VAC1995-00001 RECD MAY 0 7 1995
yiav 1996
,Tames Hendnl
Comm.unit• Development Director
Cih! of Tigard
131'S S W Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Xfr. Hendrvx:
I would like to thank vou, however belatedly. for having Gary .meson attend the Benchveiw
Homeowners' .-kssociation annual meeting. He answered questions bravely and
subsequently, the homeowners were able to conduct a more thorough investigation
regarding the construction of the streets, as well as adherence to current city codes. We
are now prepared to formally request the dedication of the streets in the Bench-view Estates
I Subdivision, to the City of Tigard.
We are a small subdivision, with very little expertise and funding available to adequately
maintain these streets. We feel strongly that the city would be best served, now and in the
future, to take these streets, and ensure a more effective control on their upkeep, and
continued. safety.
(Jur group has researched the construction of these streets and have concluded the
following:
On March 11, 1996 a representative of our association talked to Brian Rager regarding
Cleavview Loop. He stated that this portion of the subdivision Is built to city
standards".
A short section in Bench-view Court has six inches of crushed rock instead of nine, but it
does hazy. three inches of asphalt which meets current standards. his sec-Tion of street is a
dead end, less than a block long, with ver,- little traffic. Because of the loin traffic usa;e
we feel that the long term maintenance costs will be less than a ,treet with normal or hcavv
traffic. Therefore we are requesting a varianc. ',c c`n mai accept this sectio-t as
constructed.
In addressing the issue of a sidewalk on both sides. W- request the cim. consider once
again that this is a small subdivision, traffic. is light and used mainly by residents. Fie trend
in new developments as demonstrated at Forest Heights. and :ash 'Creel: Meadows. is to
construct sidewalks on only one side of the street. Without the second sidewalk. no utilio:
eas.ment problems exist and it will not be necessan, to sur.ey setbacks of the eYistiing
houses.
9
0
The homeowners have discussed a possible solution to the concrete aprons. We would be
willing to coat these areas with a coating of asphalt to indicate their public status. We feel
the cost to move the concrete aprons, no matter who would pay,just to designate public
streets, is not an efficient use of funds.
We feel strongh, that the street light fee would not be necessary. Per our discussion with
Gary Alfson, this fee would not be applicable since we have paid for operation of these
streetlights for the last several years. In addition we have been paying the full rate on our
property taxes. We understand the purpose of this tee is to allow the city to collect, up
front, operating costs for streetlights in new subdivisions until the city can collect fees
through property taxes. The homeowners have already paid up front costs in addition to
taxes for this service.
The homeowners feel that while the police department does perform random patrol
functions as a courtesy, the police are not in a position to enforce minor traffic problems,
such as speeding and parking violations.
While speeding is always a concern, a more serious concern is that poorly parked vehicles
could block free access by emergency vehicles such as tire and rescue. At this time we
have no safe method to discourage or remove vehicles or equipment parked on the streets
which could lead to a delay in the response of emergency vehicles.
We hope to hear from the city as soon as possible regarding the nett step in this process as
we are committed to the task at hand. Your open discussion and clear communication with
us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ruth T isiclj
Secr�tary Benchview Homeowners ,association
Frahler
Treasurer Benchview Homeowners association
§ t C U
� O
N
DRIVE 8 S
oil
I L'� .w j i o N io •. .... .i.
RNRIDGE TERRACE-
04
CT
8
V 5• !y s � _� p• 8 R
ov
D S W. 132nd
d
N � •A � ' A t g O N f S R� ^�
m
w/
tO9 lJ �•N y
�j'.
.. N
t8
ZO R y Y " •e° 1°I !C 'b N3 Os 31!3003 �V f W W
�„
411
c`E�cE !3 Q S� 3 ——
e
III N N •*. 'g v 4 U ' ~� ee.q,
LLI
W1
i N ` • �
s
it, 0E'CMYI +PL.
` I
In•1 i
S
y O
a <u
f
„N
96/b1/3 D3MU Xbl 9' LN3Y4SS3SSV
A `
tl, FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: June 14. 1996
TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433
FROM: Patricia Lunsford, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171
PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO
LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES
The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday July 1, 1996 at 7:30 PM at the
Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is
invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the
Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in
person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence
sufficient to allow the hearings authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal, and
failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a
comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the
Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
BENCHVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION STREET DEDICATION
The Planning Commission will be considering whether or not to recommend to the City Council that streets
in the Benchview Estates Subdivision be accepted as public streets. The Commission will listen to
testimony regarding a proposal by the Benchview Estates Homeowner's that their streets be dedicated to
the public. LOCATION: Southwest Benchview Terrace, southwest Benchview Place and southwest
Clearview Way.
TT PUBLISH DATE: June 20, 1996
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Engineering and Planning
DATE: June 4, 1996
SUBJECT: Street Dedication Request in Benchview Estates
Background
The Benchview Estates Homeowner's Association is requesting that the City accept dedication of
the streets in their subdivision as public streets. The streets were built as private streets along with
the Benchview subdivision in 1987. In the typical development process, streets are built to City
standards and dedicated to the public as a part of platting of a subdivision. In this case, the
developer did not want to build the streets to city standards and, therefore, requested and gained
approval for private streets. The streets were to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
The Association now wants the City to take over maintenance. A letter from the Homeowner's
Association is attached.
The streets are partially constructed to City standards. Street base, right-of-way width, lack of
sidewalks on one side and apron design do not meet City standards. Normally, the biggest concern
in taking over private streets is in maintenance costs. The Public Works Department has indicated
that they could take over maintenance.
Perhaps a greater issue is the cost of repair of the Benchview Court cul de sac that was damaged in
last winter's slides. Property owners as well as the Homeowner's Association have been notified of
the need to correct the slope hazard deficiency. Both the Engineering and Public Works
Departments recommend that the City inspect the streets to determine defective or damaged areas
and that the Home Owners Association pay for any and all repairs prior to the City accepting
dedication.
The private streets in Benchview have a right-of-way of 34 feet. This does not include all of the
sidewalk that exists nor does it include the street lights. To include the sidewalk and street lights in
the dedication would require a 38 foot right-of-way according to the Engineering Department. This
extra right-of-way would create non conforming setbacks for some houses. The only practical
effect of this type of non conformity would be that any structures would not be able to be enlarged
to increase the non conformity. In other words, such structures simply would not be able to extend
past the existing building lines. This issue should affect few of the homes.
Vftw
The fact that the street would be non conforming to base, sidewalks and concrete entrance aprons as
well as setbacks is relatively inconsequential if the City accepts dedication.
Process
The process for dedication would require authorization by the street owners (Homeowner's
Association) by legal signature to dedicate the streets. The request needs a recommendation by the
Planning Commission. The City Council must make the final decision. While nothing in the code
requires a public hearing, testimony could be taken by both bodies. Staff has sent notice of the
pending consideration by the Planning Commission and Council to the Home Owners Association
and the property owners.
Code Section 18.164.030 B. indicates that "Right-of-way shall be created through the approval of a
final subdivision plat or major partition; however the Council may approve the creation of a street
by acceptance of a deed, providing that such street is deemed essential for the purpose of general
traffic circulation."
Code Section 18.164.030 B. a. (i). states:
a. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance
with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the
following conditions are found by the Council to be present:
(1) Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for the
purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an
incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street
for public use;
Code Section 18.164.030 B. c. states:
c. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name "the public" as
grantee.
Code Evaluation
SW Clearview Way, SW Clearview Place and SW Benchview Place are obviously necessary for
traffic circulation to get to and from the homes in the Benchview Estates Subdivision. The
necessary circulation, however, can be accommodated whether the streets are private or public.
This is primarily a question of whether the streets should be maintained by the City. The property
owners in Benchview Estates would indicate that they pay taxes for the maintenance of streets. The
question for the City is whether these streets would create a disproportionate cost for maintenance.
The City has street standards to help ensure the costs of maintenance are reasonable.
`vr
Since the subdivision of land involved was subdivided in 1987, the establishment of the street is
clearly not for subdivision purposes at this point.
• Options
1. Approve the dedication of the street as is.
2. Deny the request.
3. Require the street to be brought up to all or part of the City standards (repair, sidewalks, street
base, right-of-way, aprons,etc.)
Recommendation
It is suggested that the City Planning Commission and Council consider the Home Owners
Association request to accept dedication of the Benchview Estates streets. Acceptance of
dedication should be conditioned on the following:
1. The City staff will conduct an inspection of the streets to determine damage or defects. The
Home Owners Association shall pay for any and all repairs to correct existing damage or defects
prior to dedication and acceptance by the City..
2. The Home Owners Association shall prepare the necessary ROW dedication documentation that
will convert the existing private tracts to public ROW. The ROW shall be increased to 38 feet to
account for all of the sidewalk and street lights.
i:\curpin\dick\benvded.mem
06/04/96 1:06 PM
Department/Account t!: Community Development Dept.(Current Plannin /2210
Contact/Extension: Patty Lunsford/x320
Record Description Keyword Record Retention
Type Identifiers Date
(up to 10) From
To
PLANNING- BENCHVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION ST.DEDICATION 1996 PERMANENT
LAND USE LOCATION: SW Benchview TerrJSW Benchview PIJSW Cbarvmew Way
(MANILA FILE)
1 OF 1 FILE
PLANNING- TORLAND COURT PUBLIC R.O.W.VACATION 1996 PERMANENT
LAND USE DESCRIPTION: Vacation of approx.4,431 square feet of public
(MANILA FILE) right-of-way on SW Torland Court.
1 OF 1 FILE
...........
""FOR RECORDS USE ONLY****..............••••
...................................................................................................................................
Received/Processed by: Storage Location:
Clerk's Index: No _ Yes _ Record Identification Code:
Clerk's Index Date of Entry: To Be Microfilmed?: No Yes
1:\Meae\a[CaaaI\TRm4WLooC(ans)
Agenda Item No.
Meeting of
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, and
Ken Scheckla.
• Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman;
Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Administrative Analyst Loreen
Mills; Assistant to the City Administrator Liz Newton; and City Recorder
Catherine Wheatley.
> UPDATE: Visioning Project
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reviewed the consultant
selection process. She said that a committee composed of herself, Loreen Mills,
Bill Monahan, and Councilor Bob Rohlf have interviewed the three finalists. She
reported that they were evaluating those interviews and checking references; they
hoped to have a decision made around December 6.
Ms. Newton reported that John Williams, a second year public administration
student at PSU, was their intern. He has been setting up the meeting schedule
with various community groups.
Ms. Newton said that they regularly updated the executive staff on the visioning
process also. In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, she said that the
committee would select the consultant, and that they were most interested in a
consultant who was local.
Loreen Mills, Administrative Analyst, reported on the meeting with the School
District. She and Ms. Newton met with Mary Alice Russell, the Associate
Superintendent in charge of curriculum, and discovered that the School Board has
directed Ms. Russell to begin a visioning process for the schools this fall.
Although the City and the District would each pursue its own visioning process,
they felt that they could still form a strong partnership and cooperate in many
areas and share information in the process of forming similar end products for
both the City and the District.
Ms. Mills said that Pat Biggs was the School Board representative on the
School's visioning process as Councilor Rohlf has been for the Council. She
explained that they would meet next week with school representatives to develop
age-appropriate projects for the three grades they would work with in the
visioning process: 3rd, 8th and 11th. She said that once they have developed the
curriculum, they would contact the private schools and offer them the opportunity
to participate also.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 1
Ms. Mills stated that Ms. Russell suggested working with the Parent-Student
Organizations (PSOs). Councilor Scheckla suggested getting input from foreign
exchange students. Ms. Mills said that most foreign exchange students
participated when they were juniors, and that they hoped to include them with the
other 11th graders.
Ms. Mills reported that the School District and Board were interested and excited
at this opportunity. She reviewed the future tasks staff has planned. These
included selecting the consultant, announcing the project at civic and community
groups (including businesses not represented by the Chamber), development of a
logo by the school children, and preparing the community survey. They intended
to update Council every four to six weeks.
Mr. Monahan asked Council to inform staff of any feedback they received from
citizens, either positive or negative. He commented on the possibilities of
increasing opportunities for volunteerism in the City through this process.
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Ms. Newton said that they
intended to include areas such as Walnut Island and Bull Mountain that were not
within the city limits. They would start with the CITs (many County residents
participate in them).
> Agenda Review
> Councilor Hunt raised a concern regarding the presentation of agenda items. He
cited a motion he made at the July 23 meeting (as recorded in the minutes) as an
example of a situation where it was very unclear exactly what action Council
took. He asked staff to write up the items so that Council would know what
motion to make and what language to use to make it clear, not only to the
Council but to the public. Mr. Monahan concurred.
> Mr. Monahan reported that the low bid for the roof of $94,900 came in under the
budgeted amount of $112,000; the architect has reviewed and noted his approval
of the bidder's qualifications.
Mayor Nicoli requested a change order to install new flashing on top of the
parapet to prevent leaks. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Jim
Coleman, Legal Counsel, stated that as long as both bidders bid on the same
basic project, a change order within the rules was the appropriate way to address
the Mayor's concern.
> Mr. Monahan noted the agenda packet contained copies of background
information on the Dartmouth LID. Additional documentation was available for
Council review if requested.
> Ms. Wheatley distributed a letter on the Benchview Estates matter that was
inadvertently left out of the agenda packet.
> Mr. Monahan advised the Council that the MPAC representative Jeanine Murrell
announced that she would not run for reelection to the Cornelius City Council.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 2
Since her alternate was also interested in getting off MPAC, she has requested the
cities to submit names of Councilors interested in serving on MPAC so she can
put them on a ballot. He asked the Councilors to consider whether or not any
one of them was interested in the positions. (Recorder's Note: The process for
appointment to MPAC is different from Ms. Murrell's request for action by the
Washington County Cities. Mayor Drake of Beaverton will facilitate the
appointment.)
> Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, presented the draft Charter language which
was developed with the assistance of the City Attorney's office. Discussion
followed primarily on the draft language on the changes to the Council election
process.
> Mr. Monahan reported that ODOT and Washington County gave the contractor
until September 16 to complete Durham Road; the School District has been
advised. The delay will give an opportunity for the City to work with the
contractor to do some underground wiring for the traffic signal at 79th and
Durham. This will not only avoid tearing up the new street and save the City
approximately $10,000. Mr. Monahan advised that staff checked with other
likely bidders on the signal who agreed with this direction, as long as they had an
opportunity to compete for the rest of the signal.
In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan said that technically
the street did not belong to the City yet because they signed an agreement
stipulating that the acceptance of the transfer of jurisdiction would not occur until
the project was complete.
> Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:15
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
• Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
• Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
• Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
Erin Rogers decided to wait to speak till Agenda Item 4.
Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive, addressed the issue of dealing with the
homeless in Tigard. He said that he understood that the Council would be discussing
this issue to set policy and asked that the Council consider that traditionally the Federal,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 3
State, and County governments handled welfare programs. He commented that the cities
were not equipped to deal with these kinds of things and lacked the necessary money.
He asked that the Council explore all the alternatives from sources trained in dealing
with people in desperate situations.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the
Consent Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 23, 1996
3.2 Initiate Vacation Proceedings - SW Torland Court - Resolution No. 96-49
3.3 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for City Hall Roof Remodel
3.4 Approve Community Development Block Grant Proposals - Resolution No. 96-50
3.5 Authorize Mayor to Sign Intergovernmental Agreement for Preparation of an
Interurban Rail Feasibility Analysis, Phase 1.
3.6 Authorize City Administrator to Approve Dedication of Reserve Strips as Rights
of Way - Resolution No. 96-51
4. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 13, 1996 CITY
COUNCIL MEETING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY
6,445 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED ON SW 135TH
AVENUE
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
C. Staff Report
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the staff report.
He reviewed the issues that came up at the August 13 meeting with regard to the
area being vacated, utility easements and referenced the responsibilities of the
property owners regarding the utilities.
Mr. Hendryx said that only the excess road right of way on 135th would be
vacated as a result of the realignment of the road; the utility easements within the
right of way remained intact. He said that property owners could fence over the
property and use it as a backyard but they could not construct a building on it.
He said that in the case of utility repairs, it was the utility company's
responsibility to restore the property to its original state.
d. Public Testimony
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing criteria.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 4
Erin Rogers, a property owner, stated that Mr. Hendryx had answered her
concern about the utility's liability to restore the property in the event of damage
due to repairs and asked if they could have that in writing. Councilor Moore
explained that it was an unwritten policy for utility companies to restore
properties to their original state for public relations considerations.
Ms. Rogers asked if the City would notify them when they accessed their
property to read the water meters. Mr. Monahan said that the City would give
advance notification except in the case of an emergency.
Ms. Rogers expressed concern about a fence blocking drainage. She said that she
spoke with John Hadley on staff who confirmed that the ponds should take most
of the water and that putting a fence in shouldn't be a problem. Mayor Nicoli
suggested contacting the Engineering Department to explore ways to handle the
drainage without blocking it.
Ms. Rogers asked if the City would pick up all costs of the vacation. Mr.
Monahan said yes.
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the attached ordinance vacating the right
of way.
f. Council Questions
g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-33
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve
Ordinance No. 96-33.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 96-33, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION
OF APPROXIMATELY 6,445 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
ON SW 135TH AVE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
OREGON.
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 5
5. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) TO CONSIDER FORWARDING CHARTER
ANIENDMENTS TO THE VOTERS ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the hearing.
b. Staff Report
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, presented the staff report. She noted the
three options before Council for a resolution to propose to the voters four charter
amendments, noting that reviewing the Charter was a Council goal for this year.
She explained that with the first language change, Councilors would no longer be
elected by position but rather the highest vote getters would win whichever seats
were up for reelection.
Ms. Wheatley reviewed the remaining three amendments. The second
amendment added the City Manager to the Charter as an Officer of the City and
specified the duties and the appointment and removal criteria. The third
amendment revised the Oath of Office language. The fourth amendment revised
the Charter language to make it gender neutral.
Ms. Wheatley reviewed the three options presented for Council consideration as
outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Monahan explained that in the current method whichever candidates filed for
a given position ran for that position only; in the proposed change, the position
numbers were eliminated and the candidates simply filed for a Council position as
a pool. Whoever got the most votes won the position. In the case of an
unexpired term vacancy, a candidate would have to file for the vacancy and
would not be part of the pool of candidates for the two full terms.
Councilor Hunt noted a conflict in language in the City Manager amendment.
Section 10 on Page 3 stated that the City Officers would be removed by the
Mayor while Section 20A said that the City Manager would be appointed by the
City Council. Ms. Wheatley agreed that Section 10 should be changed to reflect
the Council decision that the officers were to be removed by the City Council.
After brief discussion, the hearing progressed to the public testimony phase.
C. Public Testimony: None
d. Staff Recommendation
Ms. Wheatley recommended that the Council consider the three options and give
staff direction on how they would like to proceed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 6
e. Council Questions or Comments
Councilor Scheckla asked if they could split out the amendments to vote on them
separately. Mayor Nicoli concurred with splitting out the first amendment from
the others.
Councilor Moore said that the only issue of concern to him was the method by
which Councilors were elected. He said that he was neutral but leaned towards
Option B, leaving the current method in place.
Councilor Hunt said that he favored making the change, commenting that he
initiated the idea three to four years ago because of the circumstances surrounding
his election to Council. He said that he thought that the two most qualified
people as elected by the public should sit on Council, not necessarily those with
sufficient money to run a campaign. He stated that if the positions were
geographic representation, he would not favor a change but the position numbers
meant nothing once someone was on Council.
Mayor Nicoli said that he thought that the change was for the betterment of the
community. He pointed out that Council was not voting to adopt the change but
only voting to send it to the voters to let them decide if they wanted the change.
He asked if they could split the amendments on the ballot.
Mr. Coleman said that the amendments could be split on the ballot. The Council
agreed by consensus to split the amendments between the election method
amendment and the three housekeeping amendments. Ms. Wheatley left the
meeting to prepare a draft resolution for the Council's consideration later in the
evening.
f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
[The Council considered Agenda Items No. 6, 7 and 8 at this time; the order of these minutes
are being reported as shown in the order listed on the agenda.]
g. Council Consideration: Resolutions No. 96-53 and 96-54
Mr. Coleman presented the two resolutions prepared by Ms. Wheatley. Option B
represented the Charter amendments to add the City Manager position, change the
oath of office language and revise to gender-neutral language. Option D
contained the changes in the method of electing Councilors. These two separate
resolutions, if approved, would go on as two separate ballot titles for two
separate charter amendments.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt
Resolution 96-53.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the Resolution No. 96-53.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-53 , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TIGARD SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENT TO BE VOTED ON AT THE NOVEMBER 5,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 7
two
1996, GENERAL ELECTION.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Mr. Coleman clarified that
Option D took out the position numbers for Council positions. Staff will need to
determine a way to track Council members' terms if this change is approved by
the voters.
Councilor Hunt reiterated that this was a vote to let the voters decide. Councilor
Moore said that he would support this proposal.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt
Resolution 96-54.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the Resolution 96-54.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-54 , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TIGARD SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENT TO BE VOTED ON AT THE NOVEMBER 5, 1996
GENERAL ELECTION.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
6. CONSIDER ACCEPTING BENCHVIEW STREET AS A CITY STREET
Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report on the Benchview Homeowners Association's
request that the City accept the dedication of SW Clearview Way, SW Clearview Place,
and SW Benchview Place (private streets in their subdivision) as public streets. He
explained that these streets were built as private streets in 1987 because the developer
did not want to build them to city standards. The builder gained approval for private
streets to be maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Mr. Hendryx said that the streets were constructed partially to city standards; the
substandard conditions existed with the street base, the right-of-way width, the lack of
sidewalks on one side, and the design of the entrance to the subdivision. He said that
the biggest concern in taking over private streets was the maintenance cost to the public.
Streets constructed to city standards included the long-term maintenance as part of the
design.
Mr. Hendryx reported that Benchview Court suffered damage during the winter; there
was a slide and some undercutting of the street in the cul de sac. He said that normally
the City would request that all defective and damaged materials or workmanship be
brought up to city standards prior to consideration for acceptance by the City. The
Planning Commission approved the request on July 1 subject to staff conditions; these
included requiring the Association to pay for all repairs to correct the existing damage or
defects prior to acceptance by the City, to prepare the right-of-way dedication documents
to convert private streets to public streets, and to increase the width of the right of way
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 8
to 38 feet for sidewalk and street lights.
Mr. Hendryx reported that as a result of damage from the slide, three lots in the
Benchview subdivision were involved in tort litigation which also involved the City; this
occurred after the Planning Commission decision. He said that because of these legal
issues and the need to bring the damaged streets up to city standards, staff recommended
denial of the request. He noted two letters from the Association in the Council packet;
one requested the dedication while the other requested the City to take responsibility for
the repairs and preparation of documents and to allow the streetlights to remain in an
easement strip.
> Sharon Mueller, 13643 SW Benchview Place, Homeowners Association President,
commented that the Association was surprised by this agenda item because they had
thought everything was on track for the dedication. She noted that the damaged street
clouded the issue. She asked for answers to specific questions, such as who owned the
storm sewer that might have caused the damage to the cul de sac. She said that without
specific answers to some questions, it was difficult for the Association to address the
issue. She submitted another letter with specific questions listed and asked for answers
when it was convenient. She asked for a postponement of the decision until they knew
the results of the tort litigation.
In response to a request from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Hendryx stated that he preferred to see
the entire list of questions before responding. Mr. Coleman advised the Council that the
list should be referred to the City Attorney because of the litigation.
> Ruth Brzinki, 13332 SW Benchview Terrace, expressed concern about the costs to the
homeowners due to the slide, noting that all the property values were affected and that
no one could sell their house right now. She said that most of the homeowners had
nothing to do with causing the damage. She stated that homeowners should not be
responsible for the costs of repairing the damage and deficiencies in the streets;
homeowners shouldn't be allowed to have the responsibility to maintain streets because
they lacked the resources to do so. She asked that the City and the homeowners work
together to solve the problem rather than simply dropping it. She noted that the
subdivision has been trying to give the streets back for three years. She said that she felt
it was in the public's best interest to maintain those streets to allow emergency vehicles
through.
> Mike Frahler, 13985 SW Benchview Terrace, stated that approximately 85% of
Clearview Loop was built to city standards; only a short section located near the cul de
sac was substandard and it carried little traffic. He noted that recent improvements to
the street made it look like a regular city street. He commented that the change in the
staff recommendation from approval to denial was the result of the slide damage and the
lawsuits. He suggested that if the City owned the streets prior to settlement of the
lawsuits, they could assure that the streets conformed to City standards. He reviewed
the damage to the street and said that there wasn't that much to repair, although the bank
needed to be stabilized prior to winter.
Mr. Frahler pointed out that the Homeowners Association was not part of the lawsuit.
He reiterated that if the City owned the street at the time of the settlements of the
lawsuits, the City could assure restoration of the bank.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 9
Mr. Frahler stated that while he had been aware when he bought his house that there
was a private street, many people were not. He pointed out that the majority of houses
were served by 1200 feet of a private street with only six lots on a public street. He
said that most subdivisions had the majority of lots served by a public street and only a
few served by a small private street. He said that the homeowners did not know what
was expected of them in maintaining the street and that they had no means of doing so.
> Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive, commented that there was concern at the
City over funding maintenance of the current public streets. He pointed out that this was
a substandard private street intentionally built that way, possibly to deal with the difficult
drain in that area.
Mr. McAdams expressed his concern over the acceptance of private streets by the City.
He said that the real issue was that of an astute developer finding a way around building
a street to city standards: building a substandard street, giving the responsibility to the
Homeowners Association, and then asking to dedicate the street to the City. He asked
that the Council consider the planning consequences of that situation and the standard
street requirements.
Mr. McAdams noted the comment in the letter that the residents believed they were
entitled to consideration from the City to rebuild Benchview Place because they were
city taxpayers. He cited the example of the City forming an LID to improve 135th
Street, when they didn't have the money, and assessing all the homeowners to pay for
the improvement. He suggested doing something similar in this difficult situation.
Mr. McAdams referred to a statement that the street was inspected by the City and that
the homeowners had no liability. He pointed out that a street inspector could not change
the engineering design; he could only bring it to the attention of the engineer. He
reiterated the importance of considering impacts to future developments and not create a
situation where developers could get around building streets to city standards.
Mr. McAdams said that if the Council intended to accept these streets for maintenance,
that they should carefully review the lawsuit so that they did not assume additional risk.
He noted the movement of the soils in the area and asked what would be wrong with
waiting five years to determine the status of the streets and then consider accepting them
if the City was interested in doing so.
> In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Mr. Hendryx said that he was not
aware of any other similar request made to the City.
Councilor Hunt stated that he was against bringing streets into the City because he didn't
know where they would draw the line on which ones to accept and which ones to reject.
He said that he thought most private streets that were substandard were built that way by
the developer because he wanted to avoid the cost of building a street to city standards.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 10
Councilor Moore said that he was not concerned about the maintenance because private
roads had such low travel; however he took issue with the City bailing out a subdivision
whose developer put in a private street to cut down on costs and put in more lots. He
concurred with Councilor Hunt and said he would not support this request. Councilor
Moore clarified later that the problems in the cul de sac and the events of recent months
had no bearing on his decision.
Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilors Hunt and Moore. He expressed
sympathy for the property owners who were left "holding the bag" by the developer.
Mayor Nicoli concurred with the other Councilors that the City should not accept a street
that was not built to city standards. He said that should the homeowners bring the
streets up to city standards, he would be willing to reconsider the request. Councilor
Moore concurred. Councilor Hunt said that he wanted more discussion on the issue
before agreeing.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, that the City deny the
request for the acceptance of the dedication of those streets.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
Councilor Hunt asked for a Council discussion on prohibiting private streets in Tigard.
Mr. Monahan said that the City had the discretion not to allow private streets but spoke
for leaving in the ability to have private streets to facilitate implementation of the 2040
functional plan. He said that he heard concerns that the property owners buying into an
area might not be fully aware of such a circumstance. He said that staff required a
private street to be recorded.
Councilor Hunt commented that the average buyer was not aware of situations such as
this and reiterated his request for a Council discussion on the issue. He said that he
wasn't too concerned with implementing Metro's goals, since this might be an instance
where what was good for Metro was not good for the City. Mr. Monahan said that they
could hold that discussion but suggested waiting until the Code review and finding out
what will happen with the 2040 plan. He said that staff would also provide background
information on private streets in Tigard.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the three streets under review did look like city streets.
He said that when the majority of a subdivision was served by a private street,
something was wrong. One or two lots served by a private driveway was fine but the
majority of people should not be on private streets. He expressed his concern with what
he heard tonight with regard to this situation. He suggested finding a way to prevent
this from happening in the future.
In response to a question from the audience, Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council
decided to turn down the request but that the Homeowners Association could ask for a
reconsideration of street dedication when the streets were brought up to city standards.
He suggested that the Association discuss the matter with Greg Berry in the Engineering
Department.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 11
Councilor Hunt emphasized that bringing the streets up to city standards did not
guarantee that the City would accept them; it simply meant that they would reconsider
the request.
Mr. Monahan suggested exploring funding options, such as the City forming an LID to
cover the financing. He suggested that the property owners meet with Greg Berry,
representatives from the City Attorney's Office and Administration.
7. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING THE HAULER EFFICIENCY TASK FORCE
Ms. Mills presented the staff report. She reviewed the Council's direction last year to
the solid waste haulers to develop recommendations on efficiencies to keep solid waste
hauling costs down, to make the operation of the haulers as efficient as possible and to
form a Task Force to evaluate those recommendations. She said that the solid waste
haulers have presented a list of efficiency recommendations.
Ms. Mills said that the resolution before the Council created a Task Force to review the
efficiencies suggested by the haulers. The Task Force was to review the suggestions,
consider the financial ramifications to the rate payers, and make a final recommendation
to the Council by the end of February 1997. They would update the Council once near
the end of December. She noted that Councilor Rohlf was the proposed Task Force
member and liaison from the Council. She recommended the appointment of the Task
Force to review the efficiency suggestions in detail and report back to Council by the
end of February.
Councilor Hunt commented that part of the changes made last year had included the
haulers picking up yard debris mechanically. He cited an example in his neighborhood
where the haulers pushed the carts into a position where a mechanical arm picked up the
carts and dumped them in the back of the truck. Ms. Mills explained that the haulers
were allowed to retrofit trucks that weren't ready to be replaced yet with a mechanical
arm; the haulers did have to roll the carts into position.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 96-
52.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-52.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-52, A RESOLUTION CREATING A SOLID WASTE
EFFICIENCIES TASK FORCE AND APPOINTING MEMBERS TO ASSESS SOLID
WASTE HAULERS EFFICIENCIES SUGGESTIONS.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
8. DEVELOP A PLAN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF THE HOMELESS
Mr. Monahan noted the Council goal to develop a plan to address the problems of the
homeless. He presented the status report on the recommendations made by the 1994
Task Force, reviewing the four recommendations.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 12
The first recommendation was to adopt a severe weather policy. Mr. Monahan said that
as a result of the Council adopting that policy, Interfaith Outreach Services operated a
severe weather shelter for the past two winters in the Tigard Water Building. He stated
that there was some question now as to whether or not Interfaith Outreach was interested
in providing that service, and if not, then the City needed to explore other options or
change the policy.
The second recommendation was that the City facilitate an effort to educate the public
about the problems of the homeless. Mr. Monahan said that they have done so through
Interfaith Outreach, the CITs, and articles in Cityscape. Staff would continue with these
efforts.
The third recommendation was that the City immediately facilitate the formation of a
Eastern Washington County Task Force to create a facility to serve the homeless that
was County based, not just Tigard based. He said that Interfaith Outreach took the lead
on that and has been working on generating funding to build the RITE Center, a 30-bed
facility located in Tigard.
The fourth recommendation was that other programs be instituted or expanded to assist
the homeless people in the community. Mr. Monahan said that there has not been
significant action on this recommendation at this time. Staff has suggested that the
Community Development Needs Assessment under the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) identify homelessness as one of the needs that should be addressed. The
RITE Center was now under consideration for funding by a CDBG.
Mr. Monahan noted that staff has made progress in each of the four recommendations,
and asked for Council feedback on how to proceed from this point forward. He said that
he invited Kim Brown, Interfaith Outreach Services, to the meeting to answer
questions.
Mayor Nicoli asked if Interfaith had made a decision on the severe weather shelter yet.
Ms. Brown said that the Board has provided funding to operate the shelter on a severe
weather basis only, not on an every night basis. She explained that it was difficult to get
funding for emergency service response programs; there has been a major shift towards
self- sufficiency programs such as the residential center. Funding for the severe weather
shelter usually came from churches, the County, and the emergency shelter block grant
program.
Councilor Hunt recounted his involvement with the homeless shelter and the East
Washington County Task Force. He noted that the Task Force fell apart at one point
and nothing was done. He commented on the excellent leadership provided by Peggy
Manning for the Task Force.
Councilor Hunt said that he recommended to Council to allow Interfaith to use the
vacant City office building to save on expenses but that he did so because he thought
they would take care of more of the homeless during severe weather. He said that he
thought that building could be used as a severe weather shelter; they didn't need all the
space for offices.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 13
I
r
Councilor Hunt expressed concern that the severe weather shelter was closed last year
during the severest weather because Interfaith lacked the money to operate it and a staff
person quit. He said that he thought Interfaith should have found a replacement staff
member when the weather was so bad. He said that he supported Ms. Brown and
thought that she was doing a great job but he was disappointed in the operation of the
severe weather shelter.
Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the rumor he heard that the RITE Center
wouldn't be built to 30 beds because of wetlands.
Ms. Brown concurred that the Task Force did fall apart and lost direction. She said
that
shortly after that Interfaith received notice that they would have to vacate their 14-bed
space at the Tigard United Methodist Church by 1997. Therefore, the agency focused
on replacing those beds, which led to the formation of a Steering Committee for a capital
campaign to build the RITE Center. She said that the Steering Committee included
people from Beaverton and Tigard.
Ms. Brown said that the Steering Committee has worked very hard to look at homeless
issues in East Washington County. The first step was to build a 30-bed facility in
Tigard with another facility possibly in Beaverton. She credited the East Washington
County Task Force and Beaverton's involvement on the Steering Committee with the
current willingness by that City to acknowledge and deal with the problem of
homelessness that existed in their community. r
f
Ms. Brown said that though the Task Force died, the intent has carried on, despite the
changes in funding. She noted the cuts in federal funding for these kinds of services. F
Ms. Brown stated that the Interfaith Outreach Board and staff found the severe weather
shelter a difficult subject because it cost a lot of money while not providing any solutions .}
for the homeless. She said that she personally thought it drained resources because it
has not been used in the past as it was intended to be used by the Task Force and the
City Council. She said that she believed the intent was to provide a place for people
involved in self-sufficiency programs that lacked space.
Ms. Brown explained that sometimes the shelter was used by people who had slept
outside in Tigard for 15-20 years; this created a different environment in the shelter.
She said that the intent was to provide a safe and accessible place for families and f
singles; this has not always been the case.
Ms. Brown said that Interfaith felt that if they could not work through those issues, then
perhaps they didn't want to put money into the shelter. She explained that they have 1
worked hard this summer to address those issues through policies and felt more confident
now that they could make the shelter work the way they intended it to work. She
commented that she and Mr. Monahan needed to meet to discuss the variety of issues
involved in a severe weather shelter.
Mr. Monahan concurred that they needed to meet soon because they would be discussing
a modified program that was only available on the nights it met the criteria for severe t
weather. He said that if they were talking of using a City facility, he didn't think that
they could afford to lock one up for a four month block of time and refuse to make it `
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 14
available on a reservation basis to others; meeting space was scarce in the City. He said
that they needed to discuss whether or not the present City facility used by Interfaith for
offices was capable of serving as a severe weather shelter. He commented that they also
needed to discuss health concerns regarding preventing the spread of tuberculosis.
In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Ms. Brown stated that in Washington
County only Tigard and Hillsboro had homeless shelters, and that this was the only
severe weather shelter in the entire County.
Councilor Moore commented that in the past months he has gotten the impression that
the shelters needed to be supported or expanded to other cities. Councilor Hunt said that
the Task Force goal was for all the cities to come together to build a bigger facility in
East Washington County.
Ms. Brown commented that they needed to maintain the distinction between a severe
weather shelter and a long-term center that provided case management, childcare, and
employment opportunities. She said that she did not think that the County was interested
in funding any kind of emergency response, such as a severe weather shelter, due to
limited funding.
Ms. Brown said that the issue with the site of the RITE Center wasn't necessarily the
wetlands; the issue was really the site itself and its limitations. She pointed out that
funding was coming from the CDBG which had stricter environmental regulations --
drainage and fill on the site were problems. She said that the issue was not whether or
not the site could support a building but the cost of preparing the site for a building.
Councilor Scheckla asked how Interfaith used the dollars they saved by moving into the
City building rent free. Ms. Brown said that the money was used to fill in on different
programs, including the severe weather shelter and the emergency services program.
Councilor Scheckla suggested that Ms. Brown research a potential liability in the
emergency services program regarding gas vouchers. Legally they could only give them
out to someone with a valid driver's license and proof of insurance; if they gave them
out to an unqualified person who then had an accident, Interfaith could be liable.
Mayor Nicoli stated that Interfaith's program was the type of program the community
would like to have; it addressed both a need in Tigard and in East Washington County.
He commented that any program that operated on donations and grants had difficulty
making ends meet.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the positive forward movement on the RITE Center has
been substantial: they are obtaining funding and support from the Mayors of Beaverton
and Tualatin. He noted the participation of Roy Rogers from the County Commission
also. He said that he thought they would meet their goals. He expressed his
disappointment at losing the severe weather shelter to lack of funding; however, he said
he did not expect Interfaith to operate the shelter without money.
Mayor Nicoli suggested looking hard at identifying other options to find alternate space
that would work with Interfaith's limited resources. He asked that Ms. Brown meet with
Mr. Monahan in the next couple of weeks and report back to Council. He said that he
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 15
would continue to spend his personal time supporting the fundraising because it was a
positive thing for the community.
Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Council, except for the severe weather shelter, not move
forward until they got beyond the funding and site considerations for the RITE Center.
Councilor Moore said that he would support the majority Council position.
Councilor Hunt concurred with Mayor Nicoli's suggestion as did Councilor Scheckla.
9. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m.
Attest: A-+—ht
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
ep" i
or, City of Tigard
Date: / (�
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 16
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 1, 1996
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson,
DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Brian Rager,
Engineering Manager; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission
Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Dick Bewersdorff introduced Michael Neff, the newest member of the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission Secretary provided the Commissioners
with copies of testimony given at a recent MPAC meeting regarding Metro 2040.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
Commissioner Padgett moved and Commissioner Holland seconded a motion to
approve the May 20, 1996, meeting minutes as written. A voice vote was taken
and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioners Anderson and Neff
abstained.
President Wilson corrected the minutes of June 3, 1996, pointing out that he was
absent and did not call the meeting to order, as was stated. Commissioner
Padgett moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded a motion to approve the
minutes as amended. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority
vote. Commissioners Collson, Neff, and Wilson abstained.
5. BENCHVIEW STREET DEDICATION
Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff presented the staff report on behalf of the City.
He said the Benchview Homeowners Association was requesting the City accept
dedication and take over the street maintenance. He said the streets were built in
1987 as private streets and do not meet City standards; they are substandard in
width and lack sidewalks on one side.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- July 1, 1996-Page 1
Bewersdorff said that staff recommendation was for the Planning Commission to
consider the dedication request, subject to the conditions on the staff report. The
conditions were for 1) City staff to conduct an inspection of the streets to determine
damage or defects, with the Homeowners Association paying for all repairs, and 2)
the Homeowners Association to be responsible for preparing or having the City
prepare the dedication documents.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Ed Mueller, 13643 SW Benchview PI., Tigard, OR 97223, referred to a letter sent
by the Benchview Homeowners Association. He said the major concern is with the
proposal to inspect and ask the homeowners to pay for any improvements or
damage. He said the damage to the cul-de-sac appears to have been caused by
the Rea's house slide and damaged storm sewer.
Mueller said the homeowners feel that when the street was put in, the City
accepted it in terms of inspection for grading, drainage, and other things. He said
they do not feel they have done anything to cause this problem. He said they
would like the Commission to include repair of the cul-de-sac as a part of the
general clean up and stabilization of the slope.
Mueller asked if it was possible for PGE to maintain the right-of-way for street
lights, under their Option B tariff, since the wiring is within their easement. He said
this would save the homeowners the cost of changing the right-of-way.
Mueller said the homeowners don't have experience in preparing dedication
documents and would like to City to do this, as a part of the process. He said they
feel like they're paying above average property taxes and they don't have a lot of
money in the Homeowners Association.
Commissioner Griffith asked Mueller if he was aware that this was a private street
when he bought the property and that it was the responsibility of the homeowners
to maintain the private roads. Mueller answered that he didn't recall, but there
were terms and conditions which he signed as part of buying the property.
Commissioner Griffith asked what was wrong with the cul-de-sac. Mueller said he
was not aware that anything was wrong with it, that he was referring to a letter
from the Engineering/Planning departments which say there is some damage to it.
Commissioner Griffith asked staff if the storm sewers were private or public.
Engineering Manager Brian Rager answered that he believed the storm drainage
in front of the street is a private line and that the sanitary sewer is probably public.
Griffith asked that if this were adopted, would we be assuming responsibility for the
storm sewer as well. Rager answered yes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- July 1, 1996-Page 2
44010
Kerry Rea, 13690 SW Benchview PI., Tigard, OR 97223, said it was his
understanding that the storm drain was the City's and that the City has been
involved in terms of repair and mitigating the damage. He also said that David
Scott (Building Official) believes there is some separation in the curb from the
street.
Rea advised that there were 3 lots along the street that suffered damage from the
winter flood. He said it was his position that the City has serious responsibility in
this soil failure. He advised that his attorney has served a claim against the City;
that in the planning process there were several mistakes made by several parties,
including the City in development of the street.
Commissioner Griffith asked Rea if he was aware it was a private street when he
bought the property and it was the responsibility of the homeowners. Rea
answered that he believed so. Rea stated that people in the neighborhood are
paying hefty taxes and he doesn't think their standard of service should be any
different than anyone else's.
The Commissioners clarified with Rea that he was paying the same millage rate as
other Tigard citizens, but the homes in his neighborhood are more expensive than
the average home, so they are paying a higher total dollar amount.
The Commissioners asked staff if they should make a decision on this if there was
litigation involved. Dick Bewersdorff advised that the City Attorney is dealing with
the litigation matters and that the Commissioners are just making a
recommendation to Council regarding the dedication. Bewersdorff said Council
will deal with the financial issues that the Homeowners Association have
suggested.
Commissioner Griffith asked staff if the storm and sanitary sewers were up to City
and USA standards or if they were also substandard. Brian Rager answered that
he believed the sanitary and storm sewer systems were probably inspected by the
City.
Patrick Foster, 13414 SW Clearview Way, Tigard, OR 97223, advised that the
sanitary and storm drainage systems were the property of the City. He said the
homeowners were concerned over the lack of some public services that they were
paying for but were not receiving, e.g., street sanding, police patrolling, removal of
parked cars. He said the homeowners would like to have the streets dedicated to
the City.
Ruth Lisicki, 13332 SW Benchview Terrace, Tigard, OR 97223, said she was not
aware of the private streets when she bought her home. She said there is a lot of
confusion because some of the streets are private and some are public, so the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- July 1, 1996-Page 3
f
homeowners do not know who is responsible for what. She commented that the
homeowners who live on private streets pay full taxes, but are not entitled to public
services on their streets.
Commissioner Griffith asked staff if they had an estimate of what this would cost
the homeowners. Dick Bewersdorff answered that the engineers would have to do
a complete inspection and would determine the cost at that time. He said staffs
recommendation is that these costs are beyond maintenance and that bringing the
street up to City standards would be appropriate, as opposed to having the rest of
City taxpayers pay the cost. He said the inspection would not be done until the
City makes a decision on the dedication.
Commissioner Padgett asked that if this was an annexation situation, would the
City require more, less, or the same amount of work from the homeowners.
Bewersdorff answered that normally with an annexation, we don't accept the
streets for maintenance until they're brought up to standard.
Commissioner Holland remarked that, in the future, he would have second
thoughts about allowing private streets in new developments.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
The Commissioners talked about the advantages a developer receives when
allowed to put in private, substandard streets and the problems that arise after the
fact.
Commissioner Padgett remarked that the homeowners chose to buy these homes
and accepted the private streets, but now they want the City to bear the cost of
changing the streets from private to public. He said he thought the people who
want to make the change should bear the cost. He also said he did not think the
conditions listed in the staff report were unreasonable and he supported the staff
report.
Commissioner Anderson agreed, likening the situation to older neighborhoods with
gravel streets who form an LID to have the streets paved.
In response to a question from the audience, Dick Bewersdorff said that the
homeowners might pay for the repairs with an LID or they could be done by private
engineers subject to City inspection.
Commissioner Holland moved to approve the dedication as per the staff report and
let the City Council decide the financial end of it. Some Commissioners asked for
clarification of the motion. Holland said the motion was exactly as the staff report
states, with the conditions listed on the staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- July 1, 1996-Page 4
A question was raised about the 38' right-of-way that doesn't currently exist. Dick
Bewersdorff suggested that the light utility could be put in an easement. Brian
Rager advised that, typically, street lights are in the public right-of-way. He said
that if the City took these over it would not be in conformance with the way we
normally take over a public street, but it is a decision Council can make. He said
that a public utility easement could probably afford the City the same accessibility
to the street lights.
After further discussion, Commissioner DeFrang seconded the motion. A voice
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Ed Mueller asked if this request could be withdrawn in the future if the
homeowners find that it is cost prohibitive. The Commissioners advised him that
this was only a recommendation to Council and that the homeowners could
withdraw the request if they chose to do so.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS
Dick Bewersdorff presented a draft copy of by-laws and asked the Commissioners
to decide if they served the purpose. President Wilson remarked that the
Commission was more interested in having rules of order that were not as
complicated as Roberts. He said he was looking for something that was a little bit
more organized, but was not opposed to having by-laws. He said he would like to
see something that would address possible situations that the by-laws don't speak
to.
President Wilson referred to Article II, "Responsibilities of Commission". With
regard to Planning Commission and CIT roles, he would like to see this section
filled in by Council. Commissioner Holland suggested adopting the by-laws and
then have Council make changes if they wanted to.
Commissioner Anderson referred to Article 11, Section 1, Article B "The
Commission may assist the Council in the formulation of a Capital Improvement
Program...". Commissioner Holland suggested changing the word may to will.
Commissioner Padgett referred to Article IV, Section 8, "At any meeting of the
commission, a quorum shall be a majority of the members present of the
commission". He thought this might be confusing and suggested transposing the
words to read "...present members...".
The Commissioners talked about adding a visitor's agenda to the regular agenda.
Commissioner Padgett suggested that citizens should approach City staff if they
wanted to put an item on the regular Planning Commission agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- July 1, 1996-Page 5
Commissioner Holland moved to adopt the draft with the changes suggested for
Article 11, Section 1, Article B and Article IV, Section 8. Commissioner Griffith
seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously. NOTE: TO AVOID AMBIGUITY WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE IV,
SECTION 8, COMMISSIONER PADGETT LATER SUGGESTED CHANGING
THE WORDING TO READ: "AT ANY MEETING OF THE COMMISSION, A
QUORUM SHALL BE A MAJORITY OF THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION".
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
iX4 A
Jerr y r, Planning 06mmis ' n Secretary
A "President
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- July 1, 1996-Page 6
err' W.rd
t 1100011
\� � CITY OF TIGARD
PUBLIC NOTICE:
e \
Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda
item should sign on the appropriate sign-
up sheet(s). If no sheet is available ask
REN \ ;, \\\\ to be recognized by the Mayor at the
beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's
Agenda items are asked to be two
minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting
either the Mayor or the City Administrator.
Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying
be present by 7:15 P.M. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business
a Mems nn Barri in ��y order after 7 30 n m
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and
should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the
Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your
need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 1
`vrw
AGENDA
Tigard City Council Meeting - August 27, 1996
• STUDY MEETING
> UPDATE: Visioning Project
• Assistant to the City Administrator and Management Analyst/Risk
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into
Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 1
(e), 8z (h) to discuss labor relations real ( ) (ns,
. property transactions,
current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions
within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this
meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the
news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose
any information discussed during this session.
> Agenda Review
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1 .1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board
1 .2 Roll Call
1 .3 Pledge of Allegiance
1 .4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1 .5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, 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 Approve City Council Minutes - July 23, 1996
3.2 Initiate Vacation Proceedings - S.W. Torland Court - Resolution No.
96-
3.3 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for City Hall Roof Remodel
3.4 Approve Community Development Block Grant Proposals
Resolution No. 96- -
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 2
3.5 Authorize Mayor to Sign Intergovernmental Agreement for
Preparation of an Interurban Rail Feasibility Analysis, Phase 1 .
3.6 Authorize City Administrator to
as Rights of Way - Resolution No. 96 Approve Dedication of Reserve Strips
Content saenda - It me Ramn •e•+ �'•• � ara •••
�` ' ' Any items
requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate
discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted
on those items which do not need discussion.
4. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 13, 1996 CITY
COUNCIL MEETING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 6,445 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
LOCATED ON SW 13STH AVENUE
The request was initiated by the City Council on June 11, 1996. Any
interested person may appear and be heard for or ro against the
vacation of said public right of g proposed
way. Any written objections or
remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by August 27,
1996, by 7:30 p.m.
a. Continue Public Hearing
b• Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d• Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal)
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
9. CIose Public Hearing
h• Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-
S. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) TO CONSIDER FORWARDING
CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO THE VOTERS ON NOVEMBER S, 1996
3. Public Hearing Opened
b. Staff Report (Community Development Department)
C. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents)
d. Staff Recommendation
e. Council Questions or Comments
f• Public Hearing Closed
9. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 3
6. CONSIDER ACCEPTING BENCHVIEW STREET AS A CITY STREET
• Staff Report: Community Development Director
• Council Consideration
7. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING THE HAILER EFFICIENCY TASK FORCE
• Staff Report: Management Analyst/Risk
• Council Consideration
8. DEVELOP A PLAN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF THE HOMELESS
• Staff Report: City Administrator
• Council Consideration
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1 ) (d), (e), at (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are
confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this
session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
11 . ADJOURNMENT
is\3dm\C2t1y\ca\960827.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 1996 - PAGE 4
AGENDA ITEM 7 �o
For Agenda of
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCTL AGENDA ITEM SU1LtiLARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Street view •t
Own.-rs* Associationi
PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK '` ITY ADMIN 0
ISSIT BEFORE TH COUNCIL
Should the City Council accept the Benchview Estates Home Owners' Association request to dedicate the streets
in their subdivision to the public?
STAFF RECONiL NDATION
It is recommended that the City Council deny the request to accept dedication of the Benchview streets.
NFORMATT01 Si ra R v
The Benchview Estates Home Owners' Association has requested that the City accept dedication of the streets
within their subdivision as public streets. The streets were built as private streets when the subdivision was
developed in 1937. The developer did not want to build the streets to City standards and, therefore, requested and
wined approval for private streets. The streets were to be maintained by the Home Owners' Association.
The streets are partially constructed to City standards. Substandard conditions include street base, right-of-way
width, lack of sidewalks on one side and entrance apron design.gn• Normally the biggest concern in taking over
private streets is maintenance costs. Streets are brought up to City standards during original construction or
through Iocal improvement districts or other payment arrangements.
Another issue to consider is the cost to repair the Benchview Court cul-de-sac that was damaged during last
winter's slides. Regardless of the slide damage, the City would, normally, request that all defective or damaged
areas be paid for prior to the City accepting dedication.
The attached staff memorandum explains the process involved for considering dedication as well as an evaluation
of the code provisions. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the Association at its July 1, 1996
meeting. The Planning Commission recommended acceptance of the dedication subject to the conditions proposed
by staff. These conditions call for the Association to pay for any and all repairs to correct existing damage or
defects prior to acceptance and to prepare the necessary right-of-wav dedication documentation converting the
private tracts to public right-of-way as well as increasing the right-of-way to 38 feet to account for all of the
sidewalk area and street lights.
'+Yr+ *IW,'
Because of damage to last winter's slides, there are three lots in the Benchview Subdivision involved in tort
litigation. The issues related to these claims has progressed since the time of the Planning Commission's review.
These legal issues and the need to bring the streets that were damaged up to satisfactory construction standards
lead the staff to recommend that the dedication be denied. If the Council chooses to accept dedication, staff
suggests additional conditions to those recommended by the Planning Commission. These would include delaying
acceptance until all corrective action is taken relative to the three lots under tort litigation as well as an
indemnification related to the construction, repair and damage related to the storm and slides of last winter. Such
conditions would have to be drafted into an agreement by the City Attorney's office.
Also, attached are two letters from the Home Owners' Association. One requests dedication. The other letter
requests that the City take the responsibility for the repair and preparation of the dedication documentation. It also
suggests whether or not it would be possible for the street lights to remain in an easement strip. Relative to an
easement strip, increasing the right-of-way to include the street lights does the same thing and eliminates having a
street right-of-way easement plus a street light easement adjacent to each other.
OTHER A AMC Of-%XTQT1FRFn
1• Approve the dedication of the street in its current condition.
?. Deny the request.
3. Require the street to bebrought to all or part of the City standards (repair, sidewalks, street base,
right-of-way, aprons, etc.)
FISCAL NOTES
Costs to the City vill depend on the circumstances under which dedication is or is not allowed.
i:47cyaide'•sumbrnEpd wm
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Engineering and Planning
DATE: June 4, 1996
SUBJECT: Street Dedication Request in Benchview Estates
Back,ound
The Benchview Estates Homeowner's Association is requesting that the City accept dedication of
the streets in their subdivision as public streets. The sweets were built as private streets alone Nv ith
the Benchview subdivision in 1987. In the typical development process, streets are built to Ciro
standards and dedicated to the public as a part of platting of a subdivision. In this case. the
developer did not want to build the streets to city standards and, therefore, requested and gained
approval for private streets. The streets were to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
The Association now wants the City to take over maintenance. A letter from the Homeowner's
Association is attached.
The streets are partially constructed to City standards. Street base, right-of-way width, lack of
sidewalks on one side and apron design do not meet City standards. Normally, the biggest concern
in taking, over private streets is in maintenance costs. The Public Works Department has indicated
that they could take over maintenance.
Perhaps a greater issue is the cost of repair of the Benchview Court cul de sac that was damaged in
last winter's slides. Property owners as well as the Homeowner's Association have been notified of
the need to correct the slope hazard deficiency. Both the Engineering and Public Works
Departments recommend that the City inspect the streets to determine defective or damaged areas
and that the Home Owners Association pay for any and all repairs prior to the City accepti
dedication. ng
The private streets in Benchview have a right-of-way of 34 feet. This does not include all of the
sidewalk that exists nor does it include the street lights. To include the sidewalk and street lights in
the dedication would require a 38 foot right-of-way according to the Engineering Department. This
extra right-of-way would create non conforming setbacks for some houses. The only practical
effect of this type of non conformity would be that any structures would not be able to be enlarged
4WrW
to increase the non conformity. In other words, such structures simply would not be able to extend
past the existing building lines. This issue should affect few of the homes.
The fact that the street would be non conforming to base. sidewalks and concrete entrance aprons as
well as setbacks is relatively inconsequential if the City accepts dedication.
The process for dedication would require authorization by the street owners (Homeowner's
Association) by legal signature to dedicate the streets. The request needs a recommendation by the
Planning Commission. The Cit} Council must make the final decision. While nothing in the code
requires a public hearing, testimony could be taken by both bodies. Staff has sent notice of the
pending consideration by the Planning Commission and Council to the Home Owners Association
and the property owners.
Code Section 18.164.030 B. indicates that "Right-of-way shall be created through the approval of a
final subdivision plat or major partition; however the Council may approve the creation of a street
by acceptance of a deed, providing that such street is deemed essential for the purpose of general
traffic circulation."
Code Section 18.164.030 B. a. (i). states:
a. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance
with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the
following conditions are found by the Council to be present:
(1) Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for the
purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an
incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street
for public use;
Code Section 18.164.030 B. c. states:
c. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name "the public"as
grantee.
'ode Eval ration
SW Clearview Way, SW Clearview Place and SW Benchview Place are obviously necessary for
traffic circulation to get to and from the homes in the Benchview Estates Subdivision. The
necessary circulation, however, can be accommodated whether the streets are private or public.
This is primarily a question of whether the streets should be'maintained by the City. The property
owners in Benchview Estates would indicate that they pay taxes for the maintenance of streets. The
question for the City is whether these streets would create a disproportionate cost for maintenance.
The City has street standards to help ensure the costs of maintenance are reasonable.
Since the subdivision of land involved was subdivided in 1987, the establishment of the street is
clearly not for subdivision purposes at this point. ------
Options
1. Approve the dedication of the street as is.
2. Deny the request.
3. Require the street to be brought up to all or part of the City standards (repair, sidewalks, street
base, right-of-way,aprons, etc.)
Recommendation .
It is suggested that the City Planning Commission and Council consider the Home Owners
Association request to accept dedication of the Benchview Estates streets. Acceptance of
dedication should be conditioned on the following:
1. The City staff will conduct an inspection of the streets to determine damage or defects. The
Home Owners Association shall pay for any and all repairs to correct existing damage or defects
prior to dedication and acceptance by the City..
I. The Home Owners Association shall prepare the necessary, ROW dedication documentation that
«-ill convert the existing private tracts to public ROW. The ROW shall be increased to 38 feet to
account for all of the sidewalk and street Ii-hts.
is\curpin\dick\benvded.mem
06/04/96 1:06 PM
,
%moo
RECD M Y 0 f 1955
Ian• 1996
.hones Flendno,
Communiry Development Director
Cir*,' of Tigard
1;1?i SIX Hall Blvd.
Tigard. Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Hendnl:
I would like to thank you- however belatedh•. for ha--ing Gary .AJtson attend the Benchvei«
Homeowners' ,-association annual meeing. He answered questions bra ten and
subsequenth•, the homeowners were able to conduct a more thorough investigation
regarding the construction of the streets, as well as adherence to current cin codes. IN'e
are now prepared to formally request the dedication of the streets in the Bench-view hstates
I SubdiNision, to the City of Tigard.
We are a small subdivision. with verN little expertise and funding available to adequateh•
maintain these streets. 'A-'e feel strongly that the city
continued, safest. would be best served, now and in the
future, to take these streets, and ensure a more effe<,;tive control on their upkeep, and
Our group has researched the construction of these streets and ha-%,t concluded the
folloning:
On March 11. 1996 a representative of our association talked to Brian RaQer regarding
Ciearview Loop. He stated that this portion of the subdivision 'is built to city
standards. -
A short section in Benchview Court has six inches of crushed rock instead of nine, but it
docs hays three inches of asphalt which meets current standards. cis section of Street is a
dead cnd. Iess than a block long, with vert• little traffic. Because of the low traffic usage
We feel that the long tern maintenance costs m,-ill be less than a strut with normal or hcaxt•
traffic. Tclercfbre we are requesting a variance so the city may ace-pt this section as -
COI:Siruct �•d.
ia'1 addressing the SSLLe of a side:rall: on boh sides. We request the city consider once
again that L. is is a small subdivision. traffic is fight and used mainh by residents. The trend
in new developments as demonstrated at Forest Heighis. and ash Creek Meadows, is to
construct sidewaiks on oniv one side of the street. Rithour the second sidewalk, no utility_
easement problems zest and it will not be necessary to survey setbacks of the :fisting
houses. -
ice, �r
The nomeL`wners have discussed a possibie solution to the concrete aprons. We would be
wiDina to coat these areas with a coating of asphalt to indicate their public status. We reel
the cosr to move the concrete aprons, no matter who would pay,just to designate public
scree:s, is not an etEcient use of funds.
We feel strong that the street light fee would not be neccssarv. Per our discussion with
Gary A son. this fec would not be applicable since we have acid for operation of these
strecdli-hts for the last several years. In addition we have been pa%ing the full rate on our
property taxes. Ww•a understand the purpose of this tee is to allothe dirt• to collect. up
front, operating costs for streetlights in new subdivisions until the circ• can collect tees
throush property taxes. The homeowners have already paid up front costs in addition to
=xcs for this service.
The homeowners feel that while the police department does perform random patrol
functions as a courtesy. the police are not in a position to enforce minor traftic probicros,
such as speeding and parking violations.
«dile speeding is always a concern, a more serious concern is that poor parked vehicles
could block free access by emergency vehicles such as fire and rescue. 't this time we
have no safe meshed to discourage or remove vehicles or :equipment parked on the streets
which could lead to a delay in the response of emergency vehicles.
%Ve hope to hear from the cilli• as soon as possible regarding the next step in this process as
we are committed to the task at hand. Your open discussion and clear communication with
us is appreciated.
S inccreh,
, n �
;Z adl Usicki
S:.cretan Benchtlew t:omeow'ners Associadon
Nide Frahier
Treasurer Benchl-iew• Homcot-vncrs .•-ssociadon
:LT Mcoa
� r
4 S �
� V
cn
N
N
DRIVE 3
O g g
-j Y �SRNRIOGE TERRACE
ui
yS1k `Ind - VEN a 8� �� +� •g• *i4
s i ` x
pea
= 3$ O $ $ SS ��,�s• g 1 0630.
y
as
cli
Zn
LLJ
r _
i
gg
• 1
i�
SEA
� � �g 7 ^+, n+ S •^•• n 8
o= p ! Ab
9
4S/>I/Z Q3rr�1d X:1 8'IX3tSS3SSV
�.A
r
3E. CHtiUW ESTATES H&,(EOWti7ER'S ASSOCIATION
13643 SW BENCHvjEw PLACE
TIGARD, OR 97123
(503) 590-1-710
FAX (503) 590-7319
June 13. I996
City of Tigard
Enginc-ring and Planning Commission
(:125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard. OR 97223
ATTN: Richard Bcwersdorf
Dear fir. Bewersforf
Thank you for all.our assistartcl- in working toward a street dedication to Tigard from Benchview Estates.
Your tetter of June 4. 1996 is very concise and fairly represents the current status.
=iowcv=. there are a few minor points where we would appreciate ftuther clarification or a slight change
in dirxion.
The first is contained in the third paragraph of the first page. You are discussing the damage from the
hinter slides. Our cul de sac was damaged as a result of the Rea's house slide and the damaged sewer.
The stabilization of the slope and the destruction of the Rea*s house could feather damage the s de sac
(sec David Scott's Ietter of June�. 1996). We think it would be more appropriate for the qty to take on
the responsibility of this repair as part of their general repair obligations. We are concerned that we are
not experts in this type of work and could cause mom harm to other repair efforts than it would cast the
city to do this repair. It simp(irics the number of
litigation. Also. if thew was a d parties involved in coordination. approvals. and
ry inspection that originally accepted the street and lot stabilization when
built.why should the Homeowner's Association be cxpecud to pay now?
The second item concerns the right of way issues. particularly, the vie-, lights. Would it be possible for
the suect lights to remain in the public utility easement strip as they are currently? PGE would maintain
tariff.them as located in the PUE under their"OPTION B- tariff. PGE-s wiring is located in the PUE.
viming to your recemmendation that the Homeowner's Association prepare the necessary ROW
dedication documentation. We would like to ask that the stag'of the city prepare this docune' Itis
would assure the proper preparation in accordance with the needs of the city. Our Homeowner's
association has ben paying above average property ta-ces without ciry maintenance on streets or street
lights and thea is no funds available to pay the can of attorney fees.
We thank you for your consideration and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely.
1
Sharon L. MueIler
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 1, 1996
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hail, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
CommissmnArs present. president Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson,
DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar
Staff Pre1�nt• Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, Brian Rager,
Engineering Manager, Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission
Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Dick Bewersdorff introduced Michael Neff, the newest
er of the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission Secretary provided,the Commissioners
with copies of testimony given at a recent MPAC meeting regarding Metro 2040.
4. APPROVE MEETING MiNUTES
Commissioner Padgett moved and Commissioner Holland seconded a motion to
approve the May 20, 1996, meeting minutes as written. A voice vote was taken
and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioner Anderson abstained.
President Wilson corrected the minutes of June 3, 1996, pointing out that he was
absent and did not call the meeting to order, as was stated. Commissioner
Padgett moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded a motion to approve the
minutes as amended. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority
vote. Commissioners Collson, Neff, and Wilson abstained.
�• BENCHViEW STREET DEDICATION
Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff presented the stag report on behalf of the City.
He said the Benchview Homeowners Association was requesting the City accept
dedication and take over the street maintenance. He said the streets were built in
1987 as private streets and do not meet City standards; they are substandard in
width and lack sidewalks on one side.
Bewersdorff said that normally there would be a concern over cost of
maintenance, but the City's Public Works Department has indicated that the cost
of maintaining the streets would not be much more in expense.
PLA.NNNG CONIMSSION%1EE'TNG NIINLTES- July 1, 1996-Page I
Bewersdorff said that staff recommendation was for the Planning Commission to
consider the dedication request, subject to the conditions on the staff report. The
conditions were for 1) City staff to conduct an inspection of the streets to determine
damage or defects, with the Homeowners Association paying for all repairs, and 2)
the Homeowners Association to be responsible for preparing or having the City
prepare the dedication documents.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Ed Mueller, 13643 SW Benchview PI., Tigard, OR 97223, referred to a letter sent
by the Senchview Homeowners Association. He said the major concern is with the
proposal to inspect and ask the homeowners to pay for any improvements or
damage. He said the damage to the cul-de-sac appears to have been caused by
the Rea's house slide and damaged storm sewer.
Mueller said the homeowners feel that when the street was put in, the City
accepted it in terms of inspection for grading, drainage, and other things. He said
they do not feel they have done anything to cause this problem. He said they
would like the Commission to include repair of the cul-de-sac as a part of the
general clean up and stabilization of the slope.
Mueller asked if it was possible for PGE to maintain the right-of-way for street
lights, under their Option B tariff, since the wiring is within their easement. He said
this would save the homeowners the cost of changing the right-of-way.
Mueller said the homeowners don't have experience in preparing dedication
documents and would like to City to do this, as a part of the process. He said they
feel like they're paying above average propery taxes and they don't have a lot of
money in the Homeowners Association.
Commissioner Griffith asked Mueller if he was aware that this was a private street
when he bought the property and that it was the responsibility of the homeowners
to maintain the private reads. Mueller answered that he didn't recall, but there
were terms and conditions which he signed as part of buying the property.
Commissioner Griffith asked what was wrong with the cul-de-sac. Mueller said he
was not aware that anything was wrong with it, that he was referring to a letter
from the Engineering/Planning departments which say there is some damage to it.
Commissioner Griffith asked staff if the storm sewers were private or public.
Engineering Manager Brian Rager answered that he believed the storm drainage
in front of the street is a private line and that the sanitary sewer is probably public.
Griffith asked that if this were adopted, would we be assuming responsibility for the
storm sewer as well. Rager answered yes.
PLANK G COivLNIISSION MEE i ,'G:MINUTES- July 1, 1996.Page 2
Kerry Rea, 13690 SW Benchview PI., Tigard, OR 97223, said it was his
understanding that the storm drain was the City's and that the City has been
involved in terms of repair and mitigating the damage. He also said that David
Scott (Building Official) believes there is some separation in the curb from the
street.
Rea advised that there were 3 lots along the street that suffered damage from the
winter flood. He said it was his position that the City has serious responsibility in
this soil failure. He advised that his attorney has served a claim against the City;
that in the planning process there were several mistakes made by several parties,
including the City in development of the street.
Commissioner Griffith asked Rea if he was aware it was a private street when he
bought the property and it was the responsibility of the homeowners. Rea
answered that he believed so. Rea stated that people in the neighborhood are
paying hefty taxes and he doesn't think their standard of service should be any
different than anyone else's.
The Commissioners clarified with Rea that he was paying the same millage rate as
other Tigard citizens, but the homes in his neighborhood are more expensive than
the average home, so they are paying a higher total dollar amount.
The Commissioners asked staff if they should make a decision on this if there was
litigation involved. Dick BewersdorfF advised that the City Attorney is dealing with
the litigation matters and that the Commissioners are just making a
recommendation to Council regarding the dedication. Bewersdorff said Council
will deal with the financial issues that the Homeowners Association have
suggested.
Commissioner Griffith asked staff if the storm and sanitary sewers were up to City
and USA standards or if they were also substandard. Brian Rager answered that
he believed the sanitary and storm sewer systems were probably inspected by the
City.
Patrick Foster, 13414 S',N Clearview Way, i igard, OR 97223, advised that the
sanitary and storm drainage systems were the property of the City. He said the
homeowners were concerned over the lack of some public services that the were
lc
Paying for but were not receiving, e.g., street sanding, y
removal of
parked cars. He said the homeowners would like tohavethe streets dedicated to
the City.
Ruth Lisicki, 13332 SW Benchview Terrace, Tigard, OR 97223, said she was not
aware of the private streets when she bought her home. She said there is a lot of
confusion because some of the streets are private and some are public, so the
?LAN".N'NG CON. 11MISSIOti IME--?IG IM�,j,-mss- Duly 1, 1996-?age 3
homeowners do not know who is responsible for what. She commented that the
homeowners who live on private streets pay full taxes, but are not entitled to public
services on their streets.
Commissioner Griffith asked staff if they had an estimate of what this would cost
the homeowners. Dick Bewersdorff answered that the engineers would have to do
a complete inspection and would determine the cost at that time. He said staffs
recommendation is that these costs are beyond maintenance and that bringing the
street up to City standards would be appropriate, as opposed to having the rest of
City taxpayers pay the cost. He said the inspection would not be done until the
City makes a decision on the dedication.
Commissioner Padgett asked that if this was an annexation situation, would the
City require more, less, or the same amount of work from the homeowners.
Bewersdorff answered that normally with an annexation, we don't accept the
streets for maintenance until they're brought up to standard.
Commissioner Holland remarked that, in the future, he would have second
thoughts about allowing private streets in new developments.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
The Commissioners talked about the advantages a developer receives when
allowed to put in private, substandard streets and the problems that arise after the
fact.
Commissioner Padgett remarked that the homeowners chose to buy these homes
and ac--epted the private streets, but now they want the City to bear the cost of
changing the streets from private to public. He said he thought the people who
want to make the change should bear the cost. He also said he did not think the
conditions listed in the staff report were unreasonable and he supported the staff
report.
Commissioner Anderson agreed, likening the situation to older neighborhoods with
gravel streets who form an LID to have the streets paved.
In response to a question from the audience, Dick Bewersdor f said that the
homeowners might pay for the repairs with an LID or they could be done by private
engineers subject to City inspe .;ion.
Commissioner Holland moved to approve the dedication as per the staff report and
let the City Council decide the financial end of it. Some Commissioners asked for
clarification of the motion. Holland said the motion was exactly as the staff report
states, with the conditions listed on the staff report.
PLAN11\G CONLVISSION NIEFT NG Mr-N- LES- ;uly 1, 1996-Page 4
A question was raised about the 38' right-of-way that doesn't currently exist. Dick
Bewersdorff suggested that the light utility could be put in an easement. Brian
Rager advised that, typically, street lights are in the public right-of-way. He said
that if the City took these over it would not be in conformance with the way we
normally take over a public street, but it is a decision Council can make. He said
that a public utility easement could probably afford the City the same accessibility
to the street lights.
After further discussion, Commissioner DeFrang seconded the motion. A voice
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Ed Mueller asked if this request could be withdrawn in the future if the
homeowners find that it is cost prohibitive. The Commissioners advised him that
this was only a recommendation to Council and that the homeowners could
withdraw the request if they chose to do so.
6• PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS
Dick Bewersdcrff presented a draft copy of by-laws and asked the Commissioners
to decide if they served the purpose. President Wilson remarked that the
Commission was more interested in having rules of order that were not as
complicated as Roberts. He said he was looking for something that was a little bit
more organized, but was not opposed to having by-laws. He said he would like to
see something that would address possible situations that the by-laws don't speak
to.
President Wilson referred to Article 11, "Responsibilities of Commission". Wti-I
regard to Planning Commission and CIT roles, he would like to see this section
filled in by Council. Commissioner Holland sug
then have Council make changes if they wanted tog. adopting the by-laws and
The
Commission may assist the Council in the formulation of a Capital Improve
Commissioner Anderson referred to Article 11, Section 1, Article B
Program...". Commissioner Holland suggested changing the word may to will.ment
Commissioner Padgett referred to Article iV, Section 8, "At any meeting of the
commission, a quorum shall be a majority of the members present of the
commission". He thought this might be confusing and suggested transposing the
words to read "...present members...".
The Commissioners talked about adding a visitor's agenda to the regular agenda.
Commissioner Padgett suggested that citizens should approach City staff if they
wanted to put an item on the regular Planning Commission agenda.
PLANNING CONN- 1SSION MEL"j�,•G LiP,L-1-S- July 1. 1996-Page 5
Commissioner Holland moved to adopt the draft with the changes suggested for
Article II, Section 1, Article B and Article IV, Section 8. Commissioner Griffith
seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously. NOTE: TO AVOID AMBIGUITY WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE IV
SECTION 8, COMMISSIONER PADGE i i LATER SUGGESTED CHANGING
THE WORDING TO READ: "AT ANY MEETING OF THE COMMISSION, A
QUORUM SHALL BE A MAJORITY OF THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION".
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Nick Wilson
?,-ALT11\'G COtiLMISSION M ETING MILL'i cS- Jul• 1, 1996-Pie 6
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Engineering and Planning
DATE: June 4, 1996
SUBJECT: Street Dedication Request in Benchview Estates
Backzround
The Benchview Estates Homeowner's Association is requesting that the City accept dedication of
the streets in their subdivision as public streets. The streets were built as private streets along with
the Benchview subdivision in 1987. In the typical development process, streets are built to City
standards and dedicated to the public as a part of platting of a subdivision. In this case, the
developer did not want to build the streets to city standards and, therefore, requested and gained
approval for private streets. The streets were to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
The Association now wants the City to take over maintenance. A letter from the Homeowner's
Association is attached.
The streets are partially constructed to City standards. Street base, right-of-way width, lack of
sidewalks on one sign and apron design do not meet City standards. Normally, the biggest concern
rD
in taking over private streets is in maintenance costs. The Public Works Department has indicated
that they could take over maintenance.
Perhaps a greater issue is the cost of repair of the Benchview Court cul de sac that was damaged in
last winter's slides. Property owners as well as the Homeowner's Association have been notified of
the need to correct the slope hazard deficiency. Both the Engineering and Public Works
Departments recommend that the City inspect the streets to determine defective or damaged areas
and that the Home Owners Association pay for any and all repairs prior to the City accepting
dedication.
The private streets in Benchview have a right-of-way of 34 feet. This does not include all of the
sidewalk that exists nor does it include the street lights. To include the sidewalk and street lights in
the dedication would require a 38 foot right-of-way according to the Engineering Department. This
extra right-o-f-way would create non conforming setbacks for some houses. The only practical
effect of this type of non conformitywould be that anv structures would not be able to be enlarged
to increase the non conformity. In other words, such structures simply would not be able to extend
past the existing building lines. This issue should affect few of the homes.
The fact that the street would be non conforming to base, sidewalks and concrete entrance aprons as
well as setbacks is relatively inconsequential if the City accepts dedication.
Process
The process for dedication would require authorization by the street owners (Homeowner's
Association) by legal signature to dedicate the streets. The request needs a recommendation by the
Planning Commission. The City Council must make the final decision. While nothing in the code
requires a public hearing, testimony could be taken by both bodies. Staff has sent notice of the
pending consideration by the Planning Commission and Council to the Home Owners Association
and the property owners.
Code Section 18.164.030 B. indicates that"Right-of-way shall be created through the approval of a
final subdivision plat or major partition; however the Council may approve the creation of a street
by acceptance of a deed, providing that such street is deemed essential for the purpose of general
traffic circulation."
Code Section 18.164.030 B. a. (i). states:
a. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance
with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the
following conditions are found by the Council to be present:
(1) Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for the
purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an
incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street
for public use;
Code Section 18.164.030 B. c. states:
c. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name"the public" as
grantee.
Code Evaluation
SW Clearview Way, SW Clearview- Place and SW Benchview Place are obviously necessary for
traffic circulation to Qet to and from the homes in the Benchview Estates Subdivision. The
necessary circulation, however, can be accommodated whether the streets are private or public.
This is primarily a question of whether the streets should be maintained by the City. The property
owners in Benchview Estates would indicate that they pay taxes for the maintenance of streets. The
question for the City is whether these streets would create a disproportionate cost for maintenance.
The City has street standards to help ensure the costs of maintenance are reasonable.
Since the subdivision of land involved was subdivided in 1987, the establishment of the street is
clearly not for subdivision purposes at this point.
Options
1. Approve the dedication of the street as is.
?. Deny the request.
3. Require the street to be brought up to all or part of the City standards (repair, sidewalks, street
base, right-of-way, aprons, etc.)
Recommendation
It is suggested that the City Planning Commission and Council consider the Home Owners
Association request to accept dedication of the Benchview Estates streets. Acceptance of
dedication should be conditioned on the following:
1. The City staff will conduct an inspection of the streets to determine damage or defects. The
Home Owners Association shall pay for any and all repairs to correct existing damage or defects
prior to dedication and acceptance by the City..
2. The Home Owners Association shall prepare the necessary ROW dedication documentation that
will convert the existing private tracts to public ROW. The ROW shall be increased to 38 feet to
account for all of the sidewalk and street lights.
is\curpin\dick\benvded.mem
06/04/96 1:06 PM
CITY OF TIGARD
MEETING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION,AT A MEETING ON
MONDAY JULY 1, 1996 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125
SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE TITLE: BENCHVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION STREET DEDICATION
APPLICANT: Benchview Estates Homeowner's Association OWNER(S): Same
BY L A Development
8875 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway
Portland, OR 97225
REQUEST ➢ The Planning Commission will be considering whether or not to recommend to the
City Council that streets in the Benchview Estates Subdivision be accepted as
public streets. The Commission will listen to testimony regarding a proposal by the
Benchview Estates Homeowner's that their streets be dedicated to the public.
LOCATION: Southwest Benchview Terrace, southwest Benchview Place and southwest Clearview
Way.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY
WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND
QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320
(VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN
ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SET-UP.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN
WRITING PRIOR TO, OR AT THE TIME OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED
AT THE MEETING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION
FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND
WRITTEN TESTIMONY.
ALL DOCUMENTS IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR
COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25�) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE
CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A
COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE
CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER RICHARD BEWERSDORFF IN
THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,
TIGARD, OREGON 97223.
2S104DC-05200
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2SlDC-05300 . . . . . . . . . . -t.
BENCHVIEW ESTATES BENCHVIEW ESTATES HOME
8925 SW BEAV-HILLSDALE HWY ASSN
PORTLAND OR 97225 BY L A DEVE NT
8875 TN-HLSDL HWY
TLAND OR 97225
2S104DC-05400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-05500 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BENCHVIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNE BENCHVIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNER
ASSN ASSN
BY L A DEV NT BY L A DEVEL
8875 VTN-HLSDL HWY 8875 TN-HLSDLHWY
P TLAND OR 97225 LAND OR 97225
2S104DC-05600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-00100 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BENCHVIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ONOFREI, HORIA C
ASSN 7285 SW 174TH AVE
BY L A DEVELOPMENT ALOHA OR 97007
8875 SW BVTN-HLSDL HWY
PORTLAND OR 97225
2S104DC-00200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-00300 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LISICKI, THOMAS D AND RUTH S WAHEDI, WASI A
13332 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE 13354 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-00400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-00500 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KIRMA, VICTOR P & ANNETTE L MACHLAN, RICHARD A AND LILLIAN
15185 SW SAPPHIRE DR 13398 SW BENCHVIEW TERR
BEAVERTON OR 97007 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-00600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-00700 _
SCHULZ, GARY J & EUGENIA E KIRMAVICTOR �T E L
13638 SW BENCHVIEW PL �A�VERT�ON
PPHIRE DR
TIGARD OR 97223 OR 97007
2S104DC-00800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-00900
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REA, KERRY DOUGLAS & JAMIE TEICH SAVAGE, BRIAN
13690 SW BENCHVIEW PL PO BOX 230401
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97281
2S104DC-01000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-01100
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
CASCADE HOMES DEVELOPMENT, INC ABODE CONSTRUCTION INC
2100 NE BROADWAY SUITE 2B 12334 SW 132ND CT
PORTLAND OR 97232 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-01200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-01300
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMPTON, MICHAEL T AND JANICE M ALBARKOULI, ALBARKOULI A
11307 SW SUMMERLAKE DR 13815 SW BENCHVIEW PL
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-01400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-01500
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
NAKANO, SHOZO & FURIN BEERE, PHILIP J
680-94 OHZENJI 13749 SW BENCHVIEW PL
ASAO-KU TIGARD OR 97223
Pli
2S104DC-01600 11%o . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S1('4DC-01700
HOTAN, LOC & THUY N MUELLER, EDWIN P/SHARD
17390 NW BERNARD PL 13643 SW PL
BEAVERTON OR 97006 T' R OR 97223
2S104DC-01800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-01900 . . . . . . .
MUELLER, EDWIN P AND FRAHLER, MICHAEL W
SHARON L 13485 SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE
13643 SW BENCHVIEW PL TIGARD OR 97223
TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-02000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-02100 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CASCADE HOMES DEV C NOURI DEVELOPMENT INC
2100 WAY SUITE 2B 1079 COUNTRY COMMONS
?CRTLAND OR 97232 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034
2S104DC-02200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-02300 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABODE CONSTRUCTION, INC DARAEE, KAMIAR & SHOHREH
12334 SW 132 13403 CLEARVIEW WAY
97223 TIGARD OR 97224
2S104DC-02400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-02500 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WELLS, RICHARD M & KAREN L LESPERANCE, DALE CLEMENT AND
PO BOX 66563 DELORTO, RALPH JOSEPH
SEATTLE WA 98166 PO BOX 230434
TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-02600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-02700 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BERGER, EDMUND H/PATRICIA M NOURI�DEV�ELOPM�E13347 SW CLEARVIEW WAY 1079 ON
TIGARD OR 97223 L, �E OSWEGO OR 97034
2S104DC-02800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-02900 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DARAEE, KAMIAR & SHOHREH HUTCHINSON, LARRY A & MARGARET
13301 SW CLEARVIEW 13287 SW CLEARVIEW WAY
TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-03000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-03100 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VANCLEEF, MARK G AND SUSAN M PARKER, STEPHEN GREGORY
13265 SW CLEARVIEW WAY 13243 SW CLEARVIEW WAY
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-03200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-03300 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RICHARDS, MARK A & JULEEN M MATHUR, HEMENDRA K AND POONAM
13221 SW CLEARVIEW WAY 13189 SW CLEARVIEW WAY
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-03400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-03500
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
MCCORMICK, MICHAEL W & THOMPSON, BRUCE L & SANDRA L
KINNUNE, ELIZABETH A 13145 SW CLEARVIEW WAY
13167 SW CLEARVIEW WAY TIGARD OR 97223
TIGARD OR 97223
30f:13)
2S104DC-03600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Sl DC-03700
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
SILL, ELIZABETH M SILL, ELIZABETH M
7276 SW BEAV-HLSDL HWY 14657 SW TEAL BLVD, STE 134
PORTLAND OR 97225 BEAVERTON OR 97007
2S104DC-03800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-03900
DARBY, JOHN R & SUSAN R " " " " " "
HEREIM, MARK
13152 SW CLEARVIEW WAY MCMILLAN, JEAN
TIGARD OR 97223 13194 SW CLEARVIEW WAY
TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-04000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-04100 . . . .
MILLER, PAUL A & ROBIN K YOUNG, BRUCE A AND DEBRA J W
13512 SW CLEARVIEW PL 13534 CLEARVIEW PL
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-04200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-04300 . .
HOOGEWERFF, MARIUS A J & LOUISE LINGLE, R GEOFFREY/ELIZABETH A
13556 SW CLEARVIEW PL 13578 SW CLEARVIEW PL
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-04400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-04500
WILTON, HARRIET TIBBETTS, BRUCE A & SUSAN S
13563 CLEAR VIEW PL 13541 SW CLEARVIEW PL
TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-04600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-04700 . .
CASCADE HOMES DEVELOP " " " " "
SPICER, WILLIAM V
2100 NE ITE 2B 7279 SW ASCOT
P AND OR 97232 PORTLAND OR 97225
2S104DC-04800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-04900
THOMAS, CURTIS L & CARMEN M
FOSTER, PATRICK A & LETA M
13372 SW CLEARVIEW WAY 13414 SW CLEARVIEW WAY
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
2S104DC-05000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S104DC-05100
JONG, CHINPAI AND DALEBROUX, DONALD J & LAVERNE
JONG, KATALINA KIATVONGCHAROEN 13458 SW CLEAR VIEW WAY
13436 SW CLEARVIEW WAY TIGARD OR 97223
TIGARD OR 97223