Firestone 6 Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street 7 Portland, OR 972091 Attorney for City of Tigard 8 Fax: (503) 243-29 i 9 10 by faxing to them a copy of the original thereof on August 23, 2006. 11 12 Carrie A. Richter, 00,40370 13 Edward J. Sullivan, B #69167 Adam R. Kelly, OSB #02343 14 1 Attorneys for Relator 15 PDX D0CS:378058.1 [36248-00200] I I I 16 17 18 19 I 20 i 21 j I 22 23 24 25 26 Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I GARVEY PARTNERSHIP OF P o esBsio Rn eoBARER eleventh flnar 121 r.w• marrison sheer parefand, uregnn 97504-3141 (503) 228-3939 Pre-Application Conference Notes To Change Existing Residential Use to Office Use For Richard Braem August 24, 2006 In your Pre-Application Conference Request, you asked the City if there was any way of getting a Minor Modification Type I review instead of a Type 11 Site Development Review for your proposed use. Below I have outlined the code provision that establish the City's code-based authority to require site plan review in this case. A change from a permitted residential use to a permitted commercial use (office) is subject to site development review as follows: CDC 18.360.020 makes site development review applicable to "all new developments and major modification of existing development." CDC 18.360.030A states: New developments and major modifications. Site development review for a new development or major modification of an approved plan or existing development, as defined in Section 18.120.030A, shall be processed by means of a Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.090. CDC 18.120.030A.56 defines development to include "a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land". A change in use from residential use to commercial use is a material change. It is a change from one major category (residential) to another major category (commercial). Also, it is a change from a use that is not subject to site development review (single family residential) to one that is (commercial office). This is a material change. Therefore the change in use triggers site development review under a Type 11 procedure. The submission requirements for a Type II review are established by CDC 18.360.070 and include a site plan. The approval criteria are set out in CDC 18.360.090. Type 11 procedural regulations are found in CDC 18.390.040. Furthermore, CDC 18.210.040 allows development to be used only for uses for which the development is designed, arranged or intended. Use of a single family residence for commercial purpose is not a use for which the development is designed, arranged or intended, unless a site development review approval is obtained to allow a different use and any necessary reconfigurations of the development. In addition, Pursuant to CDC 18.360.050.B.3, the Director shall determine that a major modification (Type II review) will result if one or more of eleven listed changes are proposed, including #3 which states "a change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765". Chapter 18.765 includes Table 18.765.2, Minimum and Maximum Required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements. This table shows that the required parking for a single-family detached dwelling is 1 space per 1,000 square feet, and that the minimum required parking for an office use is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet, resulting in a major modification requiring Type II review. Pre-Application Conference Notes To Change Existing Residential Use to Office Use For Richard Braem August 24, 2006 In your Pre-Application Conference Request, you asked the City if there was any way of getting a Minor Modification Type I review instead of a Type II Site Development Review for your proposed use. Below I have outlined the code provision that establish the City's code-based authority to require site plan review in this case. A change from a permitted residential use to a permitted commercial use (office) is subject to site development review as follows: CDC 18.360.020 makes site development review applicable to "all new developments and major modification of existing development." CDC 18.360.030A states: New developments and major modifications. Site development review for a new development or major modification of an approved plan or existing development, as defined in Section 18.120.030A, shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.090. CDC 18.120.030A.56 defines development to include "a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land". A change in use from residential use to commercial use is a material change. It is a change from one major category (residential) to another major category (commercial). Also, it is a change from a use that is not subject to site development review (single family residential) to one that is (commercial office). This is a material change. Therefore the change in use triggers site development review under a Type II procedure. The submission requirements for a Type II review are established by CDC 18.360.070 and include a site plan. The approval criteria are set out in CDC 18.360.090. Type II procedural regulations are found in CDC 18.390.040. Furthermore, CDC 18.210.040 allows development to be used only for uses for which the development is designed, arranged or intended. Use of a single family residence for commercial purpose is not a use for which the development is designed, arranged or intended, unless a site development review approval is obtained to allow a different use and any necessary reconfigurations of the development. In addition, Pursuant to CDC 18.360.050.B.3, the Director shall determine that a major modification (Type II review) will result if one or more of eleven listed changes are proposed, including #3 which states "a change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765". Chapter 18.765 includes Table 18.765.2, Minimum and Maximum Required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements. This table shows that the required parking for a single-family detached dwelling is 1 space per 1,000 square feet, and that the minimum required parking for an office use is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet, resulting in a major modification requiring Type 11 review. Attachment 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Coffee, Dick Berwersdorff FROM: Gary Pagenstecher SUBJECT: Longstaff Condominiums (SDR2005-00011) DATE: August 25, 2006 The filing of the Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandamus on August 24, 2006 begs the question of just how such a rare event as this happened in the City of Tigard. Below I provide a chronology that may help answer this question, in part. The chronology includes the background staffing and workload conditions and the actions and dates pertaining to the Longstaff review during the period between receipt of the application on November 11, 2005 and the filing of the Writ of Mandamus on August 24, 2006. Staffing Current Planning has undergone significant staff transitions over the.past year with the departure of Associate Planners Morgan Tracey in August 2005, Matt Scheidigger in December 2005, and James Richards October -December 2005. Two Assistant Planners replaced the associate planners in Dec 2005 and March 2006. Outside consultants were used during this turnover period from January through May 2006 to assist with four decisions. Workload During the Longstaff review period, staff workload was the highest it has been in years measured by the number and complexity of reviews. Pagenstecher, the only remaining Associate Planner (normally there are three Associates) had 18 applications at the time Longstaff was found complete, compared to the regular case load of seven to ten applications. Chronology of the Longstaff Review 11/17/05 Application received 12/15/05 Letter of incompleteness 2/6/06 Letter of completeness [120-day deadline 6/6/06] 2/20/06 End of comment period [based on comments, decision to review in-house] 4/3/06 Target decision date 4/19/06 Staff review turned up issues requiring additional information 4/26/06 Meeting with applicant and agreement to 30-day extension of 120-day deadline to 7/6/06 5/10/06 Supplemental materials received 6/2/06 City requests additional 30-day extension; 6-23-06 revised target decision date 6/5/06 Applicant denies extension request 6/15/06 Engineering Comments Completed 6/20/06 Decision issued 7/6/06 Appeal deadline; Beilke appeal received [120-day deadline] 7/11/06 Appeal Hearing set for August 28, 2006 8/24/06 Writ of Mandamus filed; Appeal hearing canceled