City Council Packet - 07/10/1989 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate
BUSINESS AGENDA CATV sign-up sheet(s) . If no sheet is available,
JULY 3.0, 1989, 5:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are
13125 SW HALL BLVD. asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters
TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting
either the Mayor or City Administrator.
5:30 o STUDY SESSION
6:30 1. BUSINESS MEETING:
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less Per Issue, Please)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request
that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action.
Motion to:
3.1 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.2 Recess Council Meeting; Convene Local Contract Review Board
Meeting (LCRB): a) Award Bid for PacTrust Local Improvement
District Contract; b) Approve Contract for Inspection Services
for the Pacific Corporate Center Local Improvement District;
Adjourn LCRB; Reconvene Council Meeting
3.3 Authorize Preparation of a Preliminary Engineering Report - S.W.
93rd Avenue Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 89-
3.4 Recess Council Meeting; Convene City Center Development Agency
(CCDA): Accept City Center Development Relocation Regulations -
Resolution No. 89-O1CCDA; Adjourn CCDA; Reconvene Council Meeting
3.5 Approve Special Permits: Cruisin' Tigard '89 - Res. No. 89-
3.6 Initiate Proceedings to Vacate Portion of SW 95th Ave.-Res. #89-
4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-06 ASH AVENUE,
BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT NPO #1 A recommendation by the Planning
Commission to amend the Transportation Comprehensive Plan Map. The Ash
Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a connection from the
intersection of SW Walnut and Pacific Highway Scoff ins. An option
shall be preserved to connect Ash/Hill to the Ash Street extension with
a "T" intersection. The alignment of SW Burnham will be modified to
intersect SW Main Street opposite SW Tigard. The realignment of SW
Burnham will intersect the existing Burnham right-of-way at a point
south of 9185 SW Burnham. The realigned portion will replace the
existing portion of Burnham as the minor collector route. LOCATION:
ASH AVENUE EXTENSION - between SW Pacific Highway at Walnut and SW
Scoffins. (WCTM 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2CA, 2S1 2DB, 2S1 2AD, & 281
2AA) . BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT - between SW Main Street at Tigard
and the existing right-of-way of SW Burnham Street at a point south of
9185 SW Burnham. (WCTM 2S1 2AB & 2S1 2AD) .
o Public Hearing Opened
o Declarations Or Challenges
o Summation By Community Development Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation By Community Development Staff
o Council Questions Or Comments
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration By Council
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 10, 1989 - PAGE 1
5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING S 89-08 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. - NPO #5
An appeal of Condition No. 2 of the Hearings Officer Decision in the
matter of an application for subdivision approval to divide 60.35 acres
into 10 industrial lots; Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. , applicant.
LOCATION: North of S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Rd. , east of 72nd Avenue
(WCTM 2S1 12AD, Tax Lot 800, 2S1 12 DA, Tax Lots 100 & 101, 281 12DD,
Tax Lots 100 & 600) .
o Public Hearing Opened
o Declarations Or Challenges
o Summation By Community Development Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation By Community Development Staff
o Council Questions Or Comments
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration By Council
6. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
(TMC) , CHAPTER 7.40 (Noise)
Amendments to the Noise Ordinance provisions of the TMC
o Public Hearing Continued from June 12, 1989
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross-Examination
o Recommendation by Community Development Staff
o Council Questions or Comments
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
7. PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY - A PORTION OF SW 93RD AVENUE
AND SW MAPLELEAF STREET
�. Consideration of a proposed vacation of a portion of S.W. 93rd and S.W.
Mapleleaf Street, in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. A
petition for the above-proposed vacation, meeting all signature
requirements, was filed with the City of Tigard on May 18, 1989. The
petition was signed and submitted by the Trammel Crow Company.
o Public Hearing Opened
o Declarations Or Challenges
o Summation By Community Development Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation By Community Development Staff
o Council Questions Or Comments
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration By Council
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) , (e) , & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and
pending litigation issues.
10. ADJOURNMENT
cw/0104D
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 10, 1989 - PAGE 2
• TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA UPDATE
JULY 10, 1989
o STUDY SESSION
Reviewed Hearings Officer Final Order forsus CUw89-03
to request Christian
Ministries Homeless Shelter) .
s
Officer amend her decision with regard to Condition No. 6. This
condition stipulates that a Tigard Police Officer must remove a guest
who has been denied entrance to the shelter. Concern was expressed
over the issue of obligating Tigard Police Department to provide
security services for a private organization and precedent-setting
ramifications. Council formally noticed its intent to review the
Hearing's Officer decision if not amended as requested.
Update of MSTIP/2 by City Engineer -- Washington
Co.
requestCodnating
Committee tentatively approved a $60 million/(o year levy
presented to voters in September. Council consensus to review this
issue on 7/17 to consider whether to support.
Report on Agenda Item 3.2a. by City Engineer -- recommendation for
Council approval to award bid to Clearwater Construction for asphalt.
Community Development Director updated on noise ordinance; noted
several issues still outstanding and recommended testimony be received
during public hearing tonight, then continue public hearing for further
study.
C Community Development Director reviewed Tigard Marketplace issues.
Advised letters will be sent to neighbors outlining progress. (Council
to receive a copy of this letter next week.) No building permits will
be issued until problems are resolved.
1. BUSINESS MEETING:
Call To Order and Roll Call ALL CC PRESENT
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - NO VISITORS
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
3.1 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.2 Recess Council Meeting; Convene Local Contract Review Board
Meeting (LCRB): a) Award Bid for PacTrust Local Improvement
District Contract; b) Approve Contract for Inspection Services
for the Pacific Corporate Center Local Improvement District;
Adjourn LCRB; Reconvene Council Meeting
3.3 Authorize Preparation of a Preliminary Engineering Report - S.W.
93rd Avenue Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 89-54
3.4 Recess Council Meeting; Convene City Center Development Agency
(CCDA): Accept City Center Development Relocation Regulations -
Resolution No. 89-01CCDA; Adjourn CCDA; Reconvene Council Meeting
3.5 Approve Special Permits: Cruisin' Tigard '89 - Res. No. 89-55
3.6 Initiate Proceedings to Vacate Portion of SW 95th Ave.-Res. #89-56
Jo/EA UA - Request by Jo to receive sketch of proposed layout for
events at Cook Park. Noted would like to see where parking was planned and
notation of amps (noise) level.
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 10, 1989 - PAGE 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-06 ASH AVENUE,
BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT NPO #1 A recommendation by the Planning
Commission to amend the Transportation Comprehensive Plan Map. The Ash
C Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a connection from the
intersection of SW Walnut and Pacific Highway Scoff ins. An option
shall be preserved to connect Ash/Hill to the Ash Street extension with
a "T" intersection. The alignment of SW Burnham will be modified to
intersect SW Main Street opposite SW Tigard. The realignment of SW
Burnham will intersect the existing Burnham right-of-way at a point
south of 9185 SW Burnham. The realigned portion will replace the
existing portion of Burnham as the minor collector route. LOCATION:
ASH AVENUE EXTENSION - between SW Pacific Highway at Walnut and SW
Scoff ins. (WCTM 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2CA, 251 2DB, 2S1 2AD, & 2S1
2AA). BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT - between SW Main Street at Tigard
and the existing right-of-way of SW Burnham Street at a point south of
9185 SW Burnham. (WCTM 2S1 2AB & 2S1 2AD) .
CC Consensus: Continue Public Hearing to 8/21 to allow time for
review of neighbors concerns.
5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING S 89-08 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. - NPO #5
An appeal of Condition No. 2 of the Hearings Officer Decision in the
matter of an application for subdivision approval to divide 60.35 acres
into 10 industrial lots; Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. , applicant.
LOCATION: North of S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Rd. , east of 72nd Avenue
(WCTM 2S1 12AD, Tax Lot 800, 2S1 12 DA, Tax Lots 100 & 101, 2S1 12DD,
Tax Lots 100 & 600) .
Withdrawn
6. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
(TMC) , CHAPTER 7.40 (Noise)
Amendments to the Noise Ordinance provisions of the TMC
o Public Hearing Continued from June 12, 1989
o Council Consensus: Continue Public Hearing to 8/14/89
7. PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY - A PORTION OF SW 93RD AVENUE
AND SW MAPLELEAF STREET
Consideration of a proposed vacation of a portion of S.W. 93rd and S.W.
Mapleleaf Street, in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. A
petition for the above-proposed vacation, meeting all signature
requirements, was filed with the City of Tigard on May 18, 1989. The
petition was signed and submitted by the Trammel Crow Company.
o Public Hearing Opened
o Consideration By Council
Ea/Sc Adopt Ordinance No. 89-19 with added condition that Ordinance
not be recorded until LUBA appeal was settled. UA
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff
8.1 Sc/Jo: Motion to voluntarily remand to Council the decision with
regard to Century 21 case now under appeal at LUBA. UA
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 10, 1989 - PAGE 2
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session
at 9:56 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d). (e), & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and
pending litigation issues.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 pm
cw/0104D
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 10, 1989 - PAGE 3
C
TIMES PUBLISHINGOMPANY Legal
P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice 7-6968
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
• • 0 Tearsheet Notice �'
CITY OF TIGARD ✓/VC
• P. O. BOX 23397 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit UN 30
TIGARD, OREGON 97223 , 1989
• • anab
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1, DORTHA MARTY
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the TIGARD TIMES
a newspaper of general circulltioGn a ass defined in ORS 193..010
and 193.020; published at I in the
aforesaidOTIpCEtyO n PUBLIC that
VACATION HEARING
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for FIVE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
JUNE 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29, 1989
Suliscri6edand sworn _ 'before me this 30th of .Tint., 1989
votary Public for Oregon
MyCommission Expires: Z.54,:$, -,-.4. ...1."- . , - . 7 : x.a �s , 44'
p • 9/20/92 rFh e c o Y ! e e- ,k r
S y (y�t/� Yq��•ya��y1l�+3 y7.1,G r 1 d J� ''���JJ F `.q'"7y e Z�.t+�r
^Y ! M1fi �l,, Y o,.ap s• i'.S•' 4 I"f �f+4Y� lIV to 1 '__Lig e4 5,
a 9 a4�
AFFIDAVIT ,,r .„„m.„. t a,.y 4 L r; I
f 1 21�s[ l,., It y�• .a .,x�x '=d,ti` f"y S,�1,1t u.1 ,>r ?- e11 7.... ),:t a
.K, t l!s>}I.,1) , ). Q, . `�"��.e'l, ,k ,�r.111''�'r,.tT ,,,i T. I g`{/�t.:^_{�-k` r. �10::)..`t'{
{{�( .„AL. ,54,14.', �' .ca c �" , 3% •s; .�,J9, ,r 1 z y 1 ,,-'4",iY
*4'1'irit F-1.' - t1 G4j ,t.+�1 ,z 4: ,3 ,xSl ,1i.g. f`Vfdf ftly'1 ,� ''
Je.�c-r, r!?-,s+gr tt . . : 'r.,,�.oi•a�.�e � 1 Isy"p '.�" 'T 3v' �- S'�N F
t a9 t1 I t cp, i ,. i 1 1 _l It1 ,i..�3LTJ { F
tJ 'S; y^ 1w a1? '�" �qK�"w"4.�' "'^:S1^ k f� � t� ..A '1.�ch
_III
4.7:4....744;,' tif,11,,V4,„ ti ,1.t1 ! 4 : d - tro� R v ,1xJ., ,R .a Al '. 1 i.tt2' 711 i y« , '' ^' 'si4.i,,rf M4-ear,. ,, .y-,•4•11 ,1'tKt L 1 f, T 73F�1e„�,,,ra,-I
R, ,,..%"`-7,21,-n r ,1_. t 7 .,,, ��, c t, 7-,- ,-.-+; v t.';,I"''':7%,,' ♦yt1 ?-4!:•.1--'', et';',
- t{ +. t i
. 3''' Y ,'' � n r,lt j yl !'1'',^�I ) J S"-.'C. ..d d'r }p 3 dp
.'i �.1,'.,' C' it ^Ai i'`.4....'2 ,• ..M1: . v.2i..h. a. c'.•'`.:'.S
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
4164 P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice 7-6301
t�� ^pA BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075
n N
C 30k ‘3114415)
t1441D Legal Notice Advertising •
• 0 Tearsheet Notice
City of Tigard
• P. O. Box 23397 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit
Tigard, OR 97223
• •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
Dortha Marty
I,
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard T ime s ,
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Public Hearing Notice
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
June 29, 1989
Subscrib:d and swornto Before me this 30th of June, 1989
.o.<V all ac
t. :ry Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: 9/20/92
AFFIDAVIT Dt eA r :
0 p'4 '"ES:•,IV S' 't�rc l'' r rl3ii- rh {`J`t-r,-'",,,,0 R r ! . > >
a.-c ` 'P ~e ,+Is > a�S .e yt.,.,'i-t:r�i4,. ''a ,
C� 4 rut i 5 4
a', \f A' +a. C?. f r,� 1)1 r ",, .--��i v y.'r Ai r u t, ,a.,
C. F1 t : N 1 �v t t Ri�''.
'„.. g, .; K.. •
, •Qr ._'1.f.'h c jY •,” a :"A".:1.,•-•`', �j t
..w.+- . �' 4 1^ t F > i 7�� ,0111S,11.?.;'?.-1..]� cfa ' t >
df� P r �,8> brFs l z� a 'F� 3v
" 31,44',4:41.',413"4,.: i.g e t �+ t ��"-.2 r V-'•-.1-1t:,-„1.;70j-,-..;;.5%,,,'=,f,..:.,1
c
d{•j'� ,.. y, .•11 L"r R c:y""h t3o Y .".iii' r'• .1 f, .,rt Y r>,,i'a
7 t Pic73 neT�ilEl'Ny a;t a V0:4. 1 tr i1,r i
' ! r , a, S r t t t. �'`1,..
',4- '-"> > � d �rocyyr � ��� f'('k'��f>t ,( .I„�+ r�"C�„7- Z� lna� �*�,�..
{,,{Y+1.' r i't` }' tk 1 M r > lz r Y" G•v ✓
%'+�'('� t �t �'-'e�Ike 1'�fry,�'cy��'r,� 4 G K`1 r h� al r c v t y �y'•,'
,? d� ,l w e{ ;' F ct 1 ;`"1 d 1 i,'"N,9 r i ! e 5 , ��-i a -ct, �•4 .,,,,
i �� .g .yY, a-+ ,�r E��d '(t N8t ,r' aK 1 ii- yi m 7il`4••
FFFty 1.. 1 1 >i+ `1)n7%1 .. e yw P q• ds Y' ` l',...*. ,-
lL rim 7
• . 'tj't't•q�V'�,..�b.t 4c .,{�r'! ' ', S•:".-'-7!'i .,;,I tr; {! Ct ;, 4,e t ti )��„:!-.,!:'-z!+ y.
,'.� tyaz t4.„, e •.', :... `C' s PS ci ,>r if, le- + ,.,..'1.: t
„ ':•F''- V -..,se S e,Z' ', 4.r.,x, ver t ', .5: '. j y,Y r nt,t a ,
'' kl)S^r ,1 E,•;rcf,.t(t>Y..� F�... " c .l-t:.. . c�,., ..�...'.�.
f'elii.1
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY LegalP.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice 7-6306
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
• City of Tigard • 0 Tearsheet Notice
P. 0. Box 23397 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit
e Tigard, Oregon 97223
e •
'` '� t yours information;
The following sele''a4Mif y,1 "4a, -iiid`iom't.'„;4.y Recor-
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Further Information ami agen ung 6"9ty Rec
STATE OF OREGON, )ss
; der,T3i25 5W Hail Blvd,Tigard;Oregon 87223,or by,
"�` '" CITY COUNCIL'REGULAR MEETIhiG�'�;"JULY 10,1989
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) ' 3 5 30 PM-Study Session 6° 0 PM Regulair7Meeting rt
Dortha PYlarty , r �"x r, C�FNTER;TOWN BALI- �rh `
1, :a 1t'' rte i TIG/f2D
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising S 3i2,-Sw-,.-i—BOI)I.EYti°►�• IGARD,OREGON-; .
Tiand Times �«- -a 2 ,, �.r 4 r i� a� '
Director,or his principal clerk,of the g loyee_S,�rvice:Ards�,.,, , �/, J J . y
sI . d andfCo l 4`'�g ►b$rs
a newspaper of generaEIVV
l circulation as defined in ORS 193.010the �r' Rem to fife Ily or g ��tx
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the °,` f E r 0.+ '-
•t M iearut s , , r •,; _ �t - + {4%' Avenin,
agoresauf county�ntstate that e I z blColeann nskve Plan; pendment CI'A 89-06 ;.:4
t; tiff th 9- 6 +
City ounce egu�ar A4eeting-Agenda1.v7efVfirm' i ,r /Tigard'�Rea nit,NPO#1F� ., iiwgit a Na
3 � ' :` Officer Decision Subdivision S 8908,Pack
A 10 18e� Bs
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ,ice � , at NPO#�5 ` 0�, ` }� *
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive andtn.-44%4111-'0.4,
t "' �'#on tithe'Amendm o;tefTi rd
r yap Continuat�Q "Df lic Rearing x
consecutive in the following issues: 4 fu cipsl Chapter 740(Nolle)
. �,�' n o `'�} rWay'=A portionf of S W 93rd Avenue and S W:
h tP
July 6, 1989 ; ' Ma lelebf S es f es, a
f�Y• ityentekyfe!ementAgenc3►1Vfeeting--.:4,'/; ‘0,_'•yi `
4;:'.06./.10$010..
a L {' r k 4 ee q ,-f o �'t.'�-,s,. sR;..c;` 0.t
`�at�COn R eWxSoerd� ��;;� � �,,)
:gscpiliy018es1toni�,tu�pl♦ye.rrtlreiprjet ►' f O . slt�it.4.�)�t(d C hand
• M• s i or la o P real pri1 rt.T r,-;p and c 1*' t L y d
rly+./Tn)fay tI iss , s Lif s
t�
July 1989 ?{' 3Q6 t -z.',4 ish �3 u 198 7 ,.-e- ,s �s�s � � ;>
7 y, � . .max P., ...'J .._ ,�d r>.. __ _ r .
Sub = :d and svror o before me this
� -ice-.
" • • ary Publi
My Commission Expires: c for Oregon
9/20/92
AFFIDAVIT
tftrAli
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice 7-6999
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 tE
PUBLIC HEARINGS ,, _' , x.. ; J
Legal Notice Advertising ;r�$"+®�� the lohoatng will be considered 1%y thhe Ttgard,City Counctt on July 10,
1989 at 6 30 P.M at Tigard Civtc Center;Town Hall Room,13125 SW Hall
ii
��` Tig'rd 0 Y
•
• �9 Boulevard, t;a regon Further infgrmation_ma be obtained from the
• City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice ,�N 3 Community Development bisector or City Recorder at the ame location or`
by calling 639 4171 You are invited to submit written testimony in advance:
P. 0. Box 23397 of the,.`public hearing,�wntten and oral testimony will be,Considered at the
• • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tigard, OR 97223 j hearing"Thhe�publtc iteanng will be conducted"in'aecordance ,rifle the.
i applicable Chapter I8.32 of the Tigard Munjcipa(Code and any,rules•of
• • procedure anoptedby the Council and ayailuble,zat pity Hall y,r {
!, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 'AMENDMENT CPA` 8906;ASH AVPNUE,;
BURNHAM/FTIGARD REALIGNMENT;NPO,#1-A recommendation by the
k lanning Commission to amend the Transportation Conipre'heiisive Plan;'
Map,Ti e'Ash:Avenue cgnnection to be modified to mdicat&a i onnectlon
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION fromthe�intersect�on of SW,Walnut"And Pacific Highway th Scoffins An_
t optton shall be preserved)to connect Ash/Hfl) toLthe Ash`Street extension'
X it r,
STATE OF OREGON, )ss with a T mtersecuon The alignmept io,Si&EIBtirnham will%, modified th,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) intersect SW:Mani Street`opposite SWb1�8gr(1`;TAe�reahgnment„of SW`s
Bpr'nham will'intersect the existing Burnham right of way at a point South;.
i, Qortha Marty t of 9185 SWfiBurnham The realigned portion will_repla•ce the e>llsting por
being first duly sworn, depose and say that Lam the Advertising tion of Burnhamtas the minor''collector;route LOCA!1O I ASTM AV NUE::
Director,or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times .EXTENSIOiV, between SW Pacific Thgpway at:Watntand SW offinsv
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 { (WCTM 2S1 281), 2S1: 2AC 2S1 2CA,,251 2DB; 2S1 2AD, &,251i2AA')
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the . BURNHAM/T G RD REALIGNMENT between SW Main Street at r'igard�
aforesaid county and state;that the � and the ex stili right-of way4ofrSWsBurnham Street at a`pp�nt south bf S}i
P�ih 1 i r Haar i ng t_
CPA 89-06 r91$5 SV Barn 1 tY1�(WCTM 251 ZAB&2S1'2AD�`? . " ,s,.r -�j r,,
' r ,_ yr U @
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed,was published in the �r `� a• °
entire issue of said newspaper for • fine successive and �® ® ®��®� g,l�q��py', r
consecutive in the following issues: �' • -- A '' ��V®� ��
® { ` err, � � ,�
June 29, 1989 4 Q � 'A/ ��{iot.Q •S'' \,,11. .', 4 y"`• '"• �'J
'a,5 �, a Fier e` ,® �. k'/ 6 + ®`t
Mr �iia.� � ��.$uftelu ri{�! °r. �t
', i'rtw< . ;£ JKsr f �.?.�N �.d�'4'w, nr•r '�Yikk,1
/�_ / n 1
4-44-''
'i" k`'t- rc �,0 ,f `? �p� . ,f.`t� ,3 ifi r 'cA
I.ai\o/,[Y_)•l�l�/I(yv 3r, .. it t'.®®��,$' N�'.' ,�� }s' �x (� r a�' 2f ��.Ir f�h
�� (/ 'ry�A4 a �;�i Ti :i�., dGs,�".aC.i � c c�'• �fiI t {
Subscrib .d savor { .before me this 30th of June. 1989 fi '''':(;g4..,`�� ! t y
;�' ` °u �•r` fv=ox it aS'x .,P. kl�.. a \ • rii- .t
lDlbfary Public for Oregon ® °� �� `
Y.440,....44.: --,---v-Iftex-:
My Commission Expires: 9/20/92 KLA ' r y `J r t r
y tri (� Y f .' g ar.,r,..,„esv.c, 4.. :,-A.-N-377,m-t,,,,...w..---.". ..i ,F,.,.,.....,.. -��'
jai' '"S.` r'`k, 4r. r r .,;1•-4A',),�" a- r x '' Ty, _+`�-' •
376999: Pt OJAI:1 June 2944913,,,, -. _,:t �.. —•—
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
Ord/nolo Afo. i'?- /9
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss
City of Tigard )
I, l;( ,ea2A.4k4 , � '�i�-fa being first duly sworn, on
oath, derSose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of
Ordinance Number(s) gq— /9
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated W/O/8l
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a
part hereof, on the day of , 1989.
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon.
2. U.S. National Bank, Corner of Main and Scoff ins, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and
S.W. Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon
&MO) 11)00 gIO
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /Q day of , 190 f
• No ry Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: _9-5 93,
TIGARD4r-
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - JULY 10, 1989 - 6:30 P.M.
1. LOLL CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon,
Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz; Staff Present: Pat
Reilly, City Administrator; Phil Grillo, Legal Counsel; Keith Liden,
Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton,
Senior Planner; Catherine Wheatley, Deputy City Recorder; and Randy
Wooley, City Engineer.
2. STUDY SESSION:
a. Review of Hearings Officer Final Order - CU 89-03: Council
reviewed the Final Order issued by the Hearings Officer concerning
a homeless shelter sponsored by Tigard Christian Ministries.
Concerns were expressed regarding Condition No. 6 which stipulated:
"In the event a guest is denied entrance after being invited to the
shelter, the supervisor shall detain that guest until the guest can
be removed by the Tigard Police Department and transported to a
secure area, away from the shelter. In no event shall a guest who
has been denied entrance after being invited to the shelter, be
allowed to leave the shelter except under the supervision and
control of the Tigard Police Department." Discussion followed over
the issue of obligating the Tigard Police Department to provide
security services to a private organization. It was also noted
that this could have some precedent-setting ramifications. After
discussion, legal counsel prepared wording for signature by the
Mayor which reflected Council consensus:
"Pursuant to the TMC 18.32, the Tigard City Council hereby requests
that the Hearings Officer amend her decision in regard to
Conditional Use CU 89-03 removing condition of approval No. 6.
In the alternative, Council hereby declares its intent to review
the Hearings Officer's decision if it is not amended as requested".
b. Update of MSTIP/2 - City Engineer advised the Washington County
Coordinating Committee met today concerning the MSTIP/2 project and
funding request list. Consensus of the Coordinating Committee was
to recommend to their respective Councils a project list consisting
of $60,000,000 over a period of six years. He noted the
assessment rates would remain the same as were currently being
paid.
City Engineer distributed the MST'IP/2 project estimates with
projects, project description, and estimated cost listed. City
Engineer noted the Coordinating Committee would need to know by
Page 1 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
July 24, 1989, if the City was in support of MSPIP/2. After
4r- discussion, Council consensus was to postpone consideration of this
issue to the July 17, 1989, Council meeting.
c. Review of Agenda Item .2A.: Award Bid for Pactrust Local
Improvement District Contract - City Engineer advised that only two
bids were received for the Pactrust Local Improvement District
contract; however, bids were close to the engineering estimate.
City Engineer noted staff recommended bid award to Clearwater
Construction for the "asphalt option," in the amount of
$1,476,120.65.
d. Review of Agenda Item No. 6: Amendment to the Noise Ordinance-
Community Development Director updated Council on the Noise
Ordinance issue. He noted citizens' comments included concerns
with existing conditions which would not conform to the new
wording. Staff recommended that existing conditions be treated as
non-conforming ups. Community Development Director noted further
review was needed on additional issues; he recommended postponing
Council action on the Noise Ordinance amendment.
e. Tigard Market Place Issues - Community Development Director
reviewed the problems which were being addressed at the request of
neighbors of the Tigard Market Place shopping center. The
following issues were reviewed:
o The developer will install additional signs noting that
trucks may not travel behind the building during certain
hours. These signs will be placed so there would be ample
warning to the trucks before they are committed to driving
behind the building.
o The developer has notified maintenance contractors that street
sweeping was to be done during appropriate hours.
o Community Development Director advised a letter was being
sent to residents outlining progress on their concerns.
Problems should be documented by the residents by calling the
Police Department or City staff when a violation occurs.
o Councilor Eadon reiterated it was her understanding that no
building permits would be issued for this development until
the problems were resolved. Council requested receipt of a
copy of the letters being sent to the neighbors by next week.
f. Additional Aoenda Review:
o Agenda Item No. 5: Appeal Public Hearing on S 89-08, Pacific
Realty Associates, has been withdrawn.
o Councilor Schwartz received clarification on issues for Agenda
Item No. 4. City Engineer noted road construction in the
Page 2 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
Walnut area would require property purchase by the City. The
issue before Council tonight was for a C< rehensive Plan
Amendment which would protect the corridors for the road
alignments only. No final road design had been prepared.
g. Non-Agenda Request - Legal Counsel Grillo requested Council action
during the Non Agenda concerning an issue currently before the
Land Use Board of Appeals. (See No. 9 below.)
3. VIS]![U 'S AGENDA - No visitors were present.
4. CONSENT AGE1 :
4.1 Receive and File: Council Calendar
4.2 Recess Council Meeting: Convene Local Contract Review Board
Meeting (LCRB) : a) Award Bid for PadTrust Local Improvement
District Contract; b) Approve Contract for Inspection Services for
the Pacific Corporate Center Local Improvement District; Adjourn
LCRB; Reconvene Council Meeting
4.3 Authorize Preparation of a Preliminary Engineering Report - SW 93rd
Avenue Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 89-54
4.4 Recess Council Meeting: Convene City Center Development Agency
(CCDA) : Accept City Center Development Relocation Regulations-
Resolution No. 89-O1CCDA; Adjourn CODA; Reconvene Council Meeting
4.5 Approve Special Permits: C7uisin' Tigard '89 - Res. No. 89-55
4.6 Initiate Proceedings to Vacate Portion of SW 95th Ave. - Resolution
No. 89-56
(
C-. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to
approve the Consent Agenda.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Councilor Johnson requested that Council receive a sketch of the
proposed layout for the events at Cook Park (Reference: Consent
Agenda Item 4.5) She noted she would like to see where parking was
planned and be apprised of noise level (amps) for the music
events.
5. PUBLIC BEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PIAN AQP CPA 89-06 ASH MIME,
BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT NPO 11
A recommendation by the Planning Commission to amend the Transportation
Comprehensive Plan Map. The Ash Avenue connection to be modified to
indicate a connection from the intersection of SW Walnut and Pacific
Highway to Scoffins. An option shall be preserved to connect Ash/Hill
to the Ash Street extension with a "T" intersection. The alignment of
SW Burnham will be modified to intersect SW Main Street opposite SW
Tigard. The realignment of SW Burnham will intersect the existing
Burnham right-of-way at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham. The realigned
portion will replace the existing portion of Burnham as the minor
collector route. LOCATION: ASH AVENUE EXTENSION -between SW Pacific
Highway at Walnut and SW Scoff ins. (WCIM 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2CA, 2S1
Page 3 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
2DB, 2S1 2AD, & 2S1 2AA) . BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT - between SW Main
Street at Tigard and the existing right-of-way of SW Burnham Street at a
point south of 9185 SW Burnham. (WCIM 2S1 2AS & 2S1 2AD) .
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. Declarations or challenges: Councilor Eadon advised she had had
extensive conversations with a property owner in the Ash Avenue
area; however, she advised that this would not preclude an
impartial decision by her.
Mayor Edwards also noted he had conversations concerning this
issue and also believed he would be impartial in making a decision.
Senior Planner Newton summarized this agenda item. The City Center
Development Plan and Report contained a number of recommended
street and traffic projects designed to improve access and
circulation to and through the City Center. In order to construct
the Ash Avenue extension and realign a portion of SW Burnham
Street, a modification to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
was necessary.
A public hearing was held on June 20, 1989, before the Planning
Ca mnission to consider the proposed modifications. By unanimous
vote (5-0) , the Commission voted to forward CPA 89-06 to City
Council recommending ' approval of the Ash connection from
Walnut/Pacific Highway to the Hunziker/Hall intersection with a
strong recommendation that the Ash/Hill connection be preserved as
an option for the neighborhood to connect the extension. The
Commission also recommended that the Tigard/Burnham realignment be
approved.
City Engineer reviewed the transportation issues noting the City
Center Development Plan recommended additional access to the
downtown if the Plan was to be implemented. The goal was set to
provide alternative routes which would not always require travel on
99W. Also of concern was to avoid encouragement of travel through
residential areas as a throughway which would create major traffic
in residential areas. It would be desirable to establish a grid-
like system.
c. Public Testimony:
Proponents - There were none.
Opponents
o Gloria Johnson, 9300 SW Hill Street, Tigard, Oregon advised
she was a 14 year resident of the City of Tigard. She noted
concerns about livability if her street was directly connected
to Pacific Highway. She said the Comprehensive Plan should
protect existing residential ares. She noted she was
Page 4 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
•
concerned that increased access to the neighborhood would also
fresult in an increased crime problem.
o Ken Doherty, 13265 SW Ash Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
testified he was concerned with the proposal noting traffic
had already increased significantly. He said he was
concerned with the protection of the neighborhood.
o K. V. Allison, 11830 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon, protested the
connection of Walnut to Ash. He noted the potential
alignments would take out portions of either a four Alex or a
ten Alex of the Pacific Village Apartments which he owned. He
noted cost to align the streets through his area would be
excessive with several million dollars needed for property
purchase alone. Mr. Allison questioned the need for the
realignment noting that commercial uses have been moving out
of the downtown area and, therefore, he could not see the
benefit of enhanced transportation routes.
Mr. Allison advised the CPA would cause additional problems to
property owners in the area who were attempting to sell their
property.
Mayor Edwards asked City Engineer if routes had been established
and if Mr. Allison's complexes would be in the path of the roadway.
City Engineer responded that routes had been sketched as "worst
and best" case scenarios. Depending on the alignment chosen, it
was a possibility that the four-plex building owned by Mr. Allison
may be in the needed right-of-way.
Mayor then explained to Mr. Allison this process was implemented in
order to complement the Development Plan which was being reviewed
by Council. He noted there were problems with the downtown area,
and the Plan was an attempt to bring business back to the downtown
area by enhancing the transportation system.
o Mary Dorman, Planning Consultant for the White Company, 101
East 8th Street, Vancouver, WA, advised she was testifying on
behalf of Property Management Services, Inc. (PMSI) . PMSI
represented the general partners and managers for the King's
Choice apartment complex located off of Pacific Highway and
Walnut Street.
She advised the complex consisted of 70 apartment units which
were over 20 years old. The complex was purchased by PMSI in
1986; they have an interest in continuing ownership and
management of this project. She advised PMSI became aware of
this issue just recently which was why they did not
participate at the Planning Ceamnission level.
Page 5 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
•
Ms. Dorman noted economic viability of the property was
questionable should the roadway impact the apartments in any
way. She noted because they were older units and generally
housed an older population with a lower than average income,
the Council should take into consideration the housing stock
in the community.
She also noted the possibility that PMSI would be asked to
participate in an assessment for road improvements which would
have no positive impact for their apartments.
Accompanying Ms. Dorman was Gary O'Connell representing PMSI
and the residents of the apartment units. He noted he was
concerned with the proposed routes as sketched which would
bisect this property.
Mr. O'Connell reviewed haw the various routes would affect
their property and noted the livability/desirability of the
units would be affected. Further, the investment future was
difficult to determine for these units until it was known
exactly what the City planned to do with this property. He
noted the investment partners would probably look to sell
this property within 7 to 10 years, but this issue put a cloud
on the property.
In response to some questions, City Engineer clarified that
the road was designated as a major collector which would be
generally three lanes; that is, two travel lanes with a center
turn lane.
o Jeff Johnson, 13140 SW Ash Street, Tigard, OR 97223,
testified he had been a resident at his present address for
two-and-a-half years but had also resided in the neighborhood
in another home prior to this. He advised the approximately
30 neighbors had met on July 9, to discuss this issue and
Mr. Johnson was testifying on their behalf.
Mr. Johnson noted the neighborhood did not receive formal
notice of the CPA public hearings although he acknowledged
notification was given as required in the City Code. He
recommended the City should consider better ways to
disseminate information to parties who will be affected.
Further, Mr. Johnson advised he disliked the format of the
public notice; he felt it did not clearly detail what
alignments were to be considered by Council.
He suggested the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was premature in
the economic development effort for the downtown area. He
said it was a dangerous assumption to build the roads first
since there had been no quantifications established with
regard to traffic and shopping patterns of the neighborhood.
Page 6 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
Mr. Johnson advised of his anger about the current speed of
traffic on Ash Avenue; he placed responsibility for most of
the problems on the residents of the Philadelphia Apartments.
The neighborhood was concerned that the proposed Ash Avenue
extension would create an increase in the traffic problem.
Mr. Johnson said he believed there would be an increase in
crime if the area became easily accessible.
He reported the Ash Avenue extension would not relieve Highway
99 traffic congestion since local people presently use
neighborhood streets to avoid using Hwy. 99. The extension
would represent no benefit to the neighborhood. In response
to a question by Councilor Eadon, Mr. Johnson advised that the
option to extend Ash would aggravate an already unacceptable
plan.
Mr. Johnson advised the neighborhood had not taken any
position on the Burnham Street portion of the CPA proposal.
In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz, wherein it
was proposed that a transportation loop be provided which
would bypass the neighborhood, Mr. Johnson advised some
residents were very much against such a proposal.
o Dale Deharpport, 6655 SW 158th Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon,
testified he owned one-and-three-quarters of an acre
(undeveloped) in the area which would be affected by the
proposed road alignment. Mr. Deharpport advised that while he
recognized the City's efforts to improve the downtown, his
property values would decrease.
There was discussion on whether this hearing was a review of
a quasi-judicial or legislative matter. City Attorney advised
that the appropriate notice for a quasi-judicial hearing had
been given by the City of Tigard.
Mr. Deharpport advised the proposed CPA would put a cloud on
his property making it difficult to market. He noted the
funding for improvements to the downtown area had not been
determined. He had asked if the proposed CPA was placed on
the transportation map, would the change be removed if it was
determined that funds were not available?
In response to this question, Ccammuiity Development Director
advised if the CPA were to be approved tonight, it would
represent the fact that Council had decided it was a good
idea. If it was a good idea now, it would probably always be
a good idea -- funding would not necessarily be the
determining factor of whether the Transportation Map should be
so marked. Eventually, the Council may have to reconsider the
transportation route if it was determined the road would not
be feasible. The City, in order to preserve the corridors for
Page 7 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
the roads, was required to place the CPAs on the
Transportation Map. This was consistent with the
recommendations proposed in the Development Plan which had
been received by Council.
Mr. Deharpport noted his concern with continuing to be
responsible for tax payments on this property when it was not
marketable.
o Jerry Scott, 9033 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon, advised he
awned commercial property which appeared to be directly in the
path of the proposed road alignment. He asked if there had
been any consideration to moving street alignment so it would
go through empty property rather than eliminating buildings.
Community Development Director advised the determination of
the best alignment would be considered at a future date.
o Robert Bell of 14970 SW 150th, Tigard, Oregon, testified he
was representing the United Methodist Church. Mr. Bell
introduced Mr. Weber, a member of Board of Trustees of the
United Methodist Church. Mr Bell advised almost any
configuration of the Walnut\Ash connection would affect the
function of the Church. He requested the City consider a
configuration which would not affect their parking lot; they
were presently looking at additional parking needs.
Mr. Weber noted good relationships with the neighbors
surrounding the church; they were all constricted on parking
space. He advised the proposed CPA would impact these
properties in a negative way and urged the Council not to put
the Walnut\Ash connection through.
o Jeff Graham, 13290 SW Ash Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said
he realized that the CPA was conceptual, but felt that once
placed on the Map, it was more likely to become a reality. He
cited previous testimony from Mr. Johnson and whether answers
had been given concerning whether studies had completed on
traffic patterns. Ccam'unity Development Director outlined the
studies which had been conducted for the City Center Plan Task
Force for their work on the Development Plan. He noted that
market, traffic, and design studies had been completed.
Mr. Graham noted he was concerned about the notification
process. He said the City should take the extra steps to
notify those persons who would be affected. He advised that
because of the amount of opposition, Council would should
reconsider the proposal. He also noted the NPO had not
discussed this issue thoroughly.
o Rick Brattain, 13185 Ash Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
Mr. Brattain raised concerns about urban renewal and noted
the hones in this area were all nice homes. The Mayor
Page 8 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
clarified for Mr. Brattain that the urban renewal was not for
the neighborhood but for the downtown area. The urban
renewal issue was not before Council at this time.
o Joe Gehring, 13215 SW Ash Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
advised he deferred his testimony time to Chuck Woodard.
o Chuck Woodard, 10215 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
disagreed with the realignments as proposed in the CPA. He
also objected to the map contained in the notice where a
specific route was not shown. Mr. Woodard advised he attended
the Planning Commission hearing. He questioned the process of
a hearing before Planning Commission when no conclusions could
be reached. Now, the hearing was before Council; he said this
presented a hardship on citizens by requiring them to testify
at two separate meetings.
Mr. Woodard questioned the traffic studies in that they did
not detail the vehicle destinations. He noted he had taken
counts over 17 days with regard to travel on Burnham to Main
Street. Only one car had traveled from Burnham directly to
Tigard Street; therefore, he questioned the need for the
proposed realignment.
Mr. Woodard also referred to his previous testimony urging
preservation of buildings in the downtown which were of
historical significance.
He advised the realignment proposals would not be an
improvement and recommended against Council implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Mayor noted the following letters had been received into the record
concerning the Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Letter dated July 10, 1989, from Jerry and Kris McBath, 13115
SW Ash Drive, Tigard, Oregon;
Letter dated July 6, 1989, from Mrs. Lois Ganoe, 13165 SW Ash
Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223;
Letter received July 10, 1989 from Verna Randall, 13195 SW
Ash Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223; and
Letter dated July 7, 1989, Judy Burton Carbin, 13120 SW Ash
Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
d. Recommendation by CoQmmunity Development Director: He reviewed the
concerns with the adequate public notice and advised this would be
reviewed for better notification in the future. He restated the
Planning Commission ration that the Ash connection not go
Page 9 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
through at this time, but leave the connection on the Map as a
future option.
He noted the streets would not be constructed immediately;
funding for the Downtown Development Plan would be considered by
the voters in November. He advised the CPA was a conceptual
proposal for the future. Once the conceptual idea was on paper
the next step would be to determine the direct routes. He advised
that no environmental or cost/benefit studies had been done, but
traffic studies in the area had been performed. Sketches had been
prepared outlining plausible scenarios for street locations. He
agreed that because of the potential street alignments, affected
property may be more difficult to market. The Tigard
Street/Burnham Street realignment was proposed to make it easier to
get through the downtown area. Community Development Director
outlined the potential options before Council:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and direct staff
to prepare a Final Order for adoption on July 24, 1989.
2. Uphold the Planning Commission recommendation on the
Burnham/Tigard realignment, but continue action on the Ash
Avenue proposal to a later date and direct staff to proceed
with further analysis to determine a more exact alignment for
the Ash Avenue connection.
3. Postpone a decision to allow staff more time to work with the
neighbors to develop more specific alignments.
d. Council Comments:
Councilor Schwartz commended the staff's work and their endeavor to
appease all parties. He also noted the amount of work which had
been performed by the City Center Plan Task Force. Councilor
Schwartz said the downtown area was deteriorating and that
significant commercial businesses such as Albertson's and Payless
had left the area. He advised the problem for these enterprises
was with access — people cannot easily get in and out of the
downtown area. Presently, no businesses were wanting to locate in
the downtown because of the access problems. He advised that
Council has looked at this area and the consensus over the last
several years has been that something must be done to revitalize
the downtown area.
Councilor Schwartz explained that Council selected the alternative
of proposing an urban renewal district. Urban renewal, he
acknowledged, was unsuccessfully proposed to the voters a few years
ago. Council reviewed why this proposal had been unsuccessful; a
thorough study of the area has been performed in preparation of a
presentation to the voters.
Page 10 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
Councilor Schwartz advised that because of the issues raised by
residents tonight, he was not prepared to make a decision at this
time. He said he would like to review the CPA proposal and work
towards a "win-win" situation for the City and for the downtown
merchants.
Councilor Johnson advised access and circulation to the downtown
area must be preserved. There was a need for citizens to travel
through and around the City of Tigard. She explained that dead-end
streets were not the answer as they only added to the problem
because other roads had to carry the extra share of traffic. She
noted she was prepared to support the Planning Commission decision
but advised she was willing to meet with neighbors to discuss their
concerns.
Councilor Eadon noted appreciation for the public testimony. She
said traffic issues had been a constant concern over the
years. Council was charged with the difficult task of identifying
transportation options which look to the future. She agreed the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal was vague; however, once
concepts were provided, the City could begin to define the issues
in more detail.
Councilor Eadon reminded those present of the City's obligation to
reimburse landowners for their property if it was needed for public
improvements.
She advised she was in favor of upholding the Planning Commission
decision, but agreed that more clarification and discussion on the
Ash Street connection would be beneficial.
Councilor Kasten noted his concern over the slowly deteriorating
downtown area. He noted Council was attempting to create a plan to
revitalize the area; traffic issues were a major portion of that
plan. The question of which should come first -- traffic plan
implementation or commercial development -- was a question which
should be discussed. He noted he was also concerned about
individual property owners and the hardship this CPA may be to
them. He advised he would support the postponement of a decision
to allow an opportunity to meet with concerned parties.
Mayor Edwards agreed with the comments made by the Councilors. He
noted revitalization of the core area was needed to better
distribute the tax burden and to maintain high-quality livability
in Tigard. He noted he had lived in the community for many years
and the urban renewal proposal, in his opinion, would be of benefit
to the City of Tigard. He advised he felt an earlier, similar
effort was defeated because of lack of confidence and understanding
of the City Council at that time. He advised that this Council had
been working to build credibility and to advise citizens of exactly
what was being proposed in the urban renewal effort. Because of
this desire, he also favored not going forward with the approval
Page 11 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
e
of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at this time. He would prefer
1r- to take additional time to talk with neighbors and property owners
about transportation problems to discover solutions acceptable to
all parties.
Councilor Eadon commented on the testimony noting problems with the
public notice procedures. She asked that future notices on this
issue be sent to those persons who had testified at this hearing as
well as the Planning Commission hearing.
After discussion, Council consensus was to keep the public hearing
open and continue it to August 21, 1989.
Council recessed at 9:22 p.m.
Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
6. APPEAL PUBLIC MIRING S 89-08 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCEATFS, L.P. - ISO 15
An appeal of Condition No. 2 of the Hearings Officer Decision in the
matter of an application for subdivision approval to divide 60.35 acres
into 10 industrial lots; Pacific Realty Associates, L.P., applicant.
LOCATION: North of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, pact of 72nd Avenue
(WCIM 2S1 12AD, Tax Lot 800, 2S1 12DA, Tax Lots 100 and 101, 2S1 12DD,
Tax Lots 100 and 600) .
!! Mayor advised this appeal had been withdrawn by the applicant.
F`. 7. CCNTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
(EMC), CHAPTER 7.40 mi)ISE).
Amendments to the noise ordinance provisions of the SIC.
a. Public hearing was continued from the June 12, 1989 City Council
meeting.
b. Public Testimony:
o James Hart, 10255 SW Hill View Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
advised he did not think staff had addressed the issues as had
been outlined at the previous hearing. He advised the
ordinance was not as encompassing or as enforceable as he
would like to see it. He asked for more study including
review of ordinances being enforced by other jurisdictions.
Mr. Hart said he submitted the proposed Tigard ordinance to
Paul Herman of the City of Portland who was knowledgeable on
noise issues. Mr. Hart submitted the written comments from
Mr. Paul Herman, Noise Control Officer for the City of
Portland. (This document has been filed with the Council
packet material).
o Mr. Francis Brittain, 10285 SW Hill View, Tigard, Oregon
97223, advised he had concerns with noise from the Tigard
Market Place. Community Development Director, at the request
Page 12 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
•
of City Council, outlined the progress in addressing several
problems with the Tigard Market Place:
o Developer was aware of the areas of concern with
landscaping and would be working on these issues.
o Condensers on the roof have been moved inside. Noise
levels have been tested, but written results have not yet
been received of those tests.
o Improved signage has been posted to advise truck drivers
they were not to travel behind the building during posted
hours.
o Two parking lot lights still require shielding.
o Noise from the Public Address system was a problem at
times. The developer would be talking to individual
tenants on this concern.
o Problems with street sweepers and garbage trucks working
before or after allowed hours of operation should be
reported directly to the City by calling the City
Administrator, Community Development Director, or the
Police Department. City Administrator advised, if
possible, a license vehicle should be wri ten down and description
passed
offending
along to City staff.
Mr. Hart noted that one of the problems was the fact that an
issue would be taken care of only to have the issue come up
again. Discussion followed. The Mayor acknowledged the
frustration recurrence of problems; however, he advised that
no new building permits for the development would be issued
until the issues had been resolved. He also reported that
the City would be issuing citations and fining
perpetrators.
Council consensus was to continue the public hearing to
August 14, 1989.
8. PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY - A PORTION OF SW 93RD AVENUE
JE
AND SW MAPLELEAF STREmk
Consideration of a proposed vacation of a portion of SW 93rd and SW
MaplelPaf Street, in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. A
petition for the above-proposed vacation, meeting all signature
requirements, was filed with the City of Tigard on May 18, 1989. The
petition was signed and submitted by the Tranmel Crow Company.
a. Public hearing was opened.
Page 13 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
t
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
c. Summation by Ccmmnunity Development Director:
On May 22, 1989, Council accepted a completed vacation petition
from the Trammel Crow Company which proposed a vacation of portions
of SW 93rd Avenue and SW Mapleleaf Street. Vacation proceedings
were initiated and a public hearing was set for July 10, 1989. The
purpose of the vacation was to accommodate the development of the
Lincoln V office building and parking structure which includes the
realignment and improvement of SW 93rd Avenue.
Community Development Director reviewed the location of the
property as illustrated on a map displayed for Council view. He
advised the ordinance stipulated that the vacation would not be
recorded with the County Records Division until all right-of-way
dedications for the road realignments had been completed. In
addition, he suggested the ordinance be amended to stipulate that
the vacation would not be recorded with County Records until the
Land Use Board of Appeals case was settled.
Mr. David Blake of Trammel Crow advised that as of 6:00 p.m.
tomorrow it was his understanding that Dr. Davis would drop his
intent to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
d. Recommendation by the Community Development staff was to approve
the Ordinance presented adding the stipulation that the Ordinance
was not to be recorded until the Land Use Board of Appeals issue
had been resolved.
d. ORDINANCE NO. 89-19 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF SW 93RD
AVENUE, AND A PORTION OF SW NAPLELFAF STREET, BOTH LOCATED IN A
RECORDED PLAT CALLED "TOWN OF METZGER," IN THE CITY OF TIGARD,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to
approve Ordinance No. 89-19 with the added condition that the
ordinance was not to be recorded with the Washington County
Recording Office until the Land Use Board of Appeals issue had been
settled.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
a. Phil Grillo of the City Attorney's office recommended City Council
consider a motion to voluntarily remand and review their decision
concerning a minor land partition, site development review, and
variance (MLP 88-16, SDR 88-25, V 88-39) requested by Burton
Grabhorn (Centron) . Council had considered this issue on April 10,
1989, and subsequently adopted Resolution No. 89-27. The issue was
411. Page 14 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
c .
currently before the Lard Use Board of Appeals; it was Legal
4r. Counsel's recommendation this matter be preserved for judicial
review. Mr. Grillo suggested this action be considered tonight in
advance of the ILUBA oral argument which was scheduled for July
13th.
Motion by Council Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to
voluntarily remand and review Council's previous action
(Resolution No. 89-27) as was proposed by the City Attorney's
office.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session
at 9:56 p.m., under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) , (d) , (e), arra (h)
to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and
pending litigation issues.
11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m.
Approved by the City Council on at-1-1-140k /4,7 , 1989.
CGc W ' J 1.0h--el���
Deputy Recorder - City of Ti
ar-
.wr _ -
City of i•- •
Council President
cw/Councill
M:\OFFSVCS\
Page 15 - Council Minutes - July 10, 1989
AGENDA ITEM # VISITOR'S 'AGENDAGATE I D /'
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council
wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you
first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City
Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
Please. "Pr jn4-
DATE 7/10/89
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: -Agenda Item No. 4 - Public
:Hearing .- Comprehensive. Plan Amendment -.:CPA 89-06
;Ash Avenue, Burnham/Tigard :Realignment'-`-`NPO #1'
************************************* *****************************************
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
************************************* *****************************************
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
'Plea -2 Pry A+
(- 7 K3oo(5. 'Li.
v- zLc Sw IAve
0.4 Do/cm,' P'&, rur' 6)'1-jv 1/ # re? PI
�Gr,G ,1 obtnuson) r34 jo sLc! 4514
(oss
4/e- Tha./� 2p'77 a,z i -cr479
ScV fl 103
(cAN:� R e llyktP vi
y 0' 6,./y«,(. P;5
EFF Gfe._ k-Acmvl - P
G
1 K I9RM7A IN PRPPERrirvw 'tr
�Ey�/rQ -434/-s- �. u' 4t A2
DATE 7/10/89
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: Agenda Item No. 5 - Appeal
1"Public hearing S 89-08 Pacific''`Realty Associates,
*******************************************************************************
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
*******************************************************************************
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
lease
er-
(.
DATE 7/10/89
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description': Agenda Item No. 6 - Continuation
of. Public Hearing - Amendment to the Tigard Municipa].
Code
(TMC),' Chapter 7.40;(Noise)
************************************* *****************************************
Proponent (For Issue) I Opponent (Against Issue)
************************************* *****************************************
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
•
1 b l Gc;tit 641
•
` ., ./ ` .
DATE 7/10/89
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: :":;,Agenda No.`_.7 PublicrHearing
-:Vacation of:Right 0f-Way .A-;Portiom of SW:93d
Avenue-'and S.W. MapleSeaf Street'
*******************************************************************************
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
*******************************************************************************
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
k2.aS2Pei n+" •.
a
5+U.dd secs i an
7//0/8q
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
for conditional use approval to )
operate a seasonal shelter for ) No. CU 89-03
the homeless; Tigard Christian )
Ministries, applicant.
Pursuant to the TMC 18.32, the Tigard City Council hereby requests that the
Hearings Officer amend her decision in regard to Conditional Use CU 89-03
removing condition of approval No. 6.
In the alternative, Council hereby declares its intent • --view the Hearings
Officer's decision if it is not amended as r- - =•.
ZrAmPfi.ii 4Z-6-4A-E-
Mayor'—
Date: 7.-/O-g9
Attest:
(1aLLt,
Deputy City Recorder
Date: /U-
$+Ltd s2s-5,�
41r
CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER
1. Concerning Case Number(s): CU 89-03
2. Name of Owner: Tigard Christian Ministries
Name of Applicant: same
3. Address 9846 SW Walnut Place City Tigard State OR Zip 97223
4. Address of Property: 9845 SW Walnut Place
Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2BD, tax lot 1600
5. Request: For Conditional Use approval to allow a portion of the Tigard
United Methodist Church to be utilized as a shelter for the
homeless to be operated 6 months out of the year, beginning in
October of 1989.
6. Action: Approval as requested
X Approval with conditions
Denial
7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and
mailed to:
X The applicant and owner(s)
X Owners of record within the required distance
X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization
X Affected governmental agencies
8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON July 10, 1989 UNLESS
AN APPEAL IS FILED.
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be
obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall,
P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance
with 13.32.290(b) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written
appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent.
The deadline for filing of an appeal is .Telly 10, 1989
10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
Planning Department, 639-4171. /1L
bkm/CU89-03.BKM /
• •
BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER
47 FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION)
for conditional use approval to ) No. CU 89-03
operate a seasonal shelter for )
the homeless; Tigard Christian )
Ministries, applicant. )
The above-entitled matter came before the hearings officer
at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 22, 1989, in the Town
Hall Meeting Room for the City of Tigard; and
The applicant requests conditional use approval to operate a
seasonal shelter for the homeless within an existing church, on
property zoned R-12, Multi-Family Residential, and described as
Tax Lot 1600, Map 2S1, Section 2BD, City of Tigard, County of
Washington, State of Oregon; and
IEThe hearings officer conducted a public hearing on June 22,
1989, at which time testimony, evidence and the planning depart-
ment staff report were received; and
The hearings officer adopts the findings of fact and conclu-
sions contained in the staff report, a copy of which is attached
hereto, marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated by reference herein;
and
The hearings officer further finds that the application
needs to be conditioned to protect the surrounding residences
from guests invited to the shelter and then denied entrance for
whatever reason, but with that protection, the proposed use will
be compatible with the surrounding uses;
1
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CU 89-03 be and
hereby is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The months of operation of the shelter are limited to
October 1 through March 31 each year.
2. All guests invited to the shelter shall first be
screened at a facility not on the premises housing the shelter.
No drop-ins shall be allowed at the shelter.
3. On-site supervision of guests shall be provided by the
operating entities.
4. There shall be not more than 14 guests at the shelter at
any time.
5. The hours of operation of the shelter shall be limited
to 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. only.
6. After a guest has been invited to the shelter, that (-
guest shall remain at the shelter until that guest leaves the
next morning during the regular, supervised departure time. In
/! the event a guest is denied entrance after being invited to the
shelter, the supervisors shall detain that guest until the guest
l
can be removed by the Tigard Police Department and transported to
j a ecure area, away from the shelter. In no event shall a guest
who has been denied entrance after being invited to the shelter,
be allowed to leave the shelter except under the supervision and
control of the Tigard Police Department.
7. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant
shall apply for an obtain all necessary building permits required
CX
-r remodeling. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Rost, Building i ision
IP 1("`r 14f
� 2 � t tk
�V O
p V, 1(.4,Aeabi v `i i' . .
, \„ , • ,,,6.. lcif vti 1 s
(639-4171)
8. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, all new
signage or modification of existing signage shall be reviewed by
the City Planning Division prior to erection of the sign(s) .
STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Division (639-4171)
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS
OF THE APPROVAL DATE NOTED BY THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER.
DATED this._.---)cf. day of June, 1989.
HEAR 'GS OFFICER APPROVED
l' / / /I
BETH MAS•N .
IT'S NOT MY J'OB.
THIS LITTLE SUCKER'S ALL YOURS.
P -'-i-t-e4e---e>/i.: °i-7 °4-1"----- iie-tx '1.'
et(7 ia-1,42-&tii .1wedif
ea-if fr-a9
Aed-oiA/te h:,4 / N.f/ . z,„:1„.g...., 1
/i-r-o-
,fir
1
Nab.
aJJ
r
m.p.„�.. . NW
3
std 5.255 j of
- _=MSTIP--2' =pR09ECT ESTIMATES
WITH I NF LAT I O N ADJUSTMENT
NOTE: PROJECT COST ESTIMATES MAY CHANGE AS PROJECTS ARE FURTHER DEFINED
Inflation estimated at 6.0% per annum on a linear. projection
I 'JURISDICTION TOTAL ESTIMATED
Z COST
I PROJECT 1 BENEFITED AS SCOSTULED
I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MSTIP2 ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION
standar $7.850,000
TUALATIN-SHERWOOD/EDY ROAD DUAL/SHE./ ReSix-cornerstruct s/E Road to 5-lanelevelto ofurban compatibilityon
g
1 TIG/K.C./
DUR/COUNTY northeast corner.
•
DURHAM ROAD: TIGARD/ Reconstruct existing road to 3-lane section.
$2.947,100
Hall Blvd. to 72nd Ave. DURHAM
Extend new road to 72nd Ave.
GREENBURG ROAD INTERCHANGE TIGARD Widen overpass and improve Hwy. 217 access. Funds $1,650.000
to provide incentive for State matching funds.
BEEF BEND ROAD: COUNTY/TIG./ Improve/signalize intersection at Hwy.99W, widen, $2.500,000
Hwy 99W to 131st Ave. K. .CITY and add left turn lanes at major intersections.
CORNELL ROAD: COUNTY Reconstruct to 3-lane interim standard.
$2.812.320
Sunset Hwy to Barnes Rd.
SALTZMAN ROAD: COUNTY Realign and reconstruct to a 2-lane interim
$850,121
Burton Road to Coleman
standard.
185TH AVE: COUNTY Reconstruct to 3-lane standard with bike lanes
$3.280.401
Rock Creek Blvd. and a signal at Rock Creek Blvd.
to Tamarack Way
MURRAY BLVD: COUNTY/ Add additional 2 lanes to full 5-lane standard. $17,072,16
Allen Blvd. to Old Scholls BEAVERTON
BASELINE ROAD: COUNTY/ Construct to 3-lane interim standard with
$2,910.7(
158th Ave. to 185th Ave. BEAVERTON traffic control as warranted.
(EAST MAIN: HILLSBORO/ Reconstruct to 3-lane standard with sidewalks and $5,022,01
110th St. to Brookwood Ave. COUNTY install signals at 25th and 28th Aves.
(BASELINE ROAD: HILLSBORO/ Reconstruct
controlto laned interimturn standardes as w/biketedlanes. $2.958.2'
'Brookwood Ave. to 231s. COUNTY
trafficI $2.809.1
'FOREST GROVE NORTHERN FOREST PE/ROW for five-lane project, and construction
' 'ARTERIAL (Hwy 47 Bypass) GROVE of 2_lane-interim=standard-roadway={ _=--c=
_�
$52.662.2
I SUB TOTAL I 1 I
1 ROADWAY PROJECTS I
•
Washington County DLUT 10-Jul-89
C
- "'MS-1'11?-2 -PROJECT ESTI MATES
3
WI TH I NFLATI ON ADJUSTMENT
TOTAL ESTIMATEC
(JURISDICTION COST
I 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
� PROJECT I BENEFITED AS SCHEDULED
MSTIP2 INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
GARDEN HOME/OLESON ROAD COUNTY/PORT. Add left turn lanes, new signal
$1,463,840
1 $508,800
CEDAR HILLS/PARKWAY COUNTY/ Realign and reconstruct intersection,
BEAVERTON 5 lanes Cedar Hills, 3 lanes Parkway
. $1,444,300
CORN./HILLS.
CHURCH COUNTY/F.G./
curvel
Y/F.G./ Add left
turn lanes, straighten horizontal
ZION CHURCH/SUSBAUER COUNTY/CORN./
Add left turn lane for westbound to
$326,300
FOREST GROVEsouthboundtraffic
) $834,60C
FOREST GROVEstraightenhorizontal
ZION CHURCH/SPRR XING / / Upgrade
railroad
crossing
curve. signals and
BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD COUNTY/TIGARD Safety improvements along roadway.
$500,00(
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS $5,077.8;1
SUBTOTAL
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS $450,OOi
SMALL CITIES ALLOCATION TH(NORPLAINS, Specificiprojects to be identified by local
. $1,200.00
BICYCLE ROUTE FUND I MSTIP funds to match city and county
1 bicycle funds at a 1:1 ratio $600.00
e
• PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION I
I 1
GRAND TOTAL $59,990,08
1 ENTIRE PROGRAM
TOTAL MSTIP 2 PROGRAM COST $59,990,080 MATCHING FUNDS:Federal Aid Urban $1,920,0(
Federal Aid - Secondary $700.01
' MATCHING FUNDS FOR PROJECTS $10,870,000 PUC/RR Crossing $75.01
Local Bikeway Funds $600,01
NET SERIALLEVYCounty Funds $3,200.01
CONTRIBUTION $49,120,080 City Funds $2,875,0
Interest Earnings $1,500,0
_ S10.870,0
• Washington County DLUT 10-Jul-89
•
..
3 l
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 29, 1989
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, July-Dec. 1989
Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (*). If generally OK, we
can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars.
Please note Budget Committee meetings.
ul' Hall Closed - Fireworks at Cook
4, Tues Independence Day (City
Park)
*10, Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/6:30)
Council Study Agenda (6:30)
19, Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs7:15 am)
*17, Mon & Issues, Elmer's,
20-21, Thur-Fri Timothy Lake Conference
22, Sat Cruisin' Tigard
*24, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
Au�u 9
5, Sat City Employee Picnic
*14, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) Elmer's, 7:15 am)
16, Wed Legislative Breakfast
19, Sat Girl Scout Cleanup of Fanno Creek
Council Study Agenda (6:30/7:30)
*28,, Mon
*2Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
September '89
4, Mon
Labor Day (City Hall Closed)
*11, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
19, Tues Election
*18, Council Study Agenda (6:30)
20, ,s, 7:15 am)
Mon
Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer
24-28, Sat-Thurs ICMA Conference
*25, Mon
Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
October '89
*9, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
Council Study Agenda (6:30) 7:15 am)
*1 , Mon Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer's,18, Wed Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
*23, Mon
sl, Tues Halloween
Council Calendar - Page 1
air
November '89
7, Tues Election
*13, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
15, Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer's, 7:15 am)
*20, Mon Council Study Agenda (6:30)
23-24, Thurs-Fri Thanksgiving Holiday (City Hall Closed)
*27, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
December '89
Annual Tree Lighting Event
*11, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
*18, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30)
20, Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer's, 7:15 am)
25, Mon Christmas Holiday (City Hall Closed)
mh0028a
C
C
Council Calendar - Page 2
3,2 cc
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
iir COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA OF: July 10, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 29, 1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award of P' VIOUS ACTION:
construction contract for Pacifi /14 / T-�
Co .-rate C,. -r LID Ar, / •'REPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley /gw
DEPT HEAD ' AIL ITY ADMIN OK X REQUESTED BY:
I_11
POLICY ISSUE
Award of construction contract for Pacific Corporate Center LID.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Bids will be opened for construction of the Pacific Corporate Center LID on
July 7, 1989. The bid results will be available at the July 10th meeting.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve award of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
2. Reject all bids.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs of this construction will be paid by the LID.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommendation will be presented at the July 10th meeting.
C/eoJ u) 0054:
dj/SSBIDPCC.RW C.t-sP h >
C
MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 3. 2.
( I 0690 S.W.BANCROFT ST.•P.O.BOX 69039
PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039•(503)224-9570•FAX(503)228.1285
•
July 10, 1989
City of Tigard
Attention: Randy Wooley, City Engineer
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
P. 0. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Pacific Corporate Center, L.I.D.
Project Number 188778
Dear Mr. Wooley:
Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated was represented at today's 1:00 p.m. bid opening
of the Pacific Corporate Center Local Improvement District. The apparent low bidder
was Clearwater Construction of Portland. The other bidder was Northwest Earthmovers,
Inc.
Upon review of the bids, we found only minor math errors, with Clearwater Construction
remaining the lowest bidder.
Portland Cement Asphalt
Concrete Option Option
Clearwater Construction $1,533,466.45 76,120.651
Northwest Earthmovers, Inc. $1,528,887.78 $1,478,083.96
Engineer's Estimate $1,534,935.00 $1,436,854.00
I recommend award of the contract to Clearwater Construction.
Sincerely,
C.: 1411.4;d:71"L".4—`--
David G. Larson, P.E.
Project Manager
DGL/jcr
3 . b
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA OF: July 10, 1989 DA E SUBMITTED: June 29, 1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approval .f P VIOUS ACTION:
a contract or inspection se_vic-s ' /62
for the Pac , Cor.. Center LIQ-. REPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley
DEPT HEAD • 4L ITY ADMIN OK AV. QUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Approval of a consultant contract for inspection services during construction
of the Pacific Corporate Center LID.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
During construction of the Pacific Corporate Center LID project, construction
inspection is required. We propose to contract with MacKenzie Engineering for
the inspection services, since all design work on this project was performed by
MacKenzie.
Attached is the proposal from MacKenzie providing for the construction
inspection including all construction staking and testing services. The
standard City consultant contract documents will be used for this consultant
contract.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Authorize a consultant contract in accordance with the attached proposal.
2. Direct that the proposal be modified.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs of this contract will be funded by the LID.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, authorize the
City Administrator to sign a contract for consultant services in accordance
with the attached proposal.
dj/SS-CIS.RW
MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED
0690 S.W.BANCROFT ST.•P.O.BOX 69039
PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039•(503)224-9570•FAX(503)228-1285
RECEIVED
June 28, 1989 JUN 2 9 1989
City of Tigard
Attention: Mr. Randy Wooley, City Engineer
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
P. 0. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Pacific Corporate Center
Local Improvement District
Proposal for Construction Administration Services
Project Number 188778.005
Dear Mr. Wooley:
On behalf of Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated, I am pleased to present the following
services proposal for your consideration. It has been a pleasure working with you
and your staff through the project to date, and we look forward to the construction
phase.
Our project team will include David Evans & Associates, for construction surveys;
Geotechnical Resources, Inc., for geotechnical consultation; and Carlson Testing, for
routine construction quality control .
I. Construction Services
A. Pre-Construction Conference
B. Review Shop Drawings/Submittals/Concrete and Asphalt Mix Design
C. Coordinate Construction Staking
D. On-Site Inspections (City of Tigard indicates that primary inspection will
be accomplished by MEI)
For the contract period of 110 days, we have assumed approximately half
time (4 hours average per day) for the field inspector. We have also budgeted
5 hours per week for the project manager/engineer for weekly job site meetings,
resolution of field questions, etc.
Mr. Randy Wooley
Project Number: 188778.005
June 28, 1989
Page Number 2
E. Testing Laboratory Services
1. Subgrade compaction testing
2. Trench compaction testing
3. Base rock compaction testing
4. Concrete cylinders/beams for curbs and street construction
5. Asphalt testing - extraction, gradation, and compaction testing
F. Office Consultation/Coordination
G. Monthly Pay Request Reviews
H. Process Change Orders
I. Scheduled Site Meetings
J. Signal Timing Plan and Startup
K. Final Inspection, Walk-Through, Punchlist
L. Follow-up, Punchlist
M. Prepare Record Documents
N. Project Closeout
0. Reimbursables - Printing, Mileage
P. Signal Controller Testing (billed to City of Tigard)
Q. State Forces Signal Start-up (billed to City of Tigard)
Time and Materials Estimated to be $37,500
II. Construction Surveys:
a. Slope stakes or core-out stakes as requested at 50' $ 4,120 6 days
intervals.
b. Sanitary and storm sewer stakes, adequate to meet $ 4,800 7 days
industry standards for laser controlled
construction. Staking required at 25' intervals for
curved utility lines.
c. Curb stakes at 25' intervals and all curb returns. $ 8,880 14 days
d. Waterline offset stakes at 50' intervals. $ 1,720 3 days
r
Mr. Randy Wooley
Project Number: 188778.005
June 28, 1989
477 Page Number 3
e. Horizontal and vertical control stakes for traffic $ 1,290 2 days
signal equipment.
f. Horizontal and vertical control stakes for $ 1,290 2 days
power/telephone vaults.
g. Layout of lane striping and vehicle detection $ 2,760 4 days
(loops).
h. Half street staking on Boones Ferry Road frontage $ 3,460 4 days
(curbs, slope stakes, storm drainage) .
i . Billing for restaking damaged by contractor or vandalism would be done at no
additional charge up to the figure quoted in this proposal . Restaking done
beyond that point will be billed to you at our standard rates.
j. Monument finish street alignments to City of Tigard $ 2,240 3 days
standards.
$30,560
I believe the proposal above presents a thorough program for the construction phase
of this project. As always, please do not hesitate to call with any questions or
comments you may have.
Sincerely, /
4111' 141101r_
David G. Lar .n, P.E.
Project Manager
DGL/jcr
'
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 10, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 29, 1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SW 93rd REVIOUS ACTION:
Avenue -D petition
/ PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woolev
DEPT HEAD 0.;.401t1 CITY ADMIN O1 0 REQUESTED BY:
P LICY ISSUE
Consideration of a petition requesting initiation of a local improvement
district for SW 93rd Avenue improvements.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
A petition has been received requesting that the City initiate a local
improvement district to construct a new street in the vicinity of SW 93rd
Avenue between Locust Street and Ash Creek. In accordance with City Code, a
preliminary evaluation report has been prepared and is attached. The
preliminary evaluation report finds the proposed project to be feasible and
recommends that a preliminary engineer's report be prepared.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing preparation of a preliminary
engineering report.
2. Reject the petition and direct that the LID proposal be abandoned.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs of the preliminary engineer's report will be paid by the proponents
or by the LID if a LID is formed.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution.
dj/SS93LID.RW
ni- ic)-59
,Asierizia*33
A V C n Lie
1 \./.
L . 1 t D iN_
.0.„,. . .,,.,____,,....—:–_,,,_„,„,4„ _. .,_,._,„,,,..,.,___.,..„....... _._.. ..„. , . :.._...._......_...._...,.__.,...„.. ..._._.:.:...,... . . _._:.,.,,,-•_. --.---,„:„t,-„,-,.-,-,--„---7,---.n_-.,--„:.„.„-,.7,:_...„.7...-:,,,_,..,'''''--- .7-"":."'-r-'"''".!.7.'!"7.=."'"7:-._''--"Tt7.."=::- •-•.... .--..-_ .. _L.- - -..: ...._ .-- 2... __': --..'...'„,..---z----..„=‘, .;.-,:,-;_,-, ,,., - '--_,...- ----;=;,,,,,-,-: ---,-- _- -- ---:::;------,&;--."-;
---
..__.
itof j-.
...., 4 .
NOTEIF THIS MICWILMED . 6 7 8 9 . 0 I I .. i.......
: a: .. • _
; ..„.;„,,,„..,;.._.__,L;...........;.,..g.....................;L..........---—- , • 5 _ . • .. •
; I
f
DRAWIPC IS LESS CLEAR THAN
,
,-,..
, THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
• -:;
"••1 t
; . THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
' . .. ; i; OE 6-2 9Z -12- 92 SZ VZ CZ Z2 IZ 02 sr GI ii Di sr ti ei zu ii or 6
..I
:i.„4„,d....6..1.1...,, ., ,,...,..,...,.,.,....,,,,..,.... •
........ , ,,„;,,,,.::_„.,.„._,..;..L.:„..„..,.....„..,..:..,....„:„,.........„,,,,,,„„:„,„„,„,„,.....;_;,:.;,,,..,,,..„.,:„,„„,,,,....„: „•,,,„,:,;,,, • .
.,..„.,.... ,,, . mARCH,
. i .,10-i -1
.,. .. •.
.J,...,......,;,. 1,4-. ........ . . . - . . _.
. .. . ,..
...
..
. • ,-1: , -...0,1 1 k .
, ....
.
• , 1990
.. . ,
...... ..._:_______ _. ._.. ...,
_._ . . ,
.,. _ , .. . , . , . .
•
6,..._
__ . _....
• . . .
i -
a
=r '- 1
ti
ter'
•
r
``--, -
r ,
1Si s
4
t
;{ Z.:,.,,L . ,/ � ` ' r fi fes/
^.�� t �\ mss. ` -
r .n r- -�
EE7 EXTENSION
:EW 57K
l;.:f1i POLE - 1.6.,- ILOU.N'114RY OF >TREET RIGHT OF WAV"
v
'' CR I \EXISTING LARGE TREE TO REMAINBOUNDARY OF STRUT RIGHT OF WAY - - -� _ I I :•F
.1T LOGE OF SIDEWALK /rll
I I
•
EXISTING PARKING GARAGE G
In
a a
..7 A
ra'I
c a
o N
= i 9 o'N i
v y g• mN0
••
z 1 §1i,i
OLIGNMENT
OF 92nd C C 93rd >>AVENUES
V IlW ES NORTH ■ 010.
SCALE . 1 = 50 ' PRoLeCT
•
CATS
=HEN
-■ x I L n S SNOT
�fili Fi/1FOP111FIl1111.1U Ih1!IIIIIIIIIIP;11111 J!PilI� IFhMPPIII!I?IIPITJFI9WI11u1IUPg111T1 11111111r1ylIIJ1111111111iIJ,q III 19 I I'Il�I IIIIIp�IIII I ph IF19 1111l,l`- I,
1010: IF THIS uICEOFIIAEO 'i --L_ 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12
, Iris
I I
'.. o RAtIC NOTICE,n Is DIE To r eolRnhulla az
—_ ., -i---
ORNIIIC IS LESS CLEAR THAN
TIE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL I.
�106 BZ �BZ L2 BZ SZ 42 f2 2Z IZ O2 Bi BI LI 91 -61-14 El ZI II OI 8 B L 9 L ► 2 Z ��-11-�,A�-�
I 1W�1111111
MARCH'
� ' 8 1990, x '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 10, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 28, 1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of PREVIOUS ACTION: City Center Development
City Center Development Reloca Plan and Report accepted on 6/12/89
Regulations PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton tAnU'�
DEPT HEAD •�. ITY ADMIN OK/f/ 1 REQUESTED BY: City Council
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City Center Development Agency adopt the attached resolution
accepting the City Center Development Relocation Regulations draft and
releasing the document for public review?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, accepts the City Center Development
Relocation Regulations draft and directs the staff to release the documents for
public review. The draft attached is dated July 10, 1989 and was prepared in
compliance with applicable federal, state and local regulations and ordinances.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the attached resolution.
2. Delay adoption to a later date.
FISCAL IMPACT
Acceptance and distribution of the Relocation Regulations have no immediate
fiscal impact.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached resolution accepting the City Center Development Relocation
Regulations, and release the document for public review.
4 br/CCDP.ln
3, 5
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 10, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 29, 1989
4r7 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Cruisin' Tigard PREVIOUS ACTION: Action is taken yearly
'89 Special Permits for each annual event
—'' t PREPARED BY: Marcha K. Hunt
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 01 / REQUESTED BY:Tigard City Council------------
�^
POL Y ISSUE
Shall the Tigard City Council grant to Tigard Promotions Inc. (TPI) special
permits necessary to conduct Cruisin' Tigard '89?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
TPI will conduct Cruisin' Tigard '89 on Saturday, July 22, 1989. In order to
comply with requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code, special permission must
be granted for certain aspects of the event. The attached resolution
addresses specifically those areas of the Tigard Municipal Code which require
special permission.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the resolution as submitted .
2. Request additional language to be included in the resolution.
3. Deny the request.
FISCAL IMPACT
None known.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the resolution as written.
mh0133D
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: Jul 10 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 29,1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Initiate .roceete ..i PREVIOUS ACTION: None
to vacate a portion of SW 95th Av.
.�/(� PREQ AREDDDBYY:DeveloonmentpServices ceseMC
DEPT. HEAD OK , fJ,'CITY ADMIN OK/ t!
PO ICISSUE
Should the City initiate vacation proceedings for a public right-of-way that
appears to no longer serve any public purpose and enhances an adjoining
property's development potential?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Gene and Vivian Davis are requesting the City to initiate vacation proceedings
for an unimproved portion of S.W. 95th Avenue which adjoins their property (see
attached letter and map). They are requesting the City Council initiate the
process rather than them circulating a petition which would require them to
obtain signatures of out-of-state property owners and unnecessarily delay the
process. They also feel that it's in the City's interest to vacate this
unimproved right-of-way. Both of these reasons are consistent with the City's
policy on Council initiated vacations. The purpose of the vacation is to
accommodate a development proposal by the Marriott Corporation.
Initiating vacation proceedings will begin a formal review by staff and other
affected agencies and set a date for a public hearing.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Require Davis to circulate a vacation petition.
2. Pass the attached resolution which initiates vacation proceedings and calls
for a public hearing on August 14,1989.
FISCAL IMPACT
All cost associated with the review of this vacation will be paid by Davis .
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that Council pass the attached resolution which initiates the
vacation process and calls for a public hearing on August 14,1989.
FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION
Dr. Gene Davis, President 1717CE..IVED
4550 S.W. LOMBARD
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005JUN r
Telephone(503)646-6101
June 21 , 1989
Randy S . Clarno
Department Services Manager
City of Tigard
P .O . Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Subject: 9Sth Street Abandonment
Dear Randy:
This is a request for the City of Tigard to vacate that
portion of 95th Street which is adjacent to the development
offer of Marriott Corporation . Ninety-fifth Street dead ends
at Highway 217, and we own the property on either side
through a contract with the State of Oregon Highway
Y
Department . See enclosed map that was provided to me by Carl
Toland, the right of way agent .
If the L . I .D . goes through on 93rd street, this parcel would
be included in the development of a 13'1 bed Marriott Hotel .
If, however, the 93rd St . L . I .D . does not go through, it will
be required for access to the remainder of my property along
Highway 217 better known as Tax Lot 2800.
It is essential for this project to go forward to have this
street vacated immediately, as there is a critical time line
on the development . Enclosed is a legal description of the
property we wish vacated with two scenarios which depend on
whether we can get the Utah State Retirement Fund, Tax Lot
100, to quick claim their few feet of the street to us or
not .
Also enclosed is a plot plat and a site development plan from
the Marriott Corporation .
Very tr
_ 7:4)
Gene Davis, D.U.M .
ei GD: jr
Enc .
4-1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 10, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 28, 1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 89-06 PREVIOUS ACTION: City Center Development
Ash Avenu- Extension Plan and Report accepted June 12 19
Burnham R=°v,•nment /„ PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton 4f/0!` ;
�,:1
DEPT HEAD 'i: tCITY ADMIN O �A(/ REQUESTED BY: Planning Commission
!\ -
1 POLICY ISSUE
Should the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map be modified to indicate the
Ash Avenue extension and Burnham Street realignment as suggested in the City
Center Development Plan and Report.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Center Development Plan and Report contain a number of recommended
street and traffic projects designed to improve access and circulation to and
through the City Center. In order to construct the Ash Avenue extension and
realign a portion of SW Burnham Street, a modification to the Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Map is necessary. A public hearing was held on June 20,
1989, before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed modification. By
unanimous vote (5-0) the Commission voted to forward CPA 89-06 to City Council
recommending approval of the Ash connection from Walnut/Pacific Highway to the
Hunziker/Hall intersection with a strong recommendation that the Ash/Hill
connection be preserved as an option for the neighborhood to connect to the
extension. The Commission also recommends that the Tigard/Burnham realignment
be approved. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes and the staff report
are attached.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Uphold the Planning Commissioner recommendation and direct staff to prepare
a final order for adoption on July 24, 1989.
2. Uphold the Planning Commissioner recommendation on the Burnham/Tigard
realignment but continue action on the Ash Avenue proposal to a later date
and direct staff to conduct further analysis to determine a more exact
alignment for the Ash Avenue connection.
FISCAL IMPACT
Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map has no direct fiscal
impa::t.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and direct staff to prepare a
final order for adoption on July 24, 1989.
CPA89-06.LN
4
iir Senior Planner Newton reviewed the proposed realignment for Ash Avenue and
Burnham Street.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Dan Gott, NPO # 1 Chairperson, 13230 SW Hill Ct., stated that the NPO can
take an impartial position regarding the proposal, however, this is a hot
issue for the Ash Avenue Neighborhood and they are opposed to having an
access into the neighborhood.
o Michael J. Scott, 9185 SW Burnham, as President of the Chamber of
Commerce, supported the proposal. He is also owner of the building
located at 9185 SW Burnham and was concerned what impact this would have
on his building. He felt property owners should be advised of the impact
the realignment would have on their property.
o President Moen read a letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting the
proposed realignment.
o Kenneth Allison, 11830 SW Wildwood, St., Tigard, OR, owner of 9655 SW
McKenzie was concerned that he had not received notice regarding the
realignment and wanted, to be kept informed. He was concerned that the
ground is unstable in the proposed area and the expense involved to
displace apartments or the church.
o Greg Davidson, 12830 SW Pacific Highway and Walnut Place was concerned
that he had not been notified. He was concerned how the land would be
taken and the area involved.
o Diane Jelderks, 10045 SW Garrett, Tigard, OR 97223, favored the conceptual
realignment of SW Ash to Pacific Highway over the existing alignment on
the transportation map.
o Robert A. Steinborn, 9560 SW Frewing Court, opposed opening Ash Avenue
into the neighborhood. He felt because of the number of shopping centers
which have been developed that there is no reason to go downtown.
o Paul King, 13205 SW Ash Drive, lives directly behind Methodist Church and
objects to the proposal based on traffic congestion and impact on children
playing in the area.
o Tom Parker, 9076 SW Hill, opposed the proposal. He was concerned for
safety of small children and the impact it would have on Fanno Creek Park
and the neighborhood.
o Regis Krug, 9092 SW Hill, opposed the proposal as it would only increase
the number and speed of vehicles in the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1989 - PAGE 4
o Roger Burbank, 9051 SW Hill St, stated that traffic has quadrupled with
new development in the area. They have asked the city for speed limit and
children playing signs without results. The police have not been able to
slow down the traffic. This proposal would only add to their problems.
o Rick Brattain, 13185 SW Ash Drive, opposed the proposal. Since the area
proposed is developed with either the a church or apartments he questioned
how this proposal could be accomplished. He also wanted to know why
everyone received notice regarding using the church as a homeless shelter,
however, none received notice of this proposal. He suggested Hall Blvd.
be widened instead of connecting Walnut to Ash Ave.
o Stephen Fausti, 13255 SW Ash Avenue, a 16 year resident, opposed the
proposal. It would be disruptive to the neighborhood and lifestyles.
Impact because of traffic volume and noise. He was concerned about the
assessment of the land to be taken. He felt proposal was based on the
good of the business and not of the community.
o Jerry Cash, 12525 SW Main St., disagreed with previous testimony.
Downtown businesses are not in favor of the proposal. This proposal will
negatively impact a sale he just made on a 1.74 acre site on Burnham
Street. He does not see any big affect from this realignment.
o Chuck Woodard, 12490 SW Main did not see any advantage to connecting
Burnham Street with Tigard Street. The realignment of Burnham Street
would only remove a part of Tigard history. He had done his only traffic
analysis and did not count very many cars using the Burnham to Tigard
Street connection. He suggested doing improvements to existing roads
instead of destroying buildings.
o Joseph L. Gehring, 13215 SW Ash Drive, 23 years resident, stated that Main
Street was a viable downtown in 1955, however, with allowing strip
development, the city has created a problem Pacific Highway. He felt
downtown development is a political issue not a livability issue.
REBUTTAL
o Senior Planner Newton explained that the Park Master Plan accommodated the
extension of Ash Avenue. Indirect noise is being considered. The design
of the road would probably utilize curves and landscaping to keep traffic
speeds down. They are looking for option for the neighborhood, not
necessarily for businesses. Staff is acting as the applicant, the City
Council asked that staff bring the proposal forward for review.
o Commissioner Leverett questioned if this proposal is feasible because of
the cost factor.
o Jerry Moore, 7455 SW Beveland, Tigard, Or 97223, had not signed up to
speak. He is representing the Tigard Methodist Church and stated that the
church is at capacity and is planning on expanding their parking in one
year and expanding the church in the next few years. They would not be
opposed to the extension if it did not go through the church.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1989 - PAGE 5
o Rick Brattain, 13185 SW Ash Drive, commented that this access would create
the same problems that the residents on North Dakota between Scholls Ferry
Road and 121st are experiencing.
o Tom Parker, 9076 SW Hill, commented that if engineering is going to decide
where the street is going, he would like them to come to his door and ask
him if he wants access.
o Joe Gehring, 13215 SW Ash Drive, questioned what the traffic count is on
Pacific Highway at McKenzie Street.
o Discussion followed regarding traffic patterns and that the purpose of the
proposal is to reduce traffic volumes on Pacific Highway between 217 and
Walnut Street.
PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Leverett wanted to see the engineering before making a
recommendation. He could favor a Walnut to Burnham connection without
connecting to Ash Avenue.
o Commissioner Barber was uncertain. She would support a Walnut to Burnham
connection without connection to Ash Avenue neighborhood.
o Commissioner Castile wanted to table the item. He wanted a more detailed
map than just arrows. He had numerous questions.
o President Moen reviewed the process explaining that this is a conceptual
proposal versus an engineering proposal.
o Commissioner Saporta stated his first choice would be to table the
proposal. If they needed to make a decision he would support the new
alignment.
o Discussion followed regarding the process.
o President Moen favored another access over Fanno Creek other than Pacific
Highway. He was sympathetic to the Ash Avenue neighborhood, however, he
felt an access might provide an access out of the area, which would
eliminate traffic going through the neighborhood. He favored a Walnut to
Burnham extension with an option for the neighborhood to connect to the
extension. Further discussion on the process.
o President Moen moved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward
CPA 89-06 to City Council recommending in favor of the Walnut to Ash
Avenue connection, the Hunziker to Ash Avenue connection, and the
Tigard/Burnham Road realignment; with a strong recommendation that Ash
Ave./Hill Street be preserved as an option to connect to the extension.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1989 - PAGE 6
STAFF REPORT
June 20, 1989 - 7:30 PM
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OREGON
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 89-06
REQUEST: An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map.
The Ash Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a
connection between the intersection of SW Walnut and
Pacific Highway and the intersection of Hunziker Street and
Hall Boulevard. Ash/Hill will connect to the new street
with a "T" intersection. The alignment of SW Burnham will
intersect the existing Burnham right-of-way at a point
south of 9185 SW Burnham. The realigned portion will
replace the existing portion of Burnham as the minor
collector route.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Ash Avenue extension: CBD
Burnham/Tigard realignment: CBD.
The Ash Avenue connection is
currently shown on the Compre-
hensive Plan Transportation map
with the Following note:
"connection of Ash Ave. between
Hill St. and Burnham and any
remaining unimproved portions of
Ash. " The Burnham/Tigard
realignment is not currently shown
on the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation map.
ZONING DESIGNATION: Ash Avenue extension: CBD
Burnham/Tigard realignment: CBD
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNERS: Various
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
LOCATION: ASH AVENUE EXTENSION - between SW Pacific Highway at
Walnut and Hall at Hunziker. (WCTM 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC,
2S1, 2CA, 2S1 2DB, 2S1 2AD & 2S1 2AA.) BURNHAM/TIGARD
REALIGNMENT - between SW Main Street at Tigard and the
existing right-of-way of SW Burnham. (WCTM 2S1 2AB &
2S1 2AD. )
STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 1
illl _
qr-
2. Background Information
On May 9, 1983, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation map by approving Ordinance 83-24. Subsequent to the
original adoption, changes have been made to the map but none which
affect the revisions being considered for Ash Avenue and the
Burnham/Tigard realignment. On November 9, 1983, the City Council
adopted Ordinance 83-52 which accepted Volume II of the City's
Comprehensive Plan containing findings, policies and
implementationstrategies. The policies relating to Ash Avenue read as
follows:
"11.2.1 Ash Avenue shall be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling
access to the neighborhoods and commercial area without using
Pacific Highway. Design features shall be used to slow traffic and
make the street as safe as possible. Ash Avenue shall be designated
as a minor collector in conformance with the Master Street Plan.
Design features and mitigation measures shall hold traffic volumes
to the middle limits of a minor collector.
11.2.2 Improvements to SW Ash Avenue from SW Hill to Fanno Creek
shall be constructed as a condition of development of adjacent
properties. The street improvements along with the development of a
major commercial site will increase traffic on Ash. A barricade
shall be placed at Hill Street approximately at the end of the
existing pavement to protect the neighborhood residents from the
commercial traffic.
11.2.3 Methods of mitigating the traffic impact on the neighborhood
shall include, in the following order of improvement, construction:
a. Improving SW McDonald Street to interim maintenance standards to
encourage traffic from south of McDonald to use McDonald to exit
to Hall and/or Pacific Highway.
b. Improvements to the residential portion of Ash from Hill to
Frewing. These improvements could include limited parking,
delineation of traffic lanes and sidewalks on one or both sides
of the street.
c. The extension of SW Hill to SW O'Mara and/or the improvement of
SW Ash from Frewing to Garrett.
d. The extension of SW O'Mara to SW Hill parallel to SW Ash.
e. Removal of the barricade in place on SW Ash Avenue at SW Hill.
f. Improvement of SW O'Mara Street to interim maintenance standards
to encourage an alternate route.
STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 2
g. Installation of traffic inhibitors to the residential portion of
47. Ash if and when traffic volumes exceed the middle range for a
minor collector. Traffic inhibitors include but are not limited
to planting islands, speed bumps, buttons, turning restrictions,
load limits and enforcement."
Compliance with the above policies is discussed in more detail in the
findings and conclusions section of this report. The proposed revision
to the Ash Avenue extension, however, in effect will eliminate the need
for most of the above conditions as traffic volumes through the
neighborhood will not reach the levels anticipated under the original
alignment.
There are no policies in Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan which
address the Burnham/Tigard realignment.
3. Vicinity Information
Ash Avenue extension - Currently, Ash Avenue is improved from SW
McDonald Street north and north-westerly to a point aproximately 225
feet past the intersection with SW Hill Street. This section of Ash
Avenue passes through established residential neighborhoods of
primarily single family homes. The other section of Ash is improved
from SW Scoff ins to Commercial and from SW Burnham southwesterly
approximately 500 feet. This portion of SW Ash runs through the
Central Business District which is comprised of mixed residential
and commercial land uses.
Burnham/Tigard realignment - The alignment which is the subject of
this report is currently not in place. Burnham currently runs from
SW Main Street to SW Hall Blvd. Burnham provides access to a mix of
land uses within the Central Business District.
4. Proposal Information
Over the past two years, the City has been engaged in an effort to
create and implement an action plan for the city center area. As
part of that effort, the City contracted with several different
firms to provide specialized recommendations for the area. Reports
were prepared on the economic potential of the area, transportation
alternatives, recommendations for improvements to Fanno Creek Park,
design concepts for the area, and possible funding sources. One
element common to all of the recommendations provided was the
identification of the need to improve access to and through the city
center area. In particular, the draft of the Downtown Tigard Traffic
and Circulation Study prepared by Kittleson & Associates makes the
following conclusions and recommendations:
"Create new entry portals into and out of the downtown area.
These new portals will have a beneficial effect oa both local
and regional traffic circulation patterns within the area. They
are necessary to accommodate planned growth within the downtown
STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 3
area, while at the same time minimizing the interference
between local and regional travel needs."
Based on the conclusions and recommendations, Kittleson proposes a
package of improvement options including the following:
"Extension of Ash Street to connect between the Pacific Highway/
Walnut Street intersection and the existing Hall Boulevard/
Hunziker Road intersection;
Improvement of Burnham Street between Main Street and Hall
Boulevard; and
Realignment of Burnham Street to connect with the existing Main
Street/Tigard Street intersection."
The recommendation goes further to state that all of the
improvements need not be constructed at a single time and that a
staged approach would work. Under a staged approach, Kittleson
recommends that the Burnham-Tigard connection be constructed first.
It is important to note that the revisions proposed to the map do
not imply construction of the improvements immediately. The projects
will have to be designed and funded prior to construction. The Urban
Design Plan prepared by Gutherie/Slusarenko/Associates also
recommended the Burnham/Tigard realignment and the Ash Avenue exten-
sion on the Capital Improvements Projects list. In addition, the
City Center Development Plan and Report prepared by Moore Breithaupt
& Associates emphasizes the need for improved access to the city
center area and identifies the need for these specific projects as
necessary to improving the access and circulation to and through the
city center area.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
No comments had been received from the NPO or other agencies at the
writing of this report.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2
and 12, and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a.,
2.1.1, 8.1.1, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3 and applicable Community
Development Code sections related to legislative plan amendments.
Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable
Statewide Goals based on the following findings:
1. Goal 1 is met because the City has an adopted citizen involvement
program which includes review of land use applications by the
neighborhood planning organizations. In addition, public notice
has been provided.
STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 4
2. Goal 2 is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide
Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community
Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal.
3. Goal 12 is met because the City has adopted policies related to
improving the transportation network and continued coordination
of transportation improvements with other involved agencies.
Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the City's
ackowledged Comprehensive Plan based upon the following findings:
1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan will not affect compliance of the City's
acknowledged Plan with the Statewide Goals.
2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning
Organization #1 and surrounding property owners have been
notified of the proposal and the date of the hearing and have
been encouraged to comment on the proposal.
3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the amendments proposed to the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map will address the need for a
safe and efficient street system designed to accommodate current
and future traffic volumes.
4. Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2, and 11.2.3 are satisfied because the
proposal to revise the route of the Ash Avenue extension
__ redirects the extension away from the existing residential
section of Ash avoiding the potential of substantially increasing
traffic volumes through the local residential area. Policies
11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 were instituted to lessen the impact of
the original route on the residential neighborhood. This proposal
by design essentially meets the intent of those policies.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission
forward a recommendation of approval of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 89-06 to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan
Map as shown on the attached Exhibit "A".
PREPARED BY: DATE
Elizabeth Ann Newton, Senior Planner
CPA89-06
STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 5
-'" "—""r'-::1—X"--W:P.W'•--+Z-L•Willel.•717.*:. ••••••••••••:7117-;:iii :::::Illifi::'•i:.. - • '^ %-. . •4::;::::
. .
.. .. .., ... ..,./..7..,..-.----- ... .,_I---:,._ ..:,1-.7.-..:1-2-71.i.:;_,_--. 7, 7 _ '.*?.....4•:,:•-•,:k".41•••,....;;:::i.1.44. .......N':•::::y• . •••:::::::::::::.: ......r. .! .......... .:::.::::.i4,1:4
"..C.:1:::::::::::::••••:::.:1141:: ';•' ...::. •___I l) 41 1' : 6 r'A • • • • ••.•••• tv. .......:•••::„. . ......,::•:::.:::::::-.11: ::::::::.:::::::::•::::1::1:F:::
..!:"..4i.../::*-....:*::::•::71.11:•.‘ •••••:.....V.til:::::: ::•E:Iiiiill::
• -
• ••• i ; - zyi.ii..-:,..-:%... ::::::.
::•:*:„.:-:.::-:.:::„..!:.:-:.:::::1 ..,..,. , .. ---t______ .
• 1,..r ....••„„. •• • _.,. . . • . .,
.. .. :,...:st::::•.:::::::-...::::::-...::::::::---..:::::::••••••
ifizi,::•: • • ,,,:::%":.:..74:1:.:•:C...,"4. lij,-Tj•-. "" EXHIBIT "A" :..)::.......:.* ••:.1?:•:1-.....,:i.::::tili:Iiiiiilliiiiiliiillififilligilliiii::::1:g1
fi:'...'nek•S :.1.**:::::::::::::::':::::::!:;:..i./.1:.:n;re-,c. , ..,....
: ---;'."iii.::::igii::14, \ •::::iiiii:::::i.iiii:::::::.lifil:::::.::::ii,E7
..-'.:: : ' -e,:;::::-. '::::::.:1,-%:::.ziii:74;-::'' • ....- . 6 ' - ' I I .
..ck • ...... ......... • ..........„:::::::::::::::::•::::iiEi-.'-
: a "....-.:614::::::•-.1. lb_ . •::.....zzuo- - .?..e.
;c f:::::-.•::/..::::.:::.:.-•:.::•.-itnimm. ...:::..„,:---, , -- ._. t ,. _. :::::::•:::::::.:• . . -i1.6--rgi.:.: .::iiii.iiii.ih
. • ••• :,.
•:-. v::::::::-:•:,•-•:-:•....:::::r.-7,F.,,QT.. ,„-•-,-....4,.• . r
:i.-i.......- •...: ::•••..-...-,..:74,.....• --I-I-TT-7 'r - - --.)(s•-, i --•,.. :::::.-........,.••••:x,/,:- .h: ...,/s1 .-: ...","'-.'-'-':ii:ii;"iiiTiiii.
-.4.::::!•:::: •••••:•':::•:-'3•Z",..•:•:.•:::::-;:•:-;::-;:::•:;-:: 76:::::.:::1::.;:-?;.;'..1—...-- ! --',. •,,..:.,il-r1'-1/ ..-1,".---',:it:R.11:::::::::.?iii-4::.Z . .'—iii,i . ..... 4:100::::ggigiiii
•••••• . ••••••-• ••• ••••-••-•. ••••••••••••• •••
:::::::::•••24•41"
. .'I...ff.::::::::•' 4.::::.:....ff.:::....".:::".•:::...::::: .i..,g "../../...;.::::::.:••••••••...,"r--. 1:4/L.' "' .".:,...." .:::4,....:•.1.::::;::::::::::::::::V.::::::::;:li *.4...7A1 1:6 ',.. . .-.."•1 i g 1 ii:I:th:I if:::::::::::::::::::::
- ":14:.::: ''' '::::-:".•:•::•:•:•:':::-;':•••••:- tVES.;•Wn,:•••••••v-'1•-iii.•-:•-:••• - ..:.,:z;;;; •i?,/,......... .:.h.71.:.•.,... . ..iiii.;. . '' g). 4 . _.:iiiiii:::::i i:4i::::::
)s :,_, .,. _•:.n.y.... ....y.f.::•:.:::,..:ii....... vgar,.;,4,:-.....:.::.............?p.....:„.................. ......::::::,:4:::...:.-.-;:iti,..... :.„ -,;...... •...0 '.,•..,•••••.-. .-. p...,, ..,•:Eiiiiiiiiiiiigi:i::
..::::.....,...... •••..-4,•;y:,,,-. 7..-, •"', 2,1.4:•:•::":••••:•;.•:••;.:4•/:f.i.:4•::.%•:::Vi:::://:: :•:•:.•fl•:::.•••••:.4:111::::•:•:•*:,; _'''' ..49%.0/ ..1.-. '--
.c_.______,Etii:...••F::•*. '' :'. .7., .•1.,:}k-,..co r-!.'"!••••..:144:•/:?: :::::::::::,-..:W.,•;.* ',. ••::-..: • •....../4•.:41.:....:79:47 .,, ......iiim.. 1
,. talitir: . •::::: -.: ••"----...•:. •:•:.::::::::::
n'i' ' •:::•--'79;;P"'-'•>w--9w,i5V% RY-fysOrrili . ki;..:::::::::4::::::::::::.... ., •:.. .,::::
,,It :i::::::::::?•:,..iiiiiEEE:iHI::::::EN,. ::::::::::
-ii,•,... :•........-:::•.-4..... :::::::: .--. ••'41...: -••'•• •4 • -"k,.,, **-- ;5i').isiffP :.,11t:ii::::.iiiEii!::f;iiiniiEFiliiiiiiii:. •:ii.,iili
' Q
'--- ...Villiii-'‘-'•-••'- • : :::.:.4.1. "••••••••s..... :.:: :.:,..:.:*:•::•••.::'..::*--.-, 43-,',"4.,• • Nif.iiiiii:.. il:iiiiiiiiiEiiiiii!iii7.1.iii.::?:iliiiiiiiiiiii, :::S'
... --- .41.. ..::•;*.Z:::••••: ••••/:•..• .: ••••:•:i. - '•- './.•:•:g.::::.".•...-* .-.-.4112.r l' t!:iii:::::iiiiiii::iEE:....giiiiiiiiiiiiiTiiEiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiis. -i:.
-. l'.,-- -- . •--:-----::::-:::•-:::•..--lisi::::-:::-://.... ..:-:::::-...,-:...--:if- ,_:-4,,, ,i,
, , -,c......._ -7,1.-..1....:...-, .i....z,z.......y.......,.............../...:.. ............,,.. , .oto, 1.:iiiiiiRiiii„...,,,4 •:::-:::......::."--::::::::::::::::::::i1::: .
-
rs•••• • / '--..•- --/-7-:.- ! *:•::••••••••::::••••••••::•••••••••••••:C::••••••• i• ' • , ..11- . 4r4 ••:i:iiii::::* Atti.:-::,..;.•::::::::::.::::1:::::::,.:::.:::::":::••::•:: .
' ::)---.:.i / ...•--,•:,:•*:.•::::•:.:::*::••••::••••••-:::•••• •• . lgr. \: • •:::•I I:::.c''::i::mil: .L•Biatieii.::-:::::- -iiIiiiiiniiiiiiiiii.:F:E1,1:,„::
.cz.4,. ,,,-'$- '....,,s. ,.- .: - ,y- -. .:::,... .....,..-.-..-../.-; .. 44,, -.. ....„....:ii.p::::::::. -:::::: , lft:•-• -IiigiiiiiiiE iiiiiii.i.„„
. .,,?.• :, / • ---..:..-..../.....-..:::-. =_..,:r4, ...:i...,'.::ii::. 4-,;::•)::ii::E3iiiiiir, A...:'•-• I : :::::•:::•:••:::In..,
. „,,.. •
--.:::::::• - ,,..wot,"I,:+44.-., •:iE::. -.•-•:i::1:::::••:• .,,p,--;..-:...g•il ,:gt.:... ....... •.1iiii:::: :iiiIiiii::::,t;:ii
** / / 1. \ ::• e4_,-pc.,,:••==,..•
qt.14 ' .\.4.viii,:,_ +.,;:ifi:::E:: - .,;-- 1..icti:•-• • ' '----- -,. .•;iiii::iiiiSii:iiiS!iiii
, , If .L..1.. y P.. :t•ii, - ::::::• - - -i: ::::::::::::1::::::
le.), , 4„..../.• •• -•••.....„,,,
•., . . , :.„
. Ii. .14:-..-,__ A :.:.:.:...:..F:ii: 4; ... . - . ,•1 ,::::,. ,...,.
!:.7..;-,.... .z•::::::::::_iii.: 4,\.° , . .•: ...,.;:::::iiii.i.i.i..i.
•• •••••
s - • -::. c=. 4 -:-.. :- ..:::::. -.7i: fit, 1-
- - . //' -
..;,..,,,,.: .,..,. .. I . ,
••• .-- —•••• •••• '
. ,,,..,. .............. •••"• ' :::: .:::::::::: ---------.....,=k /: :::
,
,., lb i ....,
'
' .\
\ - ----. •;;;;;;;;•• • . ;:..:.::::::::::::::
.7.,-z...,. :iii:ii:':::::-tri. iiiii1"1"""ii. • .... •• 0(
Pe.
\ . .,,,,,-;• ....:::::::::•••:::.• ::::::::::•:•:••••••••:. •...,:::%,
• AL\ . . :<'.f.;-'•-i*::::::::::::::.-: .,•;-•
( ,/. .,., .,N
,, ' —7...42--:•::::.:;.:.:::::•:-. '.:.:.:::.
. .... t•:::::::::••• • •• :::::::::::::Iii:::::::::',. ..,.••• ,,,
• -
• / . • '-- - .
.
RLES .. .. . .. . "
. ' - • tir •• . _______ . ..:::::. ::....:::::::::::::•••••::::::-
•:. ,--, ::::: ti,:: •-•••• ..:::.••••••••......::::•••••••,. .
.
V i .' i ,;:•••••.t..-„:41 , .th.....::::. :::::..::::::::::::::::•::::1,::::,
F. / - :.144.:.:Y '' --
, P` .,
'r ' / ••• .... .: . R.F:::::ii.i..:i::iii!i*.
T1GARV /' .'4..)1°' . '
'4 .4Er:r:iii: '-,.••••••••••••
f4, L.EtVit • . r '' 1 ... .." • k,• ::
,,..- • -
0. . .....
. .. . •.P4!'' './ .2. 'N \,..„, \/ , .:::::: :::::::::::::::iiii•••412'i:-:iil:i:1"::"" fi:::
. ; :I:::.I 11::i::.?.•1 11:;:::i:1:1:11
00,
- • ' '
'.r ."" - * • .• Is`\ `‘, --• • : .
, •=r. . • 4 - , r• , "V-..,,•\,,,, \ ,....--'
5,_/ /.-- ' .
. .
. . s.---
. '.- - ••. • l f s`•. •' • /
.1
/ .
/ • •
, •, \.- .- t.-.----"%a /--"\ /.. .•::::::::::•••• LP:. *::. •,11r.' •:::::'"""::.
-7•-• . . - \• t; . . 4h.
1.- .. . ' ' 1 =1 • k • :.•:iiii:::iiiili:::41::- *::- 7
. t , ,- .. • • -., - I zr. - S --1 Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:-':F: ';'•-•-•'-:-.
.- -., -- k.J; •,••••••::::•••••-::•. • :4•!.•—-'-''''- ..•:::::••••:i
. - .-- ..- ,- • - •:%fii::::iiiiiiid:'...,41 -.7;„,•::::•••••
(.. ,.c. \....„ / vi, .......; v._„..„.„.N.,,, „:..„.-
•
• :::i ••••• 424' re: • "1, ::::::::.
.- :
\, ....TREE•
..fc. \
Mk .
.
......... '.. *::::::
) . c ,.........,......b..? ...!,....›'-,. .... c ... iv Sot A
•Yr .11 , -- \N, . i'::77“Z;..t.:;i7,6: ,. ::::::::
t , '
. ' . • ' ' • ''' N•
”...., r rw• , ...-- -,
- - I ' '
..- ,
•\. •:::......... ••••
T-1
. 1 I .' 1 •••••••••• • .-••••••
i.if.-' k,..6,' •
..., • ':::::::::::::-**":::
4.1..../ A •" ' • / _ _. _.___•,_._-.. _.... ..._a I r:...nwoo.3 , . ••••••••••••""• '
• r/ - ...............••
. i , .............o......•••
•
I . -...........
.. • ^ - , . - - - • ‘ ,,, •
,,,,,,, sne• „. . ' 4.,,v,cw
- \ - ------
- -, • • _
..........
y•,::_17..-_ ,._L. . - \ .
_ -. \ ........
_.. ., „
2 I •
•
' • . '750- .
, Lt. 4.,
( 4 . • - -. . 0 ,
1
• • . • ! ; , .
' la.41r • N. .'
.I
' • i LC) .
• • . 1 .r;- - - • _.:
. . .
1 ,: i '-' . ,.....,•,,,L,IA,_/ Ly,..
i - - • • .
• - •
'--- —-----1 c______
. . .e:
. ,
. . •.. . .
.
•
......, - ,-., .-...
Al vicw . ( " - . . •
.7
.1 ' - -- •---.. ..
.,
TENII "E -z_51-1 .......rfp 4 E
ILIPA' 4- 1 • I : 'ilc . •••'•1
,.. _______ 1
1-'111=0 • • ,R-- ' ' . % .; A-. . . . I----- Oran .. .. . ..
r\--199
...._..„ , . - ,
H
. ,
. .
A Itf fyla
,)..t.;..
0
i i A
D „\i-,,,,, 9 : A
. f , 1
I 1
1 i 1 i
f : f--4, Li ---
u
, i , , , _ -•>,
t____ . , i. , , „1-)
i i,.......i 4.
,...-
••••
1-,,Va. n 1 1 pj _ XI.f: niomilf
1 ii .....iii....,...,
• 15LL1.(11()Ern lect_lic-tnment
••••• 1 •1(11 •LI-
A
- /\.
II
...
...... . ....... . .
. ..
_ , . ...._ .
.. ... .. ...., ._ ..
._2_ 3 4 _. 5 .. -_ 6_ 7- 8 _ . 9 . . ro
NNE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 0-----------.11-,
- - -- --.- _
1 .
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR IHAN 1 'i .
...
THIS NOTIDE. 17 IS DUE TO
•
--- - - ---
:
V . THE QUALITY OF ThE ORIGINAL ---
. -
I i, • • . :.
.:..
DRAWING.
• -- ...
f
I i. OC 6Z BZ LZ SZ s2T SP? eZ aZ •IZ OZ 61 91 Ll 91 • Sr t.1 ei zi 11 01 6 9 L 9 S b e e lama.--:i
i , 1 , 1 ,, I
itilllitiuminimmtuillikb, ,., ,,-;i,::!..!--21,•;,:... _....,,i,!..t.:1- ;_-...E. ,,.1,,....._,,..•.•,.,i.,,,'.,',.'.....,.,•,q*,•:.L''.7,,c.'',,,,•',..,''''''. •"''' ..'' ''-'''.".' '-'''''' ''' '.'1 .. "1.14Whin. 1
1 ..,,,t4 - - .
. .
:*•••<, }„i
, .MARCH ....
. 1. ..
_'--S11 , .--------t- - --- ' '
.. , . ....
.
„,A'-'',R ''' - "..-..: ; . ". - • .., ,
•---"--,---- -----'--------r--,--,-,,..--...-....,........—'' -----,.....1.-- ....a----...-- .i1..---,,,,---‘,..,.., --. - --.‘,: ....4- ..,.,.
7777-"i",
, . . . ....., .
kilIP--
`` y
mss= _�� -
x a
=:,ate--E-S, _ ___ �� __
ger- _
i
z.
Ti'CAPfl32TJ�3#3
Exhibit
-
.i _.... ,.. "..1i ••••.7'y
_.s_..e �:.`-C R58^...E:-y s s �. x...R t. _..___"--1. - z _ - - -
y �E
s
_JCS .1k L_�S -- i _ ..
i.
v OF
-ir
Aar- _-. - .,.. F '
\j
lam_
•
EAE TO — — —
v
.. - _
_ rj
x / s
•
-- ,u -— :::
=I 7:::j----e .H..16-'-'
'ate
„addradillifirr 6
lc
o r _ t
lir
E
- _ ..-- -+�.. Y. _of.. ? `. -.
....>.:+.. _..-.-- AO
•, _ _._-_ _ '1`Y .i':.95" d_ — _ _ ilii:ilk ? . JJJ���
•
*4 i ...i
V.
- - . .A..,. ,- ,
1K A v. -.. _.
n { 1 av _
�}- ter-
t%
3 ' r
mC
' / ; ,,,, CITY OF
_
# �
, --, LAKE
. ermimo, .A
n --- = e SNEG
{
254 ^-.4• . f • '
71
--: , 340 ez5 • _ 750
. -
T
t ..
430 „ . , :
z -_
: - - .. p
e
-- -- W `.:yy 4 „
a
•
,.. ._— -_
-.',..........,-.5,,,,, ,,,,,-f-4•0'.."'/ . /uW�c,
_�
• ? . ywij . ^-. r - � _
ISQ a JR r'Gh200 xvvHiW5,,,,, '..!:f-W.."'/
l,
•
` I 't0.� k �. �.. " 200 a /-7:;.-----"-'
u
v.
v.
}�� k
o�
/4/1 iiii .--. :, s L:N G '. -- 2.92/-'7,...B30:w f_� �,`'.n r-,,- • '�...::: \ -- - 1050 - i'''''':-'1::117..,._..;c
'-1•':.,,i:''.-)‘:,.-0::::-
'
• .. 940 'iimri rnii ._. ® - -
ti� TH GMRD /asO`� .. hie .
uiviiiiirruii200 /ii//iin///d//i7 iii _
950
i.
ttk� USA
% //////////////!/// . ISO. _ - i. .. - `•�• _ 1 .rn"',,..-� /� ' 1 S _-11 TREATMENT • /'.. \ F __ _
A
•
CITY
n
•
•i. -.. 3fWs.ar Kse.mpti maa� .; - -- -. J -F, _ .I i.._ - - _ _E
Vi
ftwir.i6 amp/eafact au,. an
> - _. l ... CITY OF EG'0"'
.•.�-•.u..-...z m r..•.._
wrap Ow.ea Swan. -
L:. OSWI
a..,.1......will e.oar..pe.a. 1 I
1
-
.r..w.E.. w ..�....�r- _ Y ' CIT ' ».. __74
o-� Y
i CITY 0
ys
•
OF
a•E $ .. . j2 ,
_ DURHAM
:, . ..ate• ',_> TUALATIN ' _r a� F_d
rids.
.. , ® _. � _ ` i4 1 I�•
'.. <—�,,ii - I �-. �'} -:'c` z.,-+fi .
1 S L
JJJ
REVISED: MAY,1987 - / / -
i ® I i� ).>,,.. ..,,ii-,7-1-4,-,'7-ii.-„,4r �t
_wawa _ , orsamem. aR_,._. ---...
.. - P""1".1"119yppi'111'pupl4mp 4.1TnI9M19.019.ringngnl1R9Hiplqm�RlplTh1oppi puppl 1 piiiiitvplrn IwpupolRHRginpl' - - -
Hiro. mwp I —
[ • i • c
PALMMVP& _ wawa ..
.Gad 6 •1 et It I
oc ex R [a as sa 62 'u -u la or"of in a or s7
n of • • z
.. _
MARCH t 8;1 990
�I -
July 10, 1989
Tigard City Council
City Hall
Tiard, Or 9723
Reference: CPA 89-06 Ash Avenue , Burnham/Tigard Realignment
Having attended the Planning Commission meeting on Juno 20,
we believe the Walnut-Ash connection has not been adeuately
researched. Also as we understand it these two proposals
are just part of a major transportation change that comes
under the auspices of the downtown revitalization plan.
We hove lived on Ash Drive for twenty-one years and therefore
have been subjected to several proposals concerning Ash Avenue .
The concerns that were valid eight years ago are just as valid
today. The traffic on Ash Avenue as it exits now has not
improved, if anything it is worse with the paving of upper
• Ash, (south of Frewing) . We cannot understand or accept
that once again tee City is proposing-mxe help eliminate some
of the traffic congestion on Pacific Highway by diverting
through our neighborhood thereby eliminating what has sustained
this neighborhood for years--quality of life , serenity, safety
and solitude .
Noise is another f-ctor that we are greatly concerned about.
Pacific Highway already generates a considerable amount of noise
and we are relutant to have another road (Walnut-Ash) to the
north of us contributing more of the same .
Our neighborhood has also been fairly free of any crime and
this proposal could be a "Pandora' s Box" giving access to a
variety of criminal activity, because entering and exiting
the neighborhood would be so open. As it exists now that
flexibility is not there .
These are major concerns not only to us but the neighborhood
at large. Other items that also need to be addressed pertain
to Fanno Creek Park extensions, use of land left open to
development, the elimination of major investments , i.e . ,
Davidsons , the Methodist Church, apartment buildings, homes .
2 .
These represent jobs , living areas and santuary for many
people
As we stated nr. eviously, we feel more research is necessary
with more input from the citizenery (NiO #1) before even a
Comprehensive Plan can be effected.
Thunk you ,
Ki-tdA(A2(-
Qyq
ry a'nd Kris McBa.th
13115 S. W. Ash Drive
���..�__.�. •1 4 /7r —
JUL 1 0 1989 ii ;
, ':.jr:E'C.5':111.17177-._711.„. 4. _ ae., .
....:L. ._.4e. -7-72,e,,a,..„...,_e_27.,"4 ,e_z .,
C .4,4, ,,e. t ,___„..,4, _a,„_: . .
„xi, a:a/Le, .,.1,..w. 0.), ,.....1 . ._,,,,„Lt,-<? 4 ,474:,&, .
.iY31-c l ,. i , . . . % ,
/ ! 4„2„0,,,,,,,,:t
,,„,, yea_z„ . .„,,,, - - j',Z6. /20 . e/46f
„,x_,6,„J/
r
jl-cd., 44/ G 32J .rc-..) .-u eJu riue--e -. -
o e-c4a.) ..ems% t`` 4.- ., -�-'re... ' - d.., g.Aeec.J
--e_4-(7). --(-e -/Lic.-14-i A- A',.,_ .) avitz6 it_e_e_. 4.,//a.,/),4
._1/:‘L, _,,,e),_.61_u_a__, _.e. a, l-ei "elf:IAA•zio,&-;'1' / ---
-e-o--t%-e_4.-66 ,,e2-4-,6) .r4--,-' ./t pe-0-e--4-Q-- Al--9,/
_G_yl� /2-3 ZJL-;2L 7.1-4/..>
gl,-,-1-,OL.di/A-4 P(...12- ,ve?-0:21-1.:Ca- -7'Ze-1:4--) ' '
J - .
? / /
/3/6,5 ,11c) G 4
C / 4 97aa3
-mot
secovE0
AUL 1 U i9S9
To: Members of Tigard City Council «,:;;;:;y�v t•- ''
Re: Ash Avenue, Burnham/Tigard Realignment
I would ask you to consider with care the application for the above
realignment as indicated in File No. : 89-06. I see this as an undesirable
proposal for the following reasons:
1. It disrupts homes, businesses and lifestyles along its route.
2. It does not in any way enhance the quality of the area nor of
transportation choices to the residents.
3. It would introduce increased noise pollution.
4. It would increase the threat to the lives of children who must meet
school buses, travel to school or just move from house to house to
play.
5. It would increase the hazards for residents leaving their driveways
to enter their residential streets.
6. It would compound the problems(already present and destined to be
worse) of Walnut Street and its residents.
7. Since this segment is part of an ultimate plan to bring traffic
from Highway 26 to I-5, conditions will become intolerable for
present neighborhoods---in fact for Tigard.
For these reasons I ask you to consider this proposal carefully. Too many
people are being asked to sacrifice too much for a project which will hurt,
not just one neighborhood or a few, but the whole community of Tigard.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Verna Randall
13195 SW Ash Drive
cc-Elizabeth A. Newton Tigard 97223
Randall Wooley
niT11117.17‘ *
. i 7/tDiS
JUL 1 0 19E39
16...
'3).707,5753-74irrARTiik.k.
17.ga_i_ __J _01? 9_7-223
TcAl_y
-To .6.11.f_Couti c(:.
e_e. x Y1.5 Lon
7 I3,5___4-J _ you_wilf (7)1,S
Lonlin_is ion ec<ti r_e_comolti iceSlazi conAn_iv 'frke... •
opo_r_ed A_.5h 4-tga_up_____EkatimsLna_. 11
a_kL4i&Liu (laminiL5.5:".a27:561erdfidy ne /14 t' __210/2IS
7Ijji 5 15 17y_ c2L • Ric%) •
ticv le nciexo 722_ t22 -e2-f.z) en /2(ce
__og%;21_7_____ d____Ii4174.u.IL• a S__-ek_i_r_S •
_Le - / 177e ills • AI. ' /./.1 " _52
oir /7
p_ igasz, "A/7
om-1 emit) Wabui,___/ski Z-v_c_aux_j,uces___.10
. • _
-4..baf •
.' .PI
oAr on :At CS____07
rt?/7 ‘-40 •c.
e e • -f-You b&-4192_ e_s
/674,f
le-rrn eyOnts-- 04/.._e__12.106erAW.ol,
11,0rn (/)d /15h Ts- :-%-b414A
_ .cinaa.A41 - - ii -1
_ _Jo dry./ .
p riapac_pc0 exer
-rui_mb=eic cii,actir_ozi .6 is"(41 4114 .1,z1:_s2
.'T'
I,ex_f_ d oo�r_--�-o_-our 1, ock,s�-e..
"P�
W.1-1-1/1_ U_eY jy- ---1 fit-( s (G o-42, r ic& .on)
_ 1 cru.tl1 cre r c(,,,<Ja r e 0 riCts 44,0,
--- b i-Vis...on .`ii .
�- hc42_ e`i,zlc i 4- . 0-/:::41- 10 / ba7/ a- _ ` -- - -- - -
ci(d-k wa_t a.c 4 d Zoe. --/-A-_e, .. _
s4-1 --ee - wa. vm -v-en i19s) as _ / _ _a/z_y-_-
-
ur 1ai-c-gs_ _ f-ze1,5A6ah
- - IA)--= -_ ca. th, -he- .5'itya6y4_6_-c/oweh ch Ye -_?-_-_
_;... ___a-_b_1. e nvp/- (17‘an -v inukr:sfs--Li)_I u ,'teal'' (.,
-- -P ec, c_ y_ ea r _ rLL in CzU32f
114.erc x n air -o f 71sh_47/ 6/ F r_.e GAJ /s. Ka-IA/212_-________
if Fre
c.(4,17- i- 4- 5 11,0-_ _-_,2 --)-o -)-I-it rtie!)-`iirkii o1ipepte___ce-yti_ f_ _ _ _
T0-77
45h �lbco'ri .a! VG� r.zG-- _o _ e Psr_G6r14.1S..! `-GI/Ls. ,5-i�e,_A-, 11 oft -5 u re- no oh_e___ WCL _-s
b -c .
_ .o.0 can -__a Ite 11_fa le_ i/o -.-oar___,Pac c...,__
s077Le_. o 7 ,c9-5 h__ ` Ut__,_-GfJ_.! ps'_----- _..
i. 1.1 c/_m .as /-v -}-ra -c._ C .-) /45A , 44(__ caii/Y-- mciLes__.e______
7 y_ce c.- 0./7 A54 a /.71/2 6ai 6s IrDwin y. __ -e-__hes"p
'_._ kw_n ..ice. __'ALsne r yhd arh_oo rnak __1J _./es_s ___-- -
_ scf_.--f-e--- __ r au r C`v_L/a/re/?j- -s�Ucs _c_r_ a_zz
p r o_F-0_41..1 - Va-(-u.w s ,
y -) 4 -fm-Oc. _.flocs}__i s . the_ eu,c,dth iz.e__- _ __--
d co_o_t2e.c_`oa- cam' fish ho_caui.... z
p ropas,a _ex-i-e4A5I-07-4 Wtai_es s-ensp,. L-=
mol. r -a- _la r. _e r_-__U._i 64.)�. __.w__k-c r 11 oab__rii _-----
n_e f:(1-h._ho r ILO o_. --G r_cry r _a e_ __ L uteri__--- �yL ai.d. -t. --,i
- ___ T:e ICS : i4____ IS_ ii -atir- nP1.f1 D_r l _ ___
3_(Ir v- sc?
safr e
'a_ r- . a.•
a->;.)61tC. j_idLs-F _as _we would lde_ fr) a1/7
/ Dyoa2/). .. c_er27.5ydaa44-.. _
t_z9 a rd Camgzee o--
e ty.4 hoch‘crfs' ci,zd //al' fey=eeZe_s_7 .‘(2.2
(7, / d/-/c
b IZA-c /ziz.2/20 - Ai- ye cc: 1-',/ ir
3717C-eAZ
CAld c;a2 7ad-
•
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council July 3, 1989
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, Deputy Recorder
SUBJECT: Appeal Public Hearing - Pacific Realty
Agenda Item No. 5 - July 10, 1989
Community Development Staff has been in contact with Pacific Realty; there
is a possibility they will withdraw their request for the Appeal Hearing.
Packet material, if necessary, will be delivered to Council later in the
week.
ow �tJ�
.N l
C
(C7
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 10, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 30, 1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Noise Ordina a PREVIOUS ACTION:
Revision
// / I! PREPARED BY: Keith Liden
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK' )iJ/aREQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Should the noise ordinance be amended to better address noise related impacts
with emphasis on protection of residential uses.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Because of the problems encountered with the Tigard Market Place Shopping
Center, the Council expressed an interest in revising the existing noise
ordinance standards in the TMC. The consideration of the revision was
postponed to allow additional citizen input. The attached memo describes the
suggestions that have been forwarded to the staff. The attached draft retains
the maximum allowable noise level and adds average maximums that vary in
accordance with the type of land use affected. Attached is a copy of the
proposed ordinance and the existing Code provisions.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the revisions and approve the attached ordinance.
2. Approve the modified revisions and instruct staff to prepare a Final
Order.
3. Reject the proposal and instruct staff to prepare a Final Order.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
`.
Approve the attached ordinance.
br/Noise.ksl
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council �/
FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner /4,-
RE: Noise Ordinance Comments
DATE: June 30, 1989
Comments have been from Jim Hart regarding the proposed noise ordinance
revisions. He expressed three basic areas of concern:
1. Measurement of noise should not be made at a distance of more than 25
feet from the "noise-receiving land use" to allow lower noise levels
within yard areas.
2. Lower frequency noise that is "felt" rather than heard is also
bothersome and is not covered by the revisions. This noise is measured
on a "C scale" rather than the "A scale" noted in the proposed
revisions.
3. The duration of loud noises is not adequately covered by the proposal.
The L1 dBA criteria used in the revisions will allow the maximum noise
level of 55 or 60 dBA to be exceeded for up to 36 seconds per hour. He
suggests that these maximums should not ever be allowed to be exceeded.
In response to these concerns, I have the following comments or
recommendations:
1. The 25 foot standard was chosen to be consistent with DEQ's method of
measurement, the present Code requirements, and also for the sake of
simplicity for use in the field.
2. I checked with DEQ regarding expanding the standards to include low
frequency noise. DEQ is not aware of any established standards or
regulations which pertain to noise measured on a "C scale". I would
recommend that if the Council is interested in regulating these noise
frequencies, that the proposed revisions be adopted with direction given
to staff to further research this issue and review possible amendments
to the Code in the future.
3. The proposed revisions do allow short periods where the maximum noise
level could be exceeded. If the Council concludes that the maximum
noise level should never be exceeded, the wording in Section 7.40.170
(a) should be modified to omit the reference to Li dBA.
I will be reviewing the Code revisions further with Mr. Hart and others prior
to the Council hearing on July 10th.
litCITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 89-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS, PROHIBITIONS, AND REMEDIES REGARDING
ALLOWABLE NOISE LEVELS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City's noise ordinance to better
allow effective enforcement and control of offensive noise.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.220 are repealed and replaced as
follows:
ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE
7.40.130 Noise - Definitions. For purposes of this Section and Sections
7.40.130 through 7.40.210, the following shall mean:
(a) Ambient noise - means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given
environment, usually_ being a composite of sounds from many sources near
and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the
level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of one hour
at specific location without inclusion of noise from isolated
identifiable sources.
(b) Noise-receiving land use - means any portion of a structure which is
intended for human occupancy that is- the recipient of sounds that are
generated from beyond the boundary of the property upon which the
structure is located. This definition applies to noise-sensitive and
commercial-industrial land uses defined below.
(c) Noise-sensitive land use - means any portion of a church, children day
care, hospital, residential group care, school, single or multi-family
dwelling unit, and mobile home that is intended for living, sleeping, or
eating. This definition excludes accessory areas or structures such as
yard areas and garages.
(d) Commercial-industrial land use - means any use which is a permitted or
conditional use in the C-P, C-G, CBD, C-N, I-P, I-L, and I-H zoning
districts, as identified in Title 18.
7.40.140 Motor vehicle noises. Except as may be expressly allowed pursuant to
the provisions of Sections 7.40.190 and 7.40.200, no person shall operate a
motor vehicle in such a manner or at such a location as to cause the noise
created by the vehicle to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-
receiving land use to exceed the levels specified in Section 7.40.170 and as
measured in Section 7.40.180.
7.40.150 Jake Brakes Prohibited. No person shall operate within the city
limits of the city of Tigard a motor vehicle exhaust-braking system commonly
t •
known as a "jake brake". For the purposes of this section, the exceptions set
forth in Section 7.40.190 shall not apply and this section shall be read as an
absolute prohibition of the operation of such motor vehicle breaking systems
within the city of Tigard.
7.40.160 Noise emanating from certain property. Except as may be expressly
allowed pursuant to the provisions of Sections 7.40.190 and 7.40.200, no person
shall cause or• permit noise to emanate from the property under his or her
control so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-receiving
land use to exceed the levels specified in Sections 7.40.170 and 7.40.180.
7.40.170 Allowable noise limits. Two noise standards shall apply when
measuring noise levels at the noise-receiving land use as measured in
accordance with Section 7.40.180 below:
(a) Maximum noise levels. The following maximum noise decibel levels shall not
be exceeded over 1% of the time (L1 dBA) averaged over a one hour period:
Time of Day Maximum Noise Level, L1 dBA
7:00 AM - 10:00 PM 60
10:00 PM - 7:00 AM 55
(b) Average maximum noise levels. The following average noise decibel levels
shall not be exceeded over 50% (L50 dBA) of the time averaged over a one
hour period:
411 Time of Day Maximum Noise Level, L50 dBA
7:00 AM•- 10:00 PM 50 - Noise-sensitive land use
55 - Commercial/Industrial land use
10:00 PM - 7:00 AM 45 - Noise-sensitive land use
50 - Commercial/Industrial land use
55 - Commercial/Industrial land use if
not occupied during this time period
7.40.180 Standard for measurement.
(a) Measurements shall be made with a calibrated sound level meter meeting the
requirements of a Type I or Type II meter, as specified by the American . •
National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters (ANSI Standards
1.4-1971). For purposes of this ordinance, a sound level meter shall
contain at least a recording calibration curve for an "A" weighing
network, and both fast and slow meter response capability.
(b) Persons conducting sound level measurements shall have received training
in the techniques of sound measurement and the operation of sound
measuring instruments from the Department of Environmental Quality, a
registered accoustical engineer, or other competent body prior to engaging
in any enforcement activity.
(c) Noise measurements shall be taken at a height of 5 feet and a distance of
25 feet from the noise-receiving land use in the direction of the noise
source. If the noise source and noise-receiving land use are less than
25 feet apart, the measurement shall be taken at the property line.
7.40.190 Noise - Exemptions to restrictions. The restrictions imposed by
Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.180 shall not apply to the following:
(a) r::aergency equipment not operating on a regular or scheduled basis;
(b) Noise emanating from Pacific Highway, Highway 217, and Interstate 5;
(c) Sounds originating on construction sites and reasonably necessary to the
accomplishment of work in progress;. provided, however, that no
construction work may be carried out between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00
AM, except for bona fide emergencies where the public health or safety is
threatened or for which a special permit, granted by the City
Administrator, has been first obtained in accordance with the procedures
contained in Section 7.40.200; and
(d) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated with the normal repair,
upkeep, or maintenance of property.
7.40.200 Permits required for exceeding allowable noise levels.
(a) The use of amplified voice and music or creation of noise at levels which
would otherwise exceed those permissible under Section 7.40.130 through
7.40.190 may be allowed upon application to the City Administrator.
Application for an amplified sound permit shall be made to the City
Administrator on forms prepared by the City. The applicant shall identify
the date, location and time of the event for which the permit is sought,
and shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event.
(b) In the case of a series of similar events to be conducted at the same
location, the City Administrator may, at his discretion, issue the permit
in a form extending to cover the entire series. In. that event, the permit
shall be subject to the Administrator's withdrawal at any time.
(c) The City Administrator shall grant a permit in any instance in which the
event and its accompanying noise will not, in his judgment, interfere
unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise.
In making this judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the
surrounding properties and the benefit to the community of the event for
which the application is made.
(d) The City Administrator may submit any question arising with respect to
this Section to the City Council, and if any member of the City Council
requests its submission to the Council, any such question shall be heard
by the Council. In either event, the decision of the City Council shall
be final.
2io
7.40..2.0f Penalty for chapter violations.
(a) A violation of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction,
which shall be processed according to the procedures established in the
c•
civil infractions ordinance, set out in Chapter 1.16 of this Code.
Notice to abate the nuisance shall be a prior contract.
(b) Each violation of a separate provision of this Chapter shall constitute a
separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this Chapter is
committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction.
(c) A finding of a violation of this Chapter shall not relieve the responsible
party of the duty to abate the violation. The penalties imposed by this
section are in addition to and not in lieu of any remedies available to
the City.
•
(d) If.`.a provision of this Chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the
officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation
shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this Chapter.
Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 30th day
after its inactment.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this day of June,
1989. _.
Cathy Wheatley, Deputy City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of June, 1989.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
•
l
7.40. 110--7.40. 140
iir
o any one automobile, truck, bus, trailer or piece of ve-
h ular equipment;
-. (c) Used or dismantled household appliances, furniture,
other •iscards or junk, for more than five days. (Ord. 86-20
§4 (Exhi• 't C(5) (4) ) , 1986) .
7 .40. 1 • Attractive nuisances. (a) No owner or re-
sponsible par• shall permit on the property:
(1) Un• arded machinery, equipment or other devices
which are attract . e, dangerous, and accessible to children;
(2) Lumber logs, building material or piling placed
or stored in a manner o as to be attractive, dangerous, and
accessible to children;
(3) An open pit, euarry, cistern, or other excava-
tion without safeguards or . .rriers to prevent such places
from being used by children;
(4) An exposed foundat .n or portion of foundation,
any residue, debris or other buil. 'ng or structural remains,
for more than thirty days after the •estruction, demolition
or removal of any building or portion .f the building.
(b) This section shall not apply authorized con-
struction projects with reasonable safegu. ds to prevent
injury or death to playing children. (Ord. :6-20 §4 (Exhibit
C(5) (5) ) , 1986) .
411 7.40. 120 Scattering rubbish. No person sh- 1 deposit
upon public or private property any kind of rubbis trash,
debris, refuse, or any substance that would mar the . ••ear-
ance, create a stench or fire hazard, detract from the lean-
liness or safety of the property, or would be likely to
injure a person, animal, or vehicle traveling upon a publi
way. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(5) (6) ) , 1986) .
ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC
PEACE
7.40.130 Noise--Definitions. For purposes of this
section and Sections 7.40. 130 through 7.40. 200, the following
mean:
(a) "Ambient noise" means the all-encompassing noise
associated with a given environment, being usually a com-
posite of sounds from many sources, near and far.
(b) "Noise-sensitive property" means real property on
which people normally sleep and, in addition, schools,
churches, hospitals and public libraries. (Ord. 86-20 §4
(Exhibit C(6) (1) (a) ) , 1986) .
7.40. 140 Motor vehicle noises. No person shall operate
a motor vehicle in such a manner or at such a location as to
cause the noise created by the vehicle to cause the ambient
noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to ex-
it ceed the levels specified in Section 7.40. 160, as measured
. 87-1 (Tigard 8/15/86)
7. 40. 150--7. 40 . 180
at a point located twenty-five feet from the noise-sensitive
structure toward the noise source. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit
C (6) (1) (b) ) , 1986) .
7 . 40. 150 Noise emanating from certain property. Except
as may be expressly allowed pursuant to the provisions of
Section 7.40. 220, no person shall cause or permit noise to
emanate from the property under his or her control so as to
cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive
property to exceed the levels set forth in Section 7 .40. 160,
as measured at a point located twenty-five feet from the
noise-sensitive structure toward the noise source. (Ord.
86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (c) ) , 1986) .
7.40. 160 Allowable noise limits. Allowable noise
limits are as follows:
Time Maximum Noise Level, DBA
7:00 a.m. -- 10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. -- 7:00 a.m. 55
(Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (d) ) , 1986) .
7.40. 170 Noise--Exemptions to restrictions. The re-
strictions imposed by Sections 7.40. 140 through 7 .40. 160 of
IF this chapter shall not apply to the following:
(a) Emergency equipment not operating on a regular or
scheduled basis;
(b) Noise emanating from the Pacific Highway, Highway
I-217 and Highway I-5;
(c) Sounds originating on construction sites and rea-
sonably necessary to the accomplishment of work in progress;
provided, however, that no construction work may be carried
on between the hours of nine p.m. and seven a.m. , except for
bona fide emergencies where the public health or safety is
threatened or which a special permit, granted by the city
council, has been first obtained. Any such special permit
may be granted by the city council only after first having
held a hearing and having otherwise followed the administra-
tive procedures contained in Chapter 18 .32 of this code;
(d) Emergency repair equipment not operated on a regu-
lar or scheduled basis;
(e) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated
with the normal repair, upkeep or maintenance of property.
(Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (e) ) , 1986) .
7 .40. 180 Jake brakes prohibited. No person shall
operate within the city limits of the city of Tigard a motor
vehicle exhaust-braking system commonly known as a "jake
brake. " For the purposes of this section, the exceptions
set forth in Section 7 .40. 170 shall not apply, and this
87-2 (Tigard 1/15/87)
7.40. 190--7 . 40. 210
section shall be read as an absolute prohibition of the
• operation of such motor vehicle braking systems within the
city of Tigard. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (f) ) , 1986) .
7.40. 190 Sound-amplifying equipment restrictions. No
person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from sound-
amplifying equipment under their control so as to cause the
ambient noise level to exceed sixty DBA at any distance one
hundred feet or more from the sources between the hours of
seven a.m. and ten p.m. , and fifty-five DBA one hundred feet
from the source between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m.
(Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (g) ) , 1986) -
7.40.200
986) .7.40.200 Violation--Penalty. Failure to abate the
nuisance within the time allowed for abatement shall consti-
tute a Class 1 civil infraction which shall be processed
according to the procedures established in Chapter 1. 16 of
this code, Civil Infractions.
(b) Each violation of a separate provision of Sections
7.40. 130 through 7.40.200 shall constitute a separate in-
fraction, and each day that a violation of such sections is
committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a sep-
arate violation.
(c) A finding of a violation of Sections 7.40 .130
through 7.40.200 and imposition of a civil penalty shall not
relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the vio-
lation, except where the city has acted to abate the nuisance.
In such a situation, the responsible party shall be liable
for the costs pursuant to Section 1.16.340 of the civil in-
fractions ordinance codified in Chapter 1.16 of this code.
(d) If a provision of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40-
.200 is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or
officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation
shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this section.
(Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (h) ) , 1986) .
ARTICLE V. EVENTS USING AMPLIFIED SOUND
7.40.210 Permits required for certain events. (a)
The use of amplified voice and music at levels which would
otherwise exceed those permissible under Sections 7.40.130
• .through 7 .40.200 may be allowed upon application to the city
administrator. Application for an amplified sound permit
shall be made to the city administrator on forms prepared by
the city. The applicant shall identify the date, location
and time of the event for which the permit is sought, and
shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event.
(b) In the case of a series of similar events (for
example, a season' s high school football games) , to be con-
ducted at the same location, the city administrator may, in
his discretion, issue the permit in a form extending to cover
87-3 (Tigard 8/15/86)
7.40 .220
the entire series. In that event, the permit shall be sub-
ject to the administrator' s withdrawal at any time.
(c) The city administrator shall grant a permit in any .
instance in which the event and its accompanying noise will
not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace
of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this
judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the sur-
rounding properties and the benefit to the community of the
event for which the application is made.
(d) The city administrator may submit any question
arising with respect to this section to the city council,
and if any member of the city council requests its submission
to the council, any such question shall be heard by the
council. In either event, the decision of the city council
shall be final.
(e) No permit authorized by this section shall give
the applicant the right to cause or permit sound to emanate
from the property on which the event is held so as to cause
the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive
property to exceed fifty-five DBA after the hour of eleven
p.m. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(4) (7) ) , 1986) .
ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY
7.40.220 Penalty for chapter violations. (a) A vio-
lation of this chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil
infraction,: which shall be processed according tb the proce-
dures established in the civil infractions ordinance, set
out at Chapter 1.16 of this code. Notice to abate the nui-
sance shall be a prior contract.
(b) Each violation of a separate provision of this
chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day
that a violation of this chapter is committed or permitted
to continue shall constitute a separate infraction.
(c) A finding of a violation of this chapter shall not
relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the vio-
lation. The penalties imposed by -this section are in addi-
tion to and not in lieu of any remedies available to the
city.
(d) If a provision of this chapter is violated by a
firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or
persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to
the penalties imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 86-20 §4
(Exhibit C(8) ) ; 1986) .
87-4 (Tigard 8/15/86)
DRAFT c -t/ Cr() I . ...ems res AA=
P-14-b/ic /Par/4
James A. Hart
10255 S.W. Hillview St.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Community Development Department
City of Tigard, Oregon
RE: Proposed Noise Ordinance
Attention: Keith Liden
Senior Planner
Background Summary:
The above ordinance was submitted to City Council on June
12, 1989. Residents surrounding the Tigard Marketplace were
informed of the hearing on Thursday, June 8th or Friday, June
9th, depending on mail delivery. This weekend coincided with
Rose Festival activities leaving little time to review the
ordinance prior to the Monday night meeting.
Residents in the area are particularly interested in a noise
ordinance after suffering severe problems in relation to the
Tigard Marketplace development. The noise pollution problem
ik could be considered the direct result of non-specific sound level
guidelines developed in the site-review/permit process. While
no specific standards were referred to, the supposition based
on records of approval hearings and council members comments
was that the noise level would be contained/controlled so as
to cause no negative impact on the neighborhood.
As a result of the controversy and the unacceptable level
permitted under DEQ standards/regulations and City of Tigard
regulations, the Council suggested development of a new, more
restrictive and residential-zone oriented standard through enact-
ment of a new ordinance.
This was first suggested as the best solution several months
ago.
Members of the neighborhood surrounding Tigard Marketplace
requested that they be involved in the development of a new noise
ordinance. They also suggested the City of Tigard engage an
independent consultant to aid in the process. (Other than DEQ
or Mr. Ed Daley, who was the developer' s consultant and could
find himself in a conflicting interest situation. )
We were assured by the staff and council that we would be
kept informed of action taken and be involved in reviewing the
ordinance during the development process and prior to Council
hearings for adoption.
Page 2.
At the Council meeting of June 12th, Dick Uphoff, Francis
Brittain and myself appeared before the Council to request a
delay to allow more time to review. At that time, some of the
concerns were expressed but a detailed list had not been
developed, and we felt after a cursory review that more study
was necessary and suggested looking to other municipalities and
resources for more input and exploring problems other than those
immediately evidenced in the ordinance.
Ed Murphy agreed that there were items that needed further
study/review and Council voted to hold until July 10th with the
understanding that the staff would get together with the residents
mentioned to explore different alternatives and come up with
a mutually acceptable ordinance.
In the intervening weeks, no contact was initiated by city
staff. I called on two or three occasions to check on the
"progress" and although I did not talk directly with you, I was
informed that no further study was being made on the ordinance.
On June 28th, I called and we discussed the ordinance.
You informed me you had made no changes to the document as sub-
mitted on June 12th. We discussed the neighborhood involvement
issue. From your response, it was apparent that your understand-
ing was that we would have to initiate any change. However,
we had difficulty in contacting you and were expecting the leader-
ship in reviewing, exploring and developing the new ordinance
to be initiated by the Tigard staff, as indicated at the Council
meeting.
I gave you several areas of concern by phone, three of which
were:
1 . The L for impulse sounds was not restrictive enough.
Suggested reviewing Tualatin' s ordinance.
2. Point of sound measurement 25 feet from building is
confiscatory where building is set back more than 25 '
from property line.
3 . Lower frequency sound levels, such as some eminating
from Food Connection, are serious source of problem
and do not show up on the A scale.
We also discussed review and input from consultants, DEQ,
other jurisdictions, etc. You said you had contacted some other
areas ( in California, I believe) . You had not reviewed Tualatin' s
ordinance on impulse noise. You also had not reviewed or
consulted City of Portland nor many of the other metro areas,
or Seattle. I suggested you call Bellview, since it is a rapidly
growing area in the Seattle area and may have encountered some
similar problems. We had some further discussion regarding
consultant and DEQ input and then tried to decide on a meeting
• Page 3 .
time. You suggested Wed. or Thurs. since you would be working
Monday before the Fourth of July and could review the ordinance
further. You called me Wed. and left a message on my answering
machine to call you. I called back Thursday AM, at which time
you told me you could not meet with us until Firday or Monday
and that you had already submitted the ordinance (unchanged)
back to Council with my three main concerns attached. I have
since talked to Dick Uphoff and Francis Brittain and we will
be available for meeting Monday, prior to the Council meeting,
at a time yet to be set.
Upon further review of the ordinance and discussion with
Paul Herman, City of Portland Noise Control Specialist, I have
the following additional concerns that should be reviewed and
responded to before Council action on the ordinance:
1 . Why not include yards, decks, patios, etc. in definition
of sound sensitive land? We pay taxes on them and
are certainly affected by noise pollution to the extent
of inability to confortably make use of them.
2 . Motor Vehicle Noise. (7 .40.140 ) Seems to be some con-
flict of terms - how can motor vehicles raise the
ambient noise level if they are excluded by definition?
Also, the 1 -hour, L50 or the 6, Scale - how can this
be measured; how can it be averaged without special
equipment or a computer analysis? Should it be
averaged? This doesn't appear enforceable as written.
Most vehicle noises are intermittent/non-continuous
and should be based on max/impulse.
3 . Permits - management has too much discretion - neighbor-
hood is at mercy of discretionary decision of staff.
Could be good - could be bad. Why not set some
standards for max time, level of sound, etc.? What
about holidays, Sundays, etc. ?
4 . Use of Ll noise level to control impact and impulse
noises - need an absolute max and some control on
repetitive high level noise night and day.
5. Use of average noise (L )needs special equipment
- DEQ or consultant - can' t average with hand meter,
unless a special meter is used, and then this is still
not a good method.
6 . What about some special attention to continuous
( 24-hour-a-day type noises at lower levels, but
adversely affecting livability) . 45 dba all night
and 60 dba all day is not a quiet neighborhood! Windows
are kept shut and outdoor activities limited to those
not affected by higher noise levels.
Page 4.
7 . Use of different octave band measurements to control
especially disturbing noise, particularly in the low
frequency level, which penetrates structures. (DEQ
doesn' t regulate noises transmitted into buildings. )
Based on the premise that many of the issues have not been
reviewed/explored by staff with the interested residents, it
would be my recommendation that this ordinance be withdrawn from
Council agenda, except for requesting further direction from
Council as to extent of research/study and bottom line results.
I feel there are serious enforcement problems and questionable
benefits to the neighborhood as written.
Sincerely,
James A. Har..
C
Jim, here are oorriC notes an the proposed Tigard noise ordinance. You may cran
use them as you wish, including referencing me, or not. Good luck. `in,. f
-0010
1 . 7.40.130(a) Ambient noise. OK, except for one very troublesome second
sentence, which requires one hours worth of measurement, without
"...inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources.". First, it may be
literally impossible to achieve, contingent on the location and time of
measurement. Many noises of shorter duration can cause annoyance, sleep
interruption, and physical damage. Second, it is unnecessarily expensive
(man hours) and not particularly useful to require one hours worth of
measurement, when the same information can often be derived within five
minutes or less. Meters are presently available which will automatically
"average" sound levels (actually, such instruments are gathering and
analyzing sound levels according to an algorithm which is more complex
than a simple arithmetic average); changes in the levels are monitored,
and when the sound level stabilizes, one may assume that the 'true'
averaged sound level has been reached. This is easier, and cheaper. If
Tigard is at all serious about enforcement, I would strongly recommend
that this one hour requirement be eliminated. Also, see l'4 below.
2. 7.40.140. Motor vehicle noises. There is a problem here. As written,
except for exemptions or special permits, motor vehicle noise may not
exceed the land use allowable noise levels of section 7.40.170. This means
g. that vehicles which are legitimate under state motor vehicle noise
regulations may well be illegal on the street, or parked on a driveway with
the engine going, since they may well exceed an L1-60 dBA. i would
recommend deferring to the state standard here.
3. 7.40.150. Jake Brakes Prohibited. Although I am strongly in favor of
this, i am also afraid that it might be illegal, in that it is inconsistent
with preemptive federal truck standards. However, I wouldrrt change a
thing until I had to. Good Luck.
4. 7.40.170. Allowable noise limits. Again, I think that requiring an
averaging over a one-hour period is incorrect, and undercuts reasonable
and cost-effective enforcement. Although I prefer the use of a single "thou
shalt not exceed" value, many communities use statistical noise levels (L 1
and L50) effectively and efficiently.They do not necessitate a one hour
measurement. Tualatin uses (I think) a maximum noise level, in dBA, which
occurs over any amount of time. This gives the enforcement person the
discretion to take a shorter-term measurement, or, if determined to be
appropriate, a longer-term one. Sensible.
5. 7.40.180. Standard for measurement. Items a and b are fine. Sub-section
'c' requires measurement to be taken at a height of 5 feet, and at a
distance of 25 feet from the noise-receiving land use. First, one cannot
always take measurements from a height of 5 feet, and I would change the
, word "shall" to "measurements ore to be token", or soften it in some other
way, to allow the enforcing officer some leeway if needed. Second, I think
that setting a measurement distance requirement of 25 feet from the
noise-receiving land use (defined as any portion of a structure intended
for human occupancy) is wrong, and is tantamount to the taking of land
without compensation. It means that one does not always have the use of
his own yard for residential activities. It would seem to me that this
would be particularly important in the Tigard area, where (I expect) lots
and backyard areas are larger, and outdoor activities more important to
the use and enjoyment of property. I realize that the DEQ standards are •
written this way, but few (if any) cities employ other than the property
line as an appropriate measurement site. Furthermore, the section is
unclear as to what is meant by the noise "source"-is it the land or the
devices) from which the noise arises? It could make quite a difference. if
the latter, then the section is additionally unclear as to the proper
measurement point for multiple devices.
6. 7.40.200. Permits. Section b renders the permit subject to withdrawal
at any time. OK, but could be unfair. I'd add some conditions under which
the permit is '...subject to revocation', e.g., "...if any of the conditions of
the permit are violated.", or others, to make the section less susceptible
to the "arbitrary and capricious" criticism.
7. Finally, there is no provision for either octave-band measurements or
for impulse measurement. It may be the case that Tigard has no need for
such measurements, but, dollars to donuts, it will, and soon, given the rate
of commercial and industrial development in that area.
Paul Herman
Noise Control Officer
City of Portland.
7
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
iir COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 10,1989 DATE SUBMITTED: June 30,1989
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Street Vacatign PREVIOUS ACTION:Council initiated
Public Hearing- SW 93rd Ave and s'.i 1 process on 5-22-89 _
Mapleleaf Street !/ PREPARED BY: Development Services Mar.
DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OK d ' REQUESTED BY: Trammell Crow Co.
POLICY ISSUE
The City has supported right-of-way vacations that provide for orderly
development, reduces the City's liability without sacrificing public need and
when it enhances an area's value and livability. All of these criteria appear
to be supported in this proposal.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On May 22,1989 Council accepted a completed vacation petition from the Trammell
Crow Company which proposed the vacation of portions of S.W. 93rd Avenue and
S.W. Mapleleaf Street. Vacation proceedings were initiated and a public hearing
was set for July 10,1989. The purpose of the vacation is to accommodate the
development of the Lincoln V office building and parking structure which
includes the realignment and improvement of S.W. 93rd Avenue. See attached memo
for for more specific information concerning the proposed vacation.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the vacation and adopt the attached ordinance as presented.
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the vacation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Vacating these rights-of-way will return control of the property to adjoining
property owners and add to the assessed value of the City. This impact is
significant as the property is among some of the highest valued property in the
City. In addition the vacation will allow a multi-million dollar development to
go ahead, further adding to the City's assessed value.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The City should vacate these rights-of-way subject to certain conditions as
outlined in the ordinance presented for adoption. Vacating these rights-of-way
will provide for a number of positive results including the development of the
Lincoln V project and the improvement of the realigned S.W. 93rd Avenue to City
standards.
br/93Sum.Sht
MEMORANDUM
To: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
From: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Development
Re: Proposed vacation of portions of S.W. 93rd Avenue
and S.W. Mapleleaf Street
Date: June 30, 1989
I. Background
The Trammell Crow Company has recently received approvals that enable them to
move ahead with the development of a 7-story office building and separate
parking structure, otherwise known as Lincoln V. These include a Comp Plan
Amendment-Zone Change and Site Development Review. A number of other permits
and approvals will be required before the project is completed.
The next key action in this line of reviews and approvals is the vacation of
portions of S.W. Mapleleaf Street and S.W. 93rd Avenue. On May 22,1989 Council
accepted a completed vacation petition, submitted by the Trammell Crow Company,
proposing to vacate portions of the above stated streets. All abutting property
owners and 67% of all affected property owners had signed the petition as
required by state law. Council subsequently initiated vacation proceedings,
starting a formal review process, and set July 10,1989 for the public hearing.
II. Findings
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their regular meeting on June
20,1989 and recommended that it be approved. The Commission found that the
proposal did not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation and Utilities
The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and made the following
comments:
* The existing 93rd Avenue is a minor collector street intending to connect
S.W. Oak Street to S.W. Locust street. It is mostly unimproved and a-portion of
the right-of-way does not exist for approximately 280 feet north of S.W. Oak
Street. A 50 foot wide right-of-way exists for the remainder to S.W. Locust
Street.
* A previous zone change application by the same applicant included the
realignment of S.W. 93rd Avenue as an amendment to the Metzger-Progress
Community Plan. This amendment became final on June 12,1989.
I
* Prior to the vacation of the existing right-of-way the right-of-way for the
realigned S.W. 93rd Avenue should be provided as described in the Site
Development Review approval. The realignment should begin at the existing south
terminus of S.W. 93rd Avenue and follow the alignment shown on the site
development plans up to the -•-'""ng S.W. 92nd Avenue. Curves for collector
streets are required to have a minimum 350 foot centerline radius and a 60 foot
wide right-of-way.
To date , most of the new realigned S.W. 93rd Avenue right-of-way has been
dedicated as required by the Site Development Review approval.
All utility company providers responded and most indicated they had facilities
in the proposed vacation area. In addition, the City has sanitary sewer
facilities within a portion of S.W. Mapleleaf Street. Trammell Crow has
arranged with each provider to either relocate facilities or to grant easements
for facilities that are to remain.
Public Saftev
Both the Tualatin Valley Fire Department and the City of Tigard Police
Department responded end had no objection to the proposal.
Title to Vacated Lands
The rights-of-way to be vacated were created by the recording of plat of "Town
of Metzger". This requires that the 50 foot wide right-of-way split evenly to
adjoining owners once vacated. In this case, the Trammell Crow Company will
"" receive title to all vacated lands.
III. Recommendation
The City should vacate the proposed portions of S.W. 93rd Avenue and S.W
Mapleleaf Street subject to the following conditions:
1. That the remaining new right-of-way necessary to provide for the realignment
of S.W. 93rd Avenue be dedicated prior to the recording of the vacation
ordinance.
2. That a 15 foot wide public utility easement remain and be centered over the
public sanitary sewer within S.W. Mapleleaf Street. Said easement is described
in Exhibit "B" which is made part of the ordinance presented for adoption.
3. That the area originally requested for vacation be reduced to exclude that
area needed to complete the realignment of S.W. 93rd Avenue. This amended area
is described in Exhibit "A" which is made part of the ordinance presented for
adoption.