Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/02/2019 IN4 City*of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 2,2019 - 6:30 p.m.Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 6:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 6:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-718-2419, (voice) or 503-684-2772 (IDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request,the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible.Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by cal ing: 503-718-2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (1'DD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: httD://www.tigard-or.gov/city hall/council meeting.ohp CABLE VIEWERS:The first City Council meeting of the month may be shown live on Channel 28 at 6:30 p.m.The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. 114 " City of Tigard 1cAu€a Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TTIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 2,2019 -6:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) The Consent Agenda is used for routine items such as approval of minutes,receipt of council meeting calendars, proclamations,appointments to boards and committees and approval of contracts or intergovernmental agreements with partner agencies. Detailed information on each item is available on the city's website in the packet for this meeting and in a binder at the front of Town Hall. Approval 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: A. PROCLAIM NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK B. PROCLAIM PLAY BALL MONTH C. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: •February 19,2019 D. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT AWARD - UTILITY TRUCK BOX FABRICATION E. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT AWARD - MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE LICENSE AGREEMENT •Consent Agenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council/City Center DevelopmentAgency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO AMEND MASTER FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION FEE 6:35 p.m. estimated time 5. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR THIRD QUARTER SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET 6:45 p.m. estimated time 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR 95TH AVENUE ZONE CHANGE 7:05 p.m. estimated time 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR YOUTH CITY COUNCILOR 7:50 p.m. estimated time 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations,under ORS 192.660(2)(d).All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. 8:00 p.m. estimated time 10. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 p.m. estimated time AGENDA ITEM NO. 2B - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 2, 2019 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: 41 bit ce;A.A" Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will ' �' /� � , help the presiding officer pronounce: Address b- .g1 zl-'l $t' L eli `-'r city4NC State 6g' Zip `;72 Set ' c Phone No. .{.021.7-- -h e/-2_0,<— fie: Name: imiria 4.... r/s/�1Yi ) nsiiV i 5 i 0c LA--N Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will ( J help the presiding officer pronounce: ` r. _ ce_ Address / l R . wEM al?�t� — City State /I Zip Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\Citizen Commnnication.doc Fwd: Thorn wood Meadows half bulo closure SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR �; I , llg - r �.► (DATE OF MEETING) John Mentesana Tue 4/2/2019 4:13 PM To:ods0620Scpc <ods06205cpc@©fficeDepot.com>; John Mentesana Begin forwarded message: From:John Mentesana <jamentesana@gmail.com> Date: March 28,2019 at 12:53:32 PM PDT To:Marty Wine <Martytigard-orgQv_> Cc:" ayhofmann@msn.com" < ,ayhofmann@msn.com>,Jason Snider <Jason@tigard-or.gov>,Joanne Bengtson <j nn atigard-orgy>,Tom Anderson <TomACa igard-or,gov>, Heidi Lueb < ei iftgard-or.ga>, John Goodhouse <jgoodhouse@jgard-or.ggy>,Kathy McAlpine <kathy.rncalpin,aigard-or.gov>,Tom McGuire <TomM@tigard-or.goi> Subject:Re:Thom wood Meadows half bulb closure Thanks Marty; I see that your using words like"Potential added effects"and"some commissioners raised concerns".it seems you are confused by the choice of words you are using in that the commissioning meeting minutes dearly state that additional overflow will take place and that full water detention has not been achieved. Both the applicant and the commission are aware of this and acknowledge this in the minutes.A so the commissioners not only raised concerns they flat out voted against it and disapprove due to not achieving full water detention. I get that you think overflow is(potential)and that commissioners just(raised concern) but the meeting minutes are a direct contradiction to your choice of words and position. The mayor has not said he will not add this to the agenda for revisiting and voting with the new information on water detention factually not achieved made clear by the applicant and commissioners in the meeting minutes on 2-27-2017. I'm sure the mayor will respond on 4-2-2019 at the council meeting if he is willing to let Jerry's property receive additional overflow to the already existing water overflow issues or if he supports the deve opment going back and revisiting the plans to include ful water detention Right now as it sits Jerry will have additional overflow and the rest of the neighborhood including myself wil be burdened with additional water issues The developer has not been issued building permits due to the issues raised in this email thread among others.Building permits are contingent on if issues are taken care of from my understanding. I will bring hard copies of this email thread and the attached commission meeting minutes regarding the Thornwood Meadows Development to the 4-2-2019 city council meeting for your review and the counselors review as it seems you are confused on how to accurately interpret the meeting minutes Thanks for your input and see you 4-2-2019 John Mentesana On Mar 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Marty Wine <Marty6Dtigard-orgov> wrote: Dear Mr. Mentesana, The Planning Commission minutes you have forwarded from 2017 reflect the Commission's questions and deliberation about the potential added effects of stormwater from the proposed development. Reading further on in the minutes,you'll notice that the Planning Commission went on to recommend approval of the concept and detailed plans even though some commissioners raised concerns. A staff member from our Engineering group will be contacting Mr. Hofmann to look into continued flooding concerns. Regarding your message to me and the Council: respectfully, your repeated requests to shut down the Thornwood Meadows subdivision are not going to happen.The development has gone through all of the required public processes and received final land use approvals, Going back to Planning Commission at this point is not possible.The land use process is over, and it is not a Planning Commission or a City Council issue at this time. As the Mayor has indicated to you, the Council will not be revisiting or reconsidering this issue, and will not place it on an agenda for future discussion. It's up to the developer to construct things according to plan. Their preliminary plans were all reviewed and approved. The public improvements associated with Thornwood subdivision have been completed and conditionally accepted. The subdivision plat has been approved and the developer can legally build homes on the lots. Thank you - Marty Wine City Manager From:John Mentesana <jamentesana@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:03 PM To:Jerryhofmann@msn.com;Jason Snider<Jason@tigard-or.gov>; Marty Wine<Marty-@tigard- or.gov>; Joanne Bengtson <joanne@tigard-or.gov>;Tom Anderson <TomA@tigard-or.gov>; Heidi Lueb<heidil@tigard-or.gov>; John Goodhouse<jgoodhouse@tigard-or.gov>; Kathy McAlpine <kathy.mcalpine@tigard-or.gov> Cc:Tom McGuire<TomM@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Re: Thorn wood Meadows half bulb closure Jerry-There are no planning commission meeting scheduled as far as I can see. City Manager Marty Wine- I heard you say "To the question of if Thornwood Meadows development can be re-opened, it the subdivision has been built, and the development conditions have been met then probably from that perspective re-opening it is not an option. But if the drainage situation or the run off situation is worse we can look into it, I'm just not sure there is a lot possible to be done." *The subdivision has not been built. The run is worse and will get worse once the development gets built. The planning commission knew about the water overflow getting worse before approving Thornwood meadows as you can see in the meeting minutes from 2-27-2019 planning commission public hearing. You told me that you don't have enough information to speak to the water detention issues and that you would have to look into what the planning commission has on there docket. I have attached planning commissioners comments along with the applicants comments and how full water detention has not been achieved and that the water overflow will be increased. What has been done does not detain all water and makes the overflow worse. I am asking for the Thornwood meadows development to be voted on for revisiting and closing down if full water detention cannot be met and overflow conditions getting worse on this new information of water detention not fully achieved on the 4-2-2019 city council meeting. See you at the 4-2-2013 City council meeting. Thanks John Mentesana On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:43 AM John Mentesana<jamentesana@gmail.com>wrote: Thanks for the call Jerry, Yes,that's correct they were not accepting communication from the public. It's been confirmed that the Thornwood Meadows development was approved with full knowledge that the overflow of water and sewage will get worse for our neighborhood. It's also confirmed that the ditch they made bigger will not take care of the overflow of water and sewage issues that the Thornwood Meadows Development will add to and make the situation worse than it already is. What we can do is show up to the next meeting on March 26th at 6:30pm and sign in on the public communication sheet to ask for revisiting and closing down the Thornwood Meadows development until full water detention can be achieved. Our concerns for overflow of water/sewage to be worse than it already is can be stated as well. Mayor Snider, City Manager Marty Wine, Chief McAlpine, and City Counselors, I am asking for the Thornwood Meadows development to be voted on for revisiting and closure until full water detention can be achieved as well as safe sidewalks that accommodate disability access can be installed and in the PROW at the 3-26 City Council Meeting. My son was nearly hit by a car right in front of my house already not everyone has this same concern and I wholeheartedly do. There are neighbors that experience excessive flooding including myself and we don't want additional overflow. We want full detention and this has been communicated multiple times. Not really sure why the planning commission thought it was appropriate to approve a development while fully knowing that the flooding issues would get worse than they already are. See you on 3-26 city council meeting Thanks John Mentesana On Mar 19, 2019, at 10:06 AM,John Mentesana <jamentesana@gmail.com> wrote: Ok, thanks. I did not know that. Appreciate the education on how the city works....! I will still be there.See you there Public comments can be given the following meetings reiterating the already information given in writing per emails. Jerry- apparently no public comments will be taken at tonight's meeting,there may be information given from the council in regards to the already given information. Sounds like the meetings to give public comments will be the 2 following meetings after tonight's meeting See you guys there at the meeting tonight I will be working to get the rest of the neighbors impacted by the approval decision of Thornwood Meadows street plan without full water retention onboard.... Thanks John Mentesana On Mar 19, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Marty Wine<Marty_@tigard-or.gov> wrote: Mr. Mentesana, No, the Council won't receive information from the public in tonight's meeting. There are two types of Council meetings: business meetings and workshop meetings. Business meetings are held on the first, second and fourth weeks of the month and that is the agenda where there is a citizen communication portion of the agenda and when public comment or information from people in the community can be received by the council at the beginning of the meeting. Thank you, Marty Wine City Manager From:John Mentesana <jamentesana@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 8:06 AM To: Marty Wine<Marty_@tigard-or.gov> Cc:Jason Snider<Jason@tigard-or.gov>;Joanne Bengtson <joanne@igard-or.ggv_> Subject: Re:Thorn wood Meadows half bulb closure Thanks Marty, In seeking clarification will the council receive information from the public in the 349-2019 city council meeting? Would the following city council meeting on 3-26 be a time for public comments on information received? Thanks John Mentesana On Mar 19, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Marty Wine <Marty-@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Mr. Mentesana, Just to advise you that the Council agenda of March 19 is a workshop meeting in which the Council receives briefings or information but doesn't accept public comment.The third week of each month is usually the Council workshop meeting format. Thank you, Marty Wine City Manager D S C L A CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION !Meeting Minutes Fehniary 27, 2017 CALL TO ORDF.R PteskIcn, IttigcitId called the meeting ho tyrder at pm. flbc meeting vi-as held in the Tigard tis (:enter, Tn Flail, at I3125 SW 1141 I5kLL ROI.I.C.A11. Present: President Iit/get:41d inunissal met 1 lu inirtus,limet J.aeks,in f bmml' orlrr 1 aruallen ornmik.iiiner Nliddaugh :onunissa4 iner Vahr (:innitu,saione-r Sc)uiudi Absent: "see President 1-centl; ommissioner McDowell. \It Ctimn11%%ioncr 111Kinci, Stair Present: Torn \It(iuirc, 1ssistant Con-1m unit‘ I.)es elopitwn, Ditet ti it. Dimer Laughlin, l_secuttse Asststant; 111,111CA X.Litt Planner; Kim McMillan. 1r.si‘tant ( ite 1..nginerr; Lngineer khi it I 1; ssnctatc Planner t.,her) , .Ainc4 COMMUNICATIONS - Nom. CONSIDER MINUTES February 6, 21t1 ' \leering \!mutes: Preklent 1 itegerald asked If there were any additions, delcni ins,Of cE)rrecnons to the I rbruAn 6 Minutcs (.4.411tnissiotIct 13Cksiin noted that the nunutcs indicated that he NA as listed on the ri islet as "0/n11111SM(Drier Jackson" ik hen in icAtt, At thc. tinted ill the luanng he WAN an alit:m.4R c,irliniivooncr the heeany: an 111i4141 voting rommiscioner the following day at thi. ,tk t nincil rnrcnnld. Some wnvcncr errors were pointed out and corrected President I rigerald then declared the tritnutrs approved amended, PUBLIC HEARING— CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY. 6 THORNWOOI) MEAD()%tS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RI U 201640010; (SUB) 2016-00006 REQUEST: Tbc AtiphcAnt ii prirtx•cing tmi(-trate.%it liltfor %Ingle-tar/0h Artaciwil units and a ptiblir weer 11C ccvi With a NI t1.11 1111 ak-1.4( 160 II 52a/cit pn.perr in the 2 tloc The ilc%r1+irment will access Thorn Sitret vu a 24k mode halt -drill mtprtntment with 1.40, 1 2 atccsaing dint* to du: 1 chrt4Ail 2- NFL I ii, 8 mail exK na xi and heti ;-6 acx°c°sxttlg the Nnul cul do sae "hull)." 1.1x saxc-s ran to K" ,q, tt. to ',41,AT sq, ti.,with perrmctcr I,as I & rs ring the muurnum ?.4 k t sag. it, Inc sur ;t . ac crags minimum 1 it of 3,16014 tt ; leer Planned Ile.di Ti 1rnrx The de%ci•►pmcnt will also'mimic an ',pun pact tract wed in xr+Nrl titc =aide Pla:nncd lk-c rd•.~Fxtictu starxlrrll. 1 ract 'A' is a S,R Sq. ft 'acme' and 'passtsc' park with landscaping arxl hi nchc-s. ,\ 12-inch l)rout W}ute t)ak and nal)I.N►uglas hn, an purposed ti, he ex-tuned in Tract '.1'. LOCATION: I•nd itt 1\t Thorn htrrct: \\a.shtnetoen f,e unit Tax Map 1S11:1 \1)l010t, ZONE: R-12. )collum-tknun rrsklenrtal drsrncr OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Ptrsii knt Ftugctakl oipcned the public hearing. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS l'rc•itcknt I`tr gecraki read the res uircd statements and pt.'ccdural items from the quasi-iudtctal he-artng *ode. T heir w as tine abstention President I tugclal d, who missed the <original hearing; there Mille nt, LhAlICIII4VS of the Cotttmi%iI4JtxfS tin lara_S rot cemilk t of Intrtt:81. I:I pane crattacts. lr enc. Site s-isUani (.t►seams sat met Ia*k r in. N t► ort:` tet the audience wished to chalk ngt the iunsdtctt<in of the et immtssie in STAFF RE PO RT 1 ta# rr,cri'i an arutlatn'r nx Aar ow dK Galt nricuir onr an-k r tt branxo \ssuctatr Planner(sans Pagenstecher noted that a memo a.dtdresstng the procedural qursnon the commissioners had at the previous heanng about adequate notice wits sent tti the c•rmmtscto.ncr% I lc'd eta{ a cup .rt ncc fit MCC that was sent as well. Addmamalh, he'd sent a risme, Int unr Kh•ii I.r, Principal I:nginect, at.klres ing the substanus a issues.. lie noted both stall and the applicant had had disc'uMsu,ns ahtiut the issues related to slrer.i nt' ►, stt.rnr w iter treatment, detention, !►anitarr s. rt.r, and street widening. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Matthrs Neuman — NW Engineers, LLC representing the apply ant renundiri die einniiiissioners that at the. first hcanng thes'd gone over the rments of the pru ue.t the lanrdscape plan, the density, the circulation, unlsncs, and the- grading.. Iit ,hasr an .alshrrx°tatetl presentation since (ran had gone <r,cr the memo that prctn much spelled out their aCtt•►n: ik hnctl% went e,srr the stir) drainage issue and access to front of the neighbor's h.rusc .and sp.Ike about the accelerin r:►t aonx ttecs. 1k netted that Stec White had nk-t utile (*Alt stall and mill talk allout what was dccicktl which is what was hen n on the plans. Steve White NW Engineers, LLC — \\elle a ovrr a slide that showcd �►scthlr parking spaces on the prts.etc property. lir noted the prr'p''scsI taper is 22' wide at the entrance as r► s iscd to 24' When it sa as 24' that curse sa as going shift inta unlits pole a in the: ncighl,tit's pn pert% or nglit tin the cedg< tit the right mut s►'a%. This as',ids that power pole.. ,1ddr. sing strrrmwatett, the'' are pratperoong to have I.Il);1 planters air the individual lots to tn-at and detain thy water and to have porous pavement or pavers for the dns-cwais it use that for treatment for those areasAlso the I~ctruar) 2'. 201' Paget 2 tw i existing ditch will he reshaped and enhanced to act as a %Vater qualm %wale. Any remaining impervio Kis arras that rho can't treat or detain, the% wall pat a we-in-lieu to pn.t& for that. 1 cs' . nkr abotut the CIwscrrn for adchtt,ttul NelrOCt MCA_ That. Added to the cast and west A (oupk tit adcittiotul tri to enhance thc Iand%caping. QUESTIONS - None STAFF COMMENTS t 'Ar, Pagenstecher noted that he'd Token to Parti Iticnu n, the property owner adjacent to the cast t le said. "fir c have rcgutrrd this doclopci to pros tele a pedestrian access Casement to thy eastern l> tundan. There's a knee also 'posed in the de%cloptnent plan which u;,tcs Al,,ng the lull kngth ut the eastern houncLtn of the sublcct pr.,l►crtt 1Xhtc-rc thy suka,alk rrxls, thcrt:'s r ptt: to the chrnt that Act.s...4% would hr all,►v►LAI on the adtacent prt tpern heft c;c ti l fall Blvd and the sullfcct property. NI%. ticn'on indicated that she wouldn't want public act-c.s to her pnTem. so this is typical where we wttukl require a do%elopmcnt to pro ick access to a boundary that dt iesn't mean that it's K'Kng to go acvo the adjacent propett% lust because the% provide u there. So I w ant to be ckat about this issue tot hc-t benefit." QUESTIONS FOR STAFF So given that the adjacent propert) owner is not going to allow access. why arc we still requiring access? A do that preNiceelk so that v►hen that pr.ipert' Wan°clops rt sonic 114 mil tit the future, thc •cccys to the pr ip.rt% line warm be obtained fnMrn this pr►,trct and it would hr ahlc to go through to 1l;tll rnancc it would return of the. •ultisc•yuc•nt drs°rlopntent on an adtaccnt property to *l li n that. And that preservation is not necessay for the property to the north? nuc sane ‘k.,k11,1 hold the In►>prrc% 141 tht Oa tc urs Art access eAsentcttt t}tr,►u h .lar suh1c t prupctt► to thy northern boundart upon n.111. el<tpmcnt on the northern hound-arc requirement for public access would hr mimic at that tirnc; TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - \►►nc TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION \<inc> -�- Qt 1 I tt t\ 1°t1 1111 tl't't Ic N\ ,flhi totNik t,sr I.tr.taa kit_ 'Atli i t art rkstAta► rtt that w hate►► t do:A.. tnmthing diltlrent{r Ott ! I !I; 1►<ta"<< 11clxt „ =I the tint but titat'N uhh tut it= 1 <44.1 ;t.tcacn't aticiccf any apautt t1.at' *01,3141giC., c-ltangvd dUrcratin ^ nothing has Itt-x n tI4tnc 4104 r ntk rcgrrti ng the run, Ntcsc Whites "il e Aloe; hr tires to shirr mew ei `ahem.40Ake male, tors:iv Av. std• Atm ld*/Nw its mot a Aft`Y �,'> 1 °i�tr,r�t Amyr a I carat) l',21 1' Pape 3 cif AommissKs3C1AIM. "St, ytAir • Tinent Will *tin be to the t1 4' pro• vim hart an hcsys- rams thtfc it rht -/iV14 titles rms. issmiseisis PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION Commitition•ct 444ehrttitit It doesn't %rem hke thr%%c done a whole lot tip address the neighhotiumni in terms of the runoff. () &Tall ti blinks Ilkit's in i flplELsitt. but uts adra.114. change 14, the neiFthhorhood I don't know what the other comrtii%sii,tters think about rhi,. Conint,s4.44iner Lituallen Ill also he voting against approval until this rnitiganon situation lc 4.4 CIA Commissioner Middaugh. So we Kot A memo ifti•m our pnneipal engineer Addtessing the iutar filo%, but 1 Alm, do not cc am thing tvgAttlit* r.uii ‘t Act so 111 ta hat I tan t4:11 that ht J434144'04.41 rather. Commissioner Hu. I sec the concern. hut I feel hkc it rnav nor nrcessank br this property 4 miler. respi livability to take care of the stormwater fur the wh•ilc ncighhi•rh•••kt I think ;tit mc-cis uthct chtcru, c shotikl approve it. Commissioner Jackson. I Apptut.late the Ctoncrnis IA u.r the drainage, but I couldn't find ant dung that wa% cicail‘ out 4,ft-44mph:ince. I do appreciate the Additional the* Mel.. President Fitzgerald pointed out that the applicant ha., Agreed to pav to in.hru of-detention. MOTION 14...)R CONCEPT PLAN Coniniissionet Middaugh made the following motion. -For the Concept Plan I mot for arm oval ut appl icAti4 in III)R201t, will,and NI R21116 intuits. and Atli ivnitin of the tindi no and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and hat.4.41 on the te‘tirnom rece,ned tonight and in the prrvi•aul mccting 'The mon(in was secondedhs Commissioner Hu. VOTE in favor. Caornmi,04,neis NbtidAugh, Hu, Fain., and Jackson 1gAmsr ( 4)niniscgimrr, Schmidt and I xuallen ( im-imi‘,..),,nrr I itigrraki RESULT - MOTION FOR CONCEPT PLAN PASSES 4 - 2 MOTION FOR DETAILED PLAN Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "In the miner of Applicati,in PI)R2016- mulSI 'li2.016-ntisico4, I tii,Ac apipro Al ii 111C I)cuticd Plan and Adgipnon of the finding'. and i. intlininlis u t apin't A al ctilltaincd in thi staff ripl)rt And icstinit ins received." Nloo4 In 1.4*.is In Commissioner Middaugh. VOTE In ia+.(,t: ( KbinV14inCIS MitItIatigh. I lu. I alit. and I.mksi in I till 0411 anti I J4.1.43111.31 r. 11/4fC 4(04 Abstained: tt,lnmlcciu,nc r 111: RI `'`l I 'Au ! I( )\ It \1'1'12(11 i)1 1 11i I it PLS\NP Lc 4 - 2. PUBLIC HEARING RiVER TERRACE CROSSING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RE% I I W (PDR) 2016-00016 SUBDIVISION REVIEW (SUB) 2016-00013;SENSITIVE LANDS Itl:% IES (SLR) 2016-00011 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 201640013 ttmu 19; TEMPORARY' USE PERMITS (TUP) 2016-00029 thin 00036; MiSCELIANEOUS(MIS) 2017-001102 REQUEST Thr 4;1014 ant request, a INN unit +In ;k iamb, residential planned sicerit+l mcnt with concurrent e(inrrpt and clrr;uled plan review, subdivision rri ii-a•, sensitive. lanais rt•t tc' kit line M1 uunient.,and ;?1 right trtnporan use permn . The. tate is -1S ; acne% and 4 grated w t-st of `W 1St hh and ctttred 44•tIth.)f Puh),.+sn at Hull 14,4,rit:►tn suhslisisi in. LOCATION: lhrcoh mitith ,if Piih}r,n at lisill \t. untatn sulseb•is.un: wvt .,t S'4% 151 .14mue. 1\ashington (:,>unt% 'lar mAr ?11ui$E)31Nti1R►, 2SI'Mi1)BaNI`INr,—N1400111141o, 14411. 144!2, 1441k, .sinI 1444. ZONES: K 4 ; and R lAni. and Medium l Vinsin. Rrudi-nnal I)esignan.xn APPLICABLE:' REVIEW CRITERIA: Comrnuntn I k-.ell Talent t:,.fir Chapters 18 15+1, 1K3911, 1h410, I$51(), I$,(.(r), Ir1"os, IR,1� 1$.,25, Iii,-a:, i►+ 'r.S, lt+''M•, i8.^<r5 and 18.8111. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the re'qutned statcrncrlts and pn,crdural items mint the; quasi tudtcial hc-aryng guide- There were n', allstrntu.ins. rht°rt %erre net challenges of the cnmm1.•1.Ages t,.r hiss for ct>ntltcr „t tntcrrst i,t parte contacts N.Inc. Sur vtsttaru>ns: Commissioners lac 1,s.,r-, Fahr, I.Icuallrn, and Schmidt No me in the audience fished to challenge the turisdxti•m ''I the ct,mmissit,n. STAFF REPORT 11,q, ,,; ,,, .,,, ,, ,.,„1 1:4^ 00401 ore t#& ( ll] MYhvlr Oar .Berk pllor ter piWii 0.04lrrf[' t1KI31 : Manner Mimics, N11+>tkau %cot uscr a I'••wcrP.,int (Exhibit A:, Shr said, "Item #6 is the Rvi rr 'fcrracc (:rtt,sinF; Planned 1k.cit upnncnt Pr„pr,a t1. ti., ct>tnrttc-nty had Ix-en received Crum the public. Thr 1)epartnivnt is titbit 4. 1,►u t,►d.a\ reciinimendang .tl,Itit,a.tllit this pi()11.c't. 'Thr pn)iert It located west of S1\ 1 1th .\tc•nut and dirt-rill •t,uth of I)ieksnn at Riu r Terrace. within rhe River Terrace t ommunin, Plan arra, Ihc applicant rrqur+rs 111I sing family kkcrachcd Antes and is k►catrd on a 4 .icrc strc. Thr privet is proposing amenities including; 2.21 acres of 1)ublic Park and trails, nn acres .,t Significant tree girtt r: preacr ation. :and 5.28 acres of wetland Fireser.anion. Staff I1a. th„n,aaKit1 rc.xwcd the imposed }Bans and n-c.imnncricls appr,n al, sulleet to the ( .,emit ons ,it 1ppros aI in the staff report, Stall rcc' mmcnds rhe Planning (:i,mmis•u►n take rw•„ actions today The first in favor of the prt,rrKcd ( t,nccpt Ilan \lap Thr second in favor of the: pr.Timed De ailct.l Planned I)cvcl•rprnc-nt \iap. Suladrn-is)oi, Sensitive Lands Re%Ir.4', two lot line adlustnicnts, eight tcmporarn use (rrenits, an cxccpti„n to acdctluatc facilities standards, And cath grading auth„nx,atic,n". QUESTIONS 1unr APPLICANTS PRESENTATION 1-ebruar, 2'. 24,1- Vico, 5 I le 8 AIS-3760 3. A. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Proclaim National Community Development Week Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Proclamation Receive and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Snider proclaim April 22-26 as National Community Development Week? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Issue the proclamation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is celebrating its 45th anniversary this year. In Washington County, the CDBG and HOME programs have successfully aided cities in providing affordable housing, vitally needed public services, neighborhood improvements and reconstruction of city-owned infrastructure projects. With the program facing cuts at the federal level, it' s important to remind residents and congressional delegates of all the good these programs have done in our community. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The Mayor has issued this proclamation annually for years. Since its inception, the city has received almost $4 million in CDBG funding that has contributed to sidewalk improvements, Senior Center building improvements, sewer and road repairs and more. Attachments National Community Development Week Proclamation 1. City of Tigard. ($ : , 19 r '1110S 1(4 . ' -4 ' irt- - National Community Development Week i9 €r ti April 22-26, 2019 . ` WHEREAS,the week of April 22-26,2019 has been designated as National Community - I. Development Week by the National Community Development Association to celebrate the ;; Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program and the Home Investment ; !. Partnerships(HOME) Program;and !!.,;,!r.' WHEREAS, the CDBG program has successfully demonstrated its ability to help our 444, ' i community provide much-needed public services for economically, mentally or physically r i disadvantaged residents,construction/renovation of community gathering places and)i '} !!g reconstruction of city-owned infrastructure and completion of neighborhood improvements ,i-'`,..! 'J including major sewer,drainage and street projects;and Zil 1j 4 'I WHEREAS,the HOME Investment Partnerships Program provides funding to local a 1 communities to create decent, safe and affordable housing opportunities for low-income '` persons. Nationally, over one million units of affordable housing have been completed ' using HOME funds; and 4$y WHEREAS,over the programs'history,the Tigard community has received nearly$4 million in CDGB funds making our city a better place to live,work and play;and !a NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I,Jason B.Snider, Mayor of the City of . i Tigard, Oregon,do hereby proclaim the week of April 22-26,2019 as j NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK ,,FIs in Tigard,Oregon and urge Congress and the Administration to recognize the outstanding 'sir work being done locally and nationally by CDBG and HOME Investment Partnerships Programs by supporting increased funding for both programs in FY2020. :i I Dated this day of ,2019. a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be affixed. I 1,',Vii: io. Jason B. Snider, Mayor City of Tigard Attest: a a - 'ia x l M City Recorder •a a.- vaa_a aam aaa .aa eax_a aria IP e G AIS-3789 3. B. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Proclaim Play Ball Month Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Proclamation Receive and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Snider Proclaim April 2019 as Play Ball Month? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Yes, staff recommends issuing the proclamation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Major League Baseball, in conjunction with the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) is continuing their Play Ball partnership and Mayor Snider is designating Tigard as a 2019 program supporter by proclaiming April as Play Ball Month. This innovative partnership supports the unique ability softball and baseball has to bring communities together and strengthen the connection between this sports and the fun experiences playing America's game brings to kids and families across the country. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Tigard has participated in this advocacy effort every year since it was created in 2015. Attachments Proclaim April as Play Ball Month • I I. iis / =' Y _ 4 - 4 -'311= City of Tigarde, PLAY BALL MONTH . ii;i l Whereas, Mayor Snider is proud to partner with the United States Conference of i.if, 4r1 Mayors and Major League Baseball to recognize April as Play Ball month in Tigard; I il and ill:l I Whereas,during"Play Ball Month,"Mayors across the nation are celebrating basebally1, i, with the goal of strengthening bonds between families and communities through baseball-related activities; and Whereas, playing catch, running bases in the backyard, playing a game during a family gathering or as part of park and recreation activities reinforces the fun and : sense of belonging that baseball has brought to Americans for decades; and F Whereas, in keeping with the enjoyment to be found in our national pastime, Opening Day for Tigard Little League(April 6, 2019)signals the beginning of a season of ti enjoyment in city parks and school fields; and i{' Whereas,the Tigard City Council and residents recognize the importance and ,a,t. influence of the sport of baseball and support its ability to produce countless family and P community bonding experiences for a diversity of cultures which reinforces its label as IR America's Pastime. 1E 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I,Jason B.Snider.Mayor of the City of <l Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2019 as, PLAY BALL MONTH :1e ''''" in Tigard, Oregon and encourage people throughout the city to recognize the influence 1 the sport of baseball has had in teaching life lessons of teamwork, perseverance, 1 leadership and sportsmanship to people of all ages and how it continues to be a part of the fabric of our community. :1 > '� Dated this day of , 2019 3-x' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be affixed. t E' '''''+'')1: �s Jason B. Snider, Mayor City of Tigard Attest: : . f . Carol Krager, City Recorder I AIS-3814 3. C. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval: •February 19, 2019 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments February 19,2019 Minutes City ofTigard _ Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD February 19, 2019 1. BUSINESS /WORKSHOP MEETING A. At 6:33 p.m. Mayor Snider called the meeting to order. B. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne called the roll. Name Present Absent Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb Councilor Anderson C. Mayor Snider asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items—There was None. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication—None. B. Citizen Communication John Mentesana, 8835 SW Thom Street,Tigard,OR 97223,asked if there had been any decision made about closing Thorn Street due to safety concerns and code compliance issues. City Manager Wine replied that nothing has changed since staff had been in contact with him, and said no code compliance issues exist that would require the street to be closed. She explained adding sidewalks in the neighborhood was not a requirement that needed to be met and she is aware that he believes there are code compliance and safety concerns,but city staff has looked into his concerns and concluded that there are no code nor safety compliance issues that need to be addressed at this time. 3. CONSENT AGENDA—Mayor Snider announced council would discuss and consider consent items individually. A. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ODOT TO COMPLETE STREET LIGHTING ON HWY 99W,72ND AVENUE TO DURHAM ROAD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— February 19, 2019 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 9 Public Works Director Rager discussed the project,intersection locations,grant funds and which funding bucket the city's portion was budgeted and project cost. Council President Goodhouse said he is aware this is only for the intersections listed,but asked if in the future the City and ODOT could look at the area at 72"d and I-5 since it is a pretty dark and dangerous location. Mr. Rager replied he would discuss this with engineering staff and ODOT to see if there would be another grant opportunity. Councilor Newton said the project looks great and asked about ADA requirements and if the city had permission from ODOT to use staff time as part of the city's in-kind contributions. Mr. Rager replied yes. Council President Goodhouse motioned to approve the intergovernmental agreement with ODOT to complete street lighting on HWY 99W, 72"d Avenue to Durham Road. Councilor Newton seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Name Yes No Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson B. CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO APPOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS Finance and Information Director LaFrance said that when Ms. Lueb was appointed to the City Council it created a vacancy on the Budget Committee and recommended Chelsea Nance be appointed as a voting member and Leah Voit be appointed as an alternate. Mayor Snider invited Ms. Nance and Ms.Voit to the front and presented them each with a city pin. Council President Goodhouse motioned to approve Resolution No. 19-05. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution No. 19-05 -A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHELSEA NANCE TO THE BUDGET COMMI FLEE AS A VOTING MEMBER AND APPOINTING LEAH VOIT AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER Name Yes No Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson C. CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD BYLAWS TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 9 Councilor Newton explained the reason she requested this item be pulled and discussed separately is because there was a change to the bylaws that were attached that had been missed, but corrected and wanted the public to know. Councilor Newton motioned to approve Resolution No. 19-06 as presented this evening. Council President Goodhouse seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution NO. 19-06 -A RESOLUTION ADOPTING LIBRARY BOARD BYLAWS AND APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD BYL.AWS Name Yes No Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson 4. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN IN 1'LRGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ODOT TO PARTIALLY FUND THE NORTH DAKOTA STREET BRIDGE DESIGN AND REPLACEMENT Public Works Director Rager presented this item and explained the existing bridge structure is deteriorating and there have been interim repairs made up to this point,but those repairs would become obsolete in 2020. Without replacement,the bridge would need to be closed. He discussed the total cost of the project and said the funds from ODOT are critical in order to see the project completed,and that funds from the city are included in the city's current Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Councilor Newton asked when the project would start and how they will account for staff time on the project. Mr. Rager replied the project may not start until the summer of 2020 and that staff time would be allocated differently. Council President Goodhouse asked if sidewalks would be on both sides. Mr. Rager replied yes. Councilor Anderson motioned to approve an intergovernmental agreement with ODOT to partially fund the North Dakota Street Bridge design and replacement. Council President Goodhouse seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Name Yes No Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson 5. JOINT MEETING WITH BUDGET COMMITTEE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 3 of 9 Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance,Steve Kang and Liz Lutz presented this item and members of the Budget Committee in attendance were Leah Voit,Clifford Rone,Chris Bence, Chelsea Nance and Tim Cadman. Mr. LaFrance explained this was a follow-up meeting to the one they had in December,reviewed the two-year budget plan,provided an update on recreation,and discussed potential themes (financial stability,resource constrained and service challenged areas) that were reflected in the proposed budget that emerged from each department as they each prepared their respective budget proposals.. He discussed the budget calendar and meeting dates that will help ensure they have a successful budget process. He said Tigard is financially stable and sustainable,but is not the same as saying that Tigard has enough resources to provide services at a service level that is needed or desired by the community. Tigard does have healthy reserves,receives a clean audit and has a very strong bond rating,but is resource constrained. Mr. LaFrance explained last year the Budget Committee made the choice to go through two years of budget cuts, said what those cuts were,and explained those savings will go into a reserve that will allow service levels to match the growth in the community for the next few years. This is not saying service levels will be adequate or will be at the amount needed and desired by the community. However,it is the service level the City will be able to afford,and without any major changes like that of a Local Option Levy, the City will remain at the current service levels. He talked about the upcoming budget,proposed changes,cost savings the city has made up to this point,positive changes in revenues,hotel/motel taxes and forecasting revisions. Council President Goodhouse asked for more details regarding land-use revenues. Mr. LaFrance explained that when a developer submits new plans for development,they have to go through a planning process,and part of this includes paying fees. He said,due largely to River Terrace,the revenue collected from land use fees was more than what staff had forecasted. Councilor Newton asked about allocations for utility billing and if at some point the city would go through and look at the whole picture regarding fees and utility bills. She said this impacts the community,and wants to make sure people understand the value of service they are getting. Mr. LaFrance agreed this is important and when they get into the budget process and start talking about general funds,they will be looking at the city's utilities as a whole and not just piece-by-piece. Councilor Anderson asked if the hotel/motel taxes included the transient lodging tax. Mr. LaFrance confirmed that this is the transient lodging tax. Mayor Snider said this is a good time to start the education piece of the budget process and recommended adding a graphic in their outreach efforts similar to the one presented in the PowerPoint tonight. Budget Committee Member Rone asked for a rendition of the forecasting revisions. Mr. LaFrance said staff went through different areas of revenue and did a hard scrub of what they had forecasted and what revenue the city actually received in those areas,and then staff revised accordingly. He said some areas of revenue were adjusted up,while other areas were adjusted down. Mr. LaFrance said the city will have a performance audit done and that the City and Council will be working towards a more focused Local Option Levy. He reminded council that at their February 5 meeting,they had directed staff to fund additional recreation services with an increase to the Parks and Recreation Fee (PARF),which will bring recreation back to its pre-cut level, and would be reflected in the proposed budget. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 9 Councilor Newton asked about the asset management maintenance piece. Mr. LaFrance said this is making sure the parks have playground equipment in good working condition and buildings that are adequate for providing services to the community. Mr. LaFrance discussed budget meeting dates and talked about the upcoming budget training. He said staff is going to have some set scheduled walk-in times where they will help answer any questions they may have prior to the budget meeting in May. Mr. Rone asked what the mechanism is for getting the same opportunity to the public in order to get their input prior to the budget meeting since the new budget process includes one,maybe two budget meetings vs the three meetings previously held. Mr. LaFrance said staff could extend open office hours to the public, so they would be able to come in and ask budget related questions. Mayor Snider said staff would need to advertise this to the public. Mr. Rone believed this would work well and suggested the first couple of walk-in meetings be held with staff and budget committee members and then the last couple of walk-in meetings be open to the public. Council President Goodhouse said sometimes in the past when multiple budget committee meetings were held,things would be repeated. However,he does agree they need to make sure the public has a chance to speak and ask questions. Mayor Snider recommended the public be invited to all the sessions. Mr. LaFrance said part of the benefit of having a couple sessions just for the Budget Committee is so they have everything they need to be prepared for Saturday's budget meeting. Council President Goodhouse suggested they open this up to email and phone calls as well, since there may be some people that may not be able to take the time to come in and meet with staff. Councilor Newton agreed and suggested they look at the structure of the day for the budget meeting, so they allow time for the public to weigh in. Mr. Rone said to be more efficient,they should plan to be more focused in their discussions and discuss topics in order. Council President Goodhouse agreed and said it sounds like staff would be prepared to answer questions on the spot and have an outlined agenda. Councilor Newton asked what other citizen members of the budget committee think. Budget Committee Member Bence likes the last idea about separating the different categories and that it might be a good idea to set specific times for each. Budget Committee Member Cadman said he is optimistic about the process,but is concerned about opportunities for public comment and time for budget committee members to digest questions from the public. He said it is important to streamline the process,but they do not want to lose anything by doing that. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 5 of 9 Mayor Snider said that whoever the chair will be would need to be involved in the process and suggested they elect the chair at tonight's meeting. Mr. Bence said sending questions and answers out via social media forms would put everything in one location and that way people can access the information easier and in one location. Budget Committee Member Nance agreed and said the sooner the better to get the public involved. Councilor Newton replied to Mr. Cadman's point and feels they may need the Thursday as well. Mr. LaFrance agreed that the chair would need to be highly involved and help make sure everyone stays on task and has a chance to contribute to the discussion. Budget Committee Member Voit asked how many topics there would be. Mr.LaFrance replied they do not know at this time,but the proposed budget would help define the order and estimated time needed for discussion. He said part of the listening session is to help make the budget meeting more efficient. Ms.Voit asked if everyone could come with something different and brief everyone else in more depth. Mayor Snider suggested that if they do this,then they should do it before the Saturday meeting. Mr. LaFrance said they have not done that in the past,but that it does tend to happen naturally that way. He said there are some members who are more passionate about certain topics over others. He could see some pluses and minuses to doing it this way. Council President Goodhouse explained what usually happens when they get to the third or fourth meeting and said that looking at the whole budget would help streamline the process and make sure they are looking at each section of the budget thoroughly. In the interest of time,Mayor Snider asked staff to continue with their presentation. Mr. LaFrance said council recently held their goal-setting meeting and talked about the five primary goals that council would be focusing on. He said one of those goals is to ensure financial resources and sustain needed services. He explained one of the things that could come out of this is a Local Option Levy in May of 2020. He talked about the areas within the city the city is focusing their efforts on. Mayor Snider wanted to be clear about the third goal regarding funding and infrastructure and other planning that needs to be done around South River Terrace, said that the development community will need to pay for this in its entirety and said they have offered to do so. He said the city is not interested in and is not planning to move that forward without them paying the full cost. Mr. Rone asked if this includes a police and fire substation. Mayor Snider said a police substation was not discussed,but it could be. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 6 of 9 Councilor Newton wants to make sure that when the city is doing any infrastructure,improvements, development requirements or code changes that they include looking at sidewalk funding. Mayor Snider asked the citizen members of the Budget Committee if they understood council goals in a way to help move the budget forward or if they wanted to give council any feedback on the goals. There was no feedback and everyone understood the council goals. Council President Goodhouse asked if there were ever times when only the citizen members of the budget committee got together and met. Mr. LaFrance explained that from a legal standpoint the committee gets together for proposed budget purposes,but that if the Budget Committee wishes to have further engagement as a committee they could. Mayor Snider said that as they prepare for May 2020,this could be a reality. Councilor Newton asked if Council President Goodhouse was asking if the Budget Committee should meet more often. Council President Goodhouse replied it would be nice to have the citizen members of the Budget Committee meet more often for informational purposes and to check in on things that are going on in the community. Mr. Bence stated he likes the idea and could see them getting together over coffee or something. Councilor Newton said she would be supportive of other meetings. Mayor Snider clarified that everyone was talking about the Budget Committee as a whole getting together and meeting more often. Council President Goodhouse clarified he was speaking about the citizen members of the Budget Committee getting together more often,but is not sure how the legality of that would work. However,either way would work. Mr. Rone said five of the committee members could informally get together anytime to have a discussion. Mayor Snider clarified that not all of those five members could be council members. There was consensus to vote and elect a new Budget Committee chair and secretary. Budget Committee Member Veal was the only member not at the meeting. Council President Goodhouse suggested they select a second person as an alternative for chair if Ms. Veal would not be interested in being chair. Mr. Rone offered to be an alternative for chair if Ms. Veal was not interested. Mayor Snider asked how everyone felt about this and there was consensus to proceed. Council President Goodhouse motioned to appoint Stephanie Veal as first choice to chair of the Budget Committee and Clifford Rone for second choice to chair of the Budget Committee. Budget Committee Member Cadman seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES- February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 7 of 9 Name Yes No Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson Budget Committee Member Rone Budget Committee Member Bence Budget Committee Member Nance Budget Committee Member Cadman Budget Committee Member Veal (Absent) Mr. LaFrance asked if in the interest of time they wanted to wait to elect the Budget Committee secretary until the first meeting. Mayor Snider said they should elect that position now. Mr. LaFrance outlined the duties of the secretary. Budget Committee Member Bence nominated himself. There was no objection to the nomination and was passed unanimously. Name Yes No Mayor Snider '1 Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson Budget Committee Member Rone Budget Committee Member Bence Budget Committee Member Nance Budget Committee Member Cadman Budget Committee Member Veal (Absent) 6. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) 7.74—EMERGENCY OPERATIONS A. Mayor Snider opened the public hearing. B. Mayor Snider announced that anyone may offer testimony. C Emergency Services Coordinator Lueck explained the ordinance includes general housekeeping items and reconciles the process for a declaration of emergency with state law. D. Public Testimony—None. E. Response to testimony by staff—None. F. Mayor Snider closed the public meeting. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 8 of 9 G. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 19-01 Council President Goodhouse motioned to approve Ordinance No. 19-01. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne read the number and title of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 19-01 —AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7.74 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDA 1'E THE CITY'S EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PROCEDURES Name Yes No Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson Mayor Snider announced that Ordinance No. 19-01 was adopted by a unanimous vote of council members present. 7. NON AGENDA I ELMS—None. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION -None. 9. ADJOURNMENT At 7:55 p.m. Councilor Newton motioned to adjourn the meeting. Council President Goodhouse seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Name Yes No Mayor Snider Council President Goodhouse Councilor Newton Councilor Lueb (Absent) Councilor Anderson Kelly Burgoyne,Deputy City Recorder Attest: Jason B. Snider,Mayor Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES— February 19, 2019 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 9 of 9 AIS-3807 3. D. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: CONTRACT AWARD - UTILITY TRUCK BOX FABRICATION Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda - LCRB Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the fabrication of four (4) utility truck boxes for the Public Works Department to Nelson Truck Company? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the fabrication of four (4) utility truck boxes for the Public Works Department to Nelson Truck Company for an amount not to exceed $230,992 and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city's Public Works Department needs to fabricate four (4) utility truck boxes to be mounted on new truck chassis for use in the Water and Stormwater divisions. These vehicles will replace trucks that meet one or more of the city's three-pronged criteria for replacement: age, mileage, and maintenance requirements. Details on the trucks and what they are replacing are as follows: Water Vehicle #1: 2018 Ford F-550 Diesel. Truck Body: Custom utility body with w/crane and air compressor with a 6Kw generator. Replacing: Vehicle 03-091 - a 2003 Ford F-550 with a service body w/crane and generator. Vehicle #3: 2018 Ford F-350. Truck Body: Custom utility body. Replacing: Vehicle 04-006 - a 2004 Ford F-350 with a service body. Stormwater Vehicle #2: 2018 Ford F-550. Truck Body: Custom utility body w/crane. Replacing: Vehicle 04-008 - 2004 Ford F-550 with a service body. Vehicle #4: 2018 Ford F-350. Truck Body: Custom utility body. Replacing: Vehicle 05-022 2005 Ford F-350 with a service body. In 2018 staff released an Invitation to Bid for this work. It was determined that the winning bid at that time did not calculate all of the required bid requested items and the specifications could be better developed. The scope was reconstructed with the additional details and released in January of 2019. Upon the Invitation to Bid's closing, the city received the following three bids: •Nelson Truck Company - $230,992 •Pacific Truck Colors - $242,058 •PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. - $249,836 Staff conducted a thorough review of the valid bids and has found that Nelson Truck Company has submitted the lowest responsible bid for the work. Staff has determined that there is nothing on file the State of Oregon preventing them from the work and, as such, staff is recommending the contract for the fabrication of four utility truck boxes be awarded to Nelson Truck Company in an amount not to exceed $230,992. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject the contract award recommendation and direct staff to resolicit the work. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has discussed this potential contract. Fiscal Impact Cost: $230,992 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted?: Water and Stormwater Funds Additional Fiscal Notes: The cost for the fabrication of the four truck boxes is not to exceed $230,992. The funds are appropriated in the Water and Stormwater funds for their respective trucks. Once these four trucks go into service, the trucks they are replacing are slated for suplus and sale. The revenue from the sale of the trucks will be placed in their respective funds. Attachments No file(s) attached. AIS-3808 3. E. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: CONTRACT AWARD - MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE LICENSE AGREEMENT Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda - LCRB Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award the purchase of a Microsoft enterprise license agreement to Dell Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award an enterprise license agreement for Microsoft software through Dell Inc and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the agreement. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city needs to enter into a new enterprise license agreement (ELA) for Microsoft software with Dell Inc to ensure proper licensing of our computer operating systems, operational servers, database servers, email, and Office Suite products. Our current ELA expires at the end of April of this year. The proposed new ELA will continue our agreement with Microsoft and stay in compliance with their terms. The ELA includes additional licensing for enhanced security with Microsoft Azure Active Directory services that gives deeper insights and proactive security features for user accounts and data security. The ELA ensures that the city is not only properly licensed but also allows for standardization by utilizing the same version of software for all users. The additional licensing for security based product add-ons, properly aligns the services used to proactively enhance the cyber security posture for the city's user accounts and data protection. Under Tigard Public Contracting Rule 10.125 (Software), the city may award a contract for software without a full formal competitive process if it is determined that little competition exists for the required software. In order to determine the level of competition, three key criteria may be considered. Those criteria, and there relevance to this software agreement are as follows: 1. The extent to which software is integrated with the City's systems including both hardware and software - Microsoft's software suite is at the core of the majority of all computers, servers, databases, and office products for over 20 years. It would be very costly, in both time and cost, to convert to a new core suite. 2. The stability of the software company - Microsoft is one of the largest companies in the world with billions of dollars in assets and cash and a full team dedicated to software enhancements and security upgrades. 3. The overall cost of the software - The feasibility of changing to a different solution is nearly nonexistent and would require at least a dozen different products, require nearly twice the IT staff for implementation and ongoing support, many hours of end user trainings, reworking all business practices and workflows, and create risk to interagency communications and collaboration. All of this additional cost would out-price any conversion to a new software suite. Given the sheer cost and disruption of a new software integration, and not discounting the ease in communicating and sharing data and documentation with the majority of our partners, vendors, and citizens, staff strongly recommends the Local Contract Review Board award a new ELA for the Microsoft software suite through Dell Inc. The overall cost is estimated to be $437,770 over the three-year term ($145,923 to be budgeted annually in the Information Technology operating budget). OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject this ELA agreement. This could result in locking the city into current software versions and in turn will force the city to have a much higher cost to acquire new licensing when updated versions are needed for security and/or compliance. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has discussed this potential agreement. Fiscal Impact Cost: $437,770 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted?: Information Technology Division Additional Fiscal Notes: The ELA agreement with Dell Inc is a 3-year license totalling $437,700 with annual payments of$145,923. The total contract amount for the full term of the contract is $437,770. The funds for the cost of the license are annually allocated in the Information Technology operational budget. Attachments No file(s) attached. AIS-3778 4. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Resolution to Amend Master Fees and Charges for the Parks and Recreation Fee Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Steve Kang, Finance and Information Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Resolution Business Public Hearing- Meeting - Informational Main Public Hearing Yes Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall council adopt a resolution adopting revised fees and charges for the Parks and Recreation Fee in the City's Master Fees and Charges Schedule? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends adoption of the revised Master Fees and Charges Schedule with changes in the Parks and Recreation Fee. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On November 20, 2018, the council conducted their annual joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). Staff also provided a report to the council regarding the Parks and Recreation Fee (PARF). At that time, staff was preparing for a 2019-20 budget proposal that that would fully eliminate the recreation program in Fiscal Year 2020. Members of the PRAB expressed concern with the potential loss of that program and asked the council to consider an increase in the PARF that would be dedicated to retaining the recreation program. After some discussion, the council directed staff to schedule a follow meeting in early 2019, after the new council was seated, to continue that discussion. On February 5, 2019, the City Council held a discussion regarding an increase to the Parks and Recreation Fee that would be dedicated to the recreation program. After the deliberation, Council approved a $0.52 increase to the PARF for recreation. The new rate including this fee will be $4.69/EDU. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The City Council may alter these recommendations as they deem necessary and direct staff to bring revised update before the council during a future Council business meeting. COUNCIL OR TCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Council discussed the proposed recreation program on November 20, 2018 and the Parks and Recreation Fee on February5, 2019. Attachments Resolution-Master Fees and Charges PARF Exhibit A-PARF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITYWIDE MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE RELATED TO PARK AND RECREATION FEE WHICH WAS ADOPTED UNDER RESOLUTION NO 18-33. WHEREAS,the City of Tigard has a Master Fees and Charges Schedule that was adopted during the fiscal year 2018-2019 budget hearings as Resolution 18-33;and WHEREAS,at the February 5,2019 meeting,City Council directed staff to increase recreation services and pay for the services with an increase in the park and recreation fee by$0.52 per equivalent dwelling unit. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Parks and Recreation Fee section of the Master Fees and Charges for the City of Tigard are amended and set as shown in the attached schedule (Exhibit A). SECTION 2: This resolution is effective May 1,2019. PASSED: This day of 2019. Mayor-City of Tigard A 1'1'EST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 1 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Authority Effective Date PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS Parks&Recreation Fee (TMC 3.75) Monthly Residential Rate-Single and Multi-Family $1.17 / EDU $4.69 /EDU 5/1/2019 Monthly Non-Residential Rate X641-7 / EDU-4'4 $4.69 /EDU18`2 5/1/2019 Reduction for Qualified Low Income Single Family 50% 4/1/2016 Notes: 1 Commercial Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU) Calculation(rounded to nearest whole EDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee*0.76 Jobs Per Stall)/15 EDU Factor = EDUs 2 Industrial EDU Calculation(rounded to nearest whole EDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee* 1.19 Jobs Per Stall)/15 EDU Factor = EDUs Calculation of the annual Park Maintenance Fee Index(from FCS Group report"Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee: Report to Council for January 12,2016 Public Hearing" Cost Center Annual Rate Weight Personnel 4.80% 0.60 Services/Utilities 3.00% 0.25 Materials/Internal Services 4.20% 0.15 Annual Index(Weighted Average) 4.26% TMC 3.75.050.D authorizes the establishment of a program to reduce the Park Maintenance Fee for low income individuals responsible for paying the utility bill. The reduction will last for 12 billing cycles after which the fee reduction will end or the responsible party can reapply To Qualify for the reduction,the responsible party: 1 Must be the individual(s) on the utility bill 2 Provide documented proof of income such as most recent tax statement or W-2. 3 Have an income at,or below,50%of the Median Income for Oregon as set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Page 1 AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: April 2, 2019 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO AMEND MASTER FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION FEE This is a City of Tigard public meeting,subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: April 2, 2019 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. I (23SW wo kL r —73(7-9(c Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. SUPPLEMENTAL PAC4T, Marty Wine FOR 4 I' ' i -Ee , -ft- (DATE OF MEfTI_NO) From: MB <mbrewin72@wesleyan.edu> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 6:25 PM To: #Councilmail Subject: !! My Testimony: hearing April 2, 2019: Support Staff Recommendation to ELIMINATE RECREATION FUNDING and FTE!! Importance: High Letter: Support Staff Recommendation to ELIMINATE RECREATION FUNDING and FTE For Public Hearing: April 2, 2019 Dear Mayor and City Councilors As one of your main responsibilities, you were elected by us (or appointed) to keep city expenses/costs down and fiscally rein in the money-sucking unrestrained elephant that is trampling upon Tigard property owners (especially) and steadily forcing many citizens who live on fixed incomes out of their homes: due to ever-higher property taxes +things like inappropriate unrelated fees appended to water utility bills! I am therefore writing to include my voice (representing senior citizens, professional musicians/producers, multicultural event programmers, multicultural educators, economists, government policy wonks, and especially Tigard taxpayers)—on behalf of the many thousands of Tigard property owners who are concerned to see the following from our city officials and extremely generously paid public employees(avg Tigard public employee salary=$85,500; City Manager= $131,572+): AGENDA Items: Eliminate the Rec budget and FTE! 1) I support the STAFF recommendation to eliminate the recreation budget. The amateurish recreation programming was well- intentioned, but fundamentally fatally flawed. The ill-advised parks and rec board suggestion is further fiscally reckless. You don't fix a broken program by throwing more money at it and hiring more employees. The city's recreation planning, hiring, and programming was not handled professionally, nor with fiscal responsibility, nor knowledgeably. The board's suggestion to even further burden 98%of the population to provide summer day care for<2%of the population is unconscionable. There are numerous private day camps,and free Bible camps. There are area non-profits that offer day camps (and waivers), too. And none of those private day camps are coddling parasites,govt fraud and welfare cheats, or extorting the money from the rest of us! If you want kids,then paying for them is your responsibility—NOT mine, nor anybody else's responsibility. When my wife was a kid, her summers (from age 7)were spent picking in the farm fields 8 hours/day, 6 days/week. Her'day camp'was picking Strawberries,then Boysenberries, then Green Beans. Throughout high school, she worked summers full-time in the Birdseye cannery. That taught her the meaning of hard work, and that education was important if she didn't want to pick fruit and veggies her whole life. She got all A's,worked through college and grad school, and she became the first woman math teacher hired by the Portland public schools. She thinks parents must take full responsibility for having children,and that localities should not foist parental duties onto others. That's patently selfish, unfair, and that's communism, too. Pay to play is the only way to run a day camp. The city of Tigard has done a poor job of reinventing the wheel here. a)a recreation coordinator position was listed, but at a higher cost than New York City pays for a rec coordinator. NYC pay for sports rec(and with a parks and sports recreation management degree) starts at$48K. NYC is a lot more expensive than Tigard for living costs. Tigard listed the same type position at an inflated $54K-73K range! NYC has 'economy of scale'and 10+million residents. Tigard simply can NOT compete with larger cities for cost-effective day camps.The city should terminate the program NOW. b)the sports rec coordinator was hired, but then directed to also coordinate music programming. The hiree was absolutely UNqualified to handle music events. (Similarly, the economic development coordinator hired was unqualified to handle music). This is NOT something one learns overnight. At PSU, I trained crews of students how to plan, promote, and stage large multicultural and music events. I also trained the program coordinators as to fair and open procedures for contracting with musicians, bands, agents, et al. I also trained them about programming series of events/concerts. And I trained them how to set a low budget, and make the musicians and agents come and play at a reduced and competitive fee. When I applied to be on the Parks and Rec Board, at the interview I was asked to mentor the recreation coordinator —pro bono. This displeased me, because if the rec coordinator was unqualified,then the city should either not have hired the person, or the city should not have attempted music programming. If the city wants me to train someone to do their job,then they obviously need to pay me a professional fee. That was a farce! c)the music coordinator did not program the music, but hired booking entertainment agents instead to do it. The booking agents used represent< 1% of the professional musicians in this area. 1 d)there was NO FAIR PROCESS set up for selecting our area's musicians. Fact: musicians not represented by the 1-2 agents were EXCLUDED. e)musicians hired through booking agents are$$$$ costly: 2-10 times more costly than booking directly with musicians. f)the music coordinator kept hiring the same bar bands repeatedly through the same booking agent. That's lazy, incompetent, and corrupt. One loud semi-pro weekend band played 3 times within a year! (That's just a max$400 party band playing copy tunes with a big sound system. Only, the booking agent wants$$$$thousands for that crummy band.) Several of my former guitar students played twice in 2 years. 1)That's wrong for any public entity or non-profit to keep hiring the same musicians playing the same music, and 2)while excluding 99% of the area's professional musicians from even applying. That's evidence of incompetent programming, and patently improper, unethical, and unfair. And costly! g)the City of Tigard violated US and international copyright laws by featuring semi-pro weekend bands playing©copyrighted music of others, and NOT PAYING the $©ROYALTIES to the composers. If you produce a public concert or play©music by the BeeGees,AC/DC, et al, you must pay ROYALTIES for every single song,and for every single public performance. For example, BMI handles my compositions and the royalties collection. The program coordinator is ignorant of federal copyright laws that apply to pubic performances and copyright infringement. h)Tigard did not have day camps previously, and it shouldn't have day camps unless they are 100% self-sufficient on the attendees' fees,and including the coordinator salary. If the day camps aren't generating enough revenue to pay for themselves, bottom line is they should be eliminated. Parents must be held 100%responsible for their own children. It's outrageous to coddle those who would pass off their parental duties onto me and other senior citizens;we're already subsidizing their kids'education! i) The day camp reduced fee waivers were insupportable. The waivers allowed a single family to repeatedly receive reduced fee waivers for multiple kids, and for multiple day camps, in a calendar year. That's fiscally irresponsible, and unfair to everyone else in this town. Other municipalities I researched do NOT have more than 10 total waivers for their entire day camp programs. In other words, 1)a family can apply to be one of the 10 families to receive a one-time reduced fee for 1 child. 2)A family can NOT get more than 1 reduced fee in a single year. 3)After the 10 program reduced-fee waivers are gone, there aren't any more in the whole day camp program. J) Because uninformed city officials and grandstanding,self-promoting politicians"struggle to understand" equitable MultiCultural programming, the City of Tigard has practiced blatant class bias,favoritism,and discrimination:e.g."Latino Festival." The latest US Census shows: 10,500 citizens of German descent in Tigard. Where's OktoberFest?!! Sprecken zie Deutsche? Where are the German trail signs,too?! Where are the German-speaking city librarians? There are 5,900 of English descent in Tigard. Where's our Guy Fawkes Day celebration? There are 5,900 of Irish descent. Where's the Saint Patrick's Parade and Irish Festival? Oh,there are 5,900 who claim some sort of Hispanic descent. Great! But there should NOT be a Latino Festival,unless you have a separate festival for every single other ethnicity here,too. NO. There should be a single INCLUSIVE Multicultural Festival, or NO ethnic oriented feasts at all!! That's all for now. Best Wishes, Michael Brewin, Tigard P.S. 1) Regarding the proposed trail signs: I looked at a trail kit via the company who makes them. They are UGLY. They are 2 feet tall,garish with"bold colors,"and each sign also has ADVERTISING on it. The signs,even if free,should NOT be approved,without a prior poll of all neighbors living within 1000 ft.of the affected parks. The garish signs are NOT suitable for a Nature Park. 2) Regarding the student rep idea. The rep should be elected by peers—the students of Tigard High School, NOT by city officials. The Student Council President is elected by all the students. There should be NO compensation; a student should be taught ALTRUISTIC service, not to feel like some self-important bigshot who is entitled to free government handouts. When I was in high school, kids did car washes, bake sales,etc.to earn money for those D.C.trips. Jason Snider grew up in Rolling Hills,where the avq house costs $3.5 million! Jason Snider grew up in Rolling Hills,an EXCLUDING and EXCLUSIVE GATED COMMUNITY with ARMED GUARDS—for MULTI-MILLIONAIRES. Tigard should NOT be encouraging students to do public service in return for perquisites. That's like the Mayor's dubious salary(many times more than the city councilors); we have a City Manager! My friend Craig is to blame for that, and it should have ended with Craig D.,too. We are NOT Rolling Hills, Jason. (EXorcise those apparent demons of guilt and mega-privilege by please NOT pontificating ever again to those of us who have spent our lives practicing,teaching, and producing genuine and equitable and cost-effective multiculturalism.) 2 AIS-3779 5. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Resolution for Third Quarter Supplemental Budget Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Steve Kang, Finance and Information Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Resolution Business Public Hearing - Meeting - Informational Main Public Hearing Yes Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Tigard City Council adopt a FY 2019 Third Quarter Supplemental Budget? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the City Council approve the FY 2019 Third Quarter Supplemental Budget. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The following is a list of items requested for council action for FY 2019 in the Third Quarter Budget Supplemental: Community Development Q3CD01 Increasing Card Service Fee Online Payment Development-The Accela permit software provides an online payment solution to collect permit fees, however it does not have an option to configure the online payments to chargethe customer a separate service fee that goes directly to US Bank. The software vendor has provided a tentative quote of$50,000 to create a custom payment adapter to assess and collect the separate service fee. Additional programming is needed to accept e-Checks at a cost of$900.00. Cost to develop and implement the online payment of credit card service fee and e-Checks will be split based on the percentage of permit and system development fees collected. Q3CD02 Born Learning Trail Signs- The City of Tigard has secured $8,700 from the 2018 HEAL Grant to purchase andinstall Born Learning Trail Signs. This supplemental budget item is to purchase six (6) trail kits for three (3) City of Tigard parks. Each park will have one set of signs in English and one in Spanish. Lighter Quicker Cheaper (LQC) will pick up the additional cost of$1,300 for 3 additional English "Welcome" signs, 3 additional Spanish "Welcome" signs, and shipping cost for all of the materials. In addition, LQC will also cover the cost of sign posts and anchors. City Management Q3CM01 Citywide Performance Audit- On January 29, 2019, the council awarded a contract for citywide performance audit services to the Matrix Consulting Group. Among the services provided, Matrix Consulting Group will be measuring the city's performance against pre-designated metrics, best practices, professional standards, or benchmarks as appropriate to the program or discipline. Total contract award is not to exceed $87,500. Finance & Information Services Q3FIS01 Move TSAP Grant from Parks Capital to Transportation CIP - As a part of Q2 Supplemental Budget requests, the receipt of TSAP Grant was coded to Parks Capital Fund. The correct fund should be Transportation CIP fund. This request is to reverse the entries out of Parks Capital Fund and code them to Transportation CIP Fund. Q3FIS02 Credit Card Fee Increase - The city has been experiencing increases in credit card fees overthe past few years. As a part of FY2018 Q3 Supplemental Budget, a request was approved to increase the creditcard fees by $120,000. However, this amount was not carried over to the FY2019 base budget for credit card fees in anticipation of a council decision to charge a convenience fee on all credit card transactions. At the September Workshop, while councilapproved charging convenience fees in Community Development, they declined charging the convenience fees in UtilityBilling. In addition, during the first seven months of FY2019, credit card fees have surged more than 11% versus same periods for FY2018, requiring an additional $35,000 needed for FY2019. This was driven by the increase in numberof customers and higher usage of credit cards to pay the utility bills. The request is to increase credit card feesby the $120,000 that was not carried forward from FY2018 plus the $35K in additional activity in FY2019 for a totalrequest of$155,000. Q3FIS03 SDC Refunds to Polygon Homes - This item is the refund of System Development Charges to Polygon Homes per city code and state law. Impacted funds are Water SDC, Transportation Development Tax SDC, and Transportation SDC Funds. Refunds are for the city's obligation for eligible public improvements constructed by the developer as part ofland use conditions of approval. These public improvements include road improvements, traffic signals, collector road upsize, turn lane widening, and water upsizing. Public Works Q3PW01 Add. 1.35 FTE to Recreation Division - This request is to increase the Recreation Division staff by 1.35 FTE; 1.00 FTE for Program Specialist and 0.35 FTE for Admin Specialist. This request covers the remaining three months of the fiscal year. The budget cut in FY2019 left the Recreation Division with just 1.00 FTE resulting in a significant reduction in recreation services in the community. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the CityCouncil have recommended bringing the Recreation Division back to pre budget-cut service level with 2.35 FTE to allow the division to revitalize eliminated programs and add new ones that will improve the livability in Tigard. The funding will come from the increase in Parks and Recreation Fee by $0.52, which will be effective as of May 1, 2019. Q3PW02 Increase Franchise Fees and Rebates for the new Durham and Tigard Water District IGA- Recently the city signed a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Durham and Tigard Water District. The IGA included an increase in the rebate of water sales from 1% to 5%. Due to this agreement, the Franchise Fees and Rebates budget needs to be adjusted. This revision is effective as of January 1, 2019. Public Works is requestingto increase the Franchise and Rebates budget by $131,000. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Do not approve the FY 2019 Third Quarter Supplemental Budget. COUNCIL OR TCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the City Council has been presented with this information. Fiscal Impact Cost: $6,547,876 Budgeted (yes or no): No Where Budgeted (department/program):Multiple Additional Fiscal Notes: The FY 2019 Third Quarter Supplemental will increase the budget by$6.5 million across 14 city funds. The expenditure increases are largely supported through unanticipated beginning fund balances and contingency. This supplemental does not impact the reserves of the city. Please refer to Exhibits A and B which summarize the fiscal impact of the quarterly supplemental budget by fund. Attachments FY19 Q3-Resolution FY19 Q3 Supplemental Budget Summary FY19 Q3 Exhibit A FY19 Q3 Exhibit B CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FY 2019 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL INCLUDING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO PUBLIC WORKS, POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES. WHEREAS,the city acknowledges those items that were unknown at the time the FY 2019 budget was adopted; and WHEREAS, the city recognizes approximately $6,547,576 of unanticipated budget in operations and transfers; and WHEREAS, the increase in budget is offset by unanticipated fund balance, miscellaneous revenue, and contingency. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The FY 2018-19 Budget is hereby amended as detailed in Exhibit B. SECTION: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2019. Mayor-City of Tigard A rI EST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD-BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL 3a6/2019 FY 2018-2019 Quarter: 3 Item# Department Fund Division Request Title Request Funding Total Detailed Description Source Amount Q3CD01 Community MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Card Service Fee-Online NEW Contingency $ 50,900 The Accela permit software provides an online payment solution to collect permit fees,however it does not have an option to configure Development Payment Development the online payments to charge the customer a separate service fee that goes directly to US Bank. The software vendor has provided a tentative quote of$50,000 to create a custom payment adapter to assess and collect the separate service fee. As an alternative payment solution,the online payment program can be developed to accept e-Checks at a cost of$900. The cost to develop and implement the online payment of credit card service fee and e-Checks will be split based on the percentage of permit and system development fees collected Q3CD02 Community MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Born Learning Trail Signs NEW Multiple $ 10,000 The City of Tigard has secured$8,700 from the 2018 HEAL Grant to purchase and install Born Learning Trail Signs.This supplemental Development budget item is to purchase six(6)trail kits for three(3)City of Tigard parks.Each park will have one set of signs in English and one in Spanish.Lighter Quicker Cheaper(LQC)will pick up the additional cost of$1,300 for 3 additional English"Welcome"signs,3 additional Spanish"Welcome"signs,and shipping cost for all of the materials. In addition,LQC will also cover the cost of sign posts and anchors. Q3CM01 City MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Citywide Performance Audit NEW Contingency $ 87,500 On January 29,2019,the council awarded a contract for citywide performance audit services to the Matrix Consulting Group. Among the Management services provided,Matrix Consulting Group will be measuring the city's performance against pm-designated metrics,best practices, professional standards,or benchmarks as appropriate to the program or discipline. Total contract award is not to exceed$87,500. Q3FIS01 Finance& MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Move TSAP Grant from Parks TECHNICAL Existing $ - As a part of Q2 Supplemental Budget requests,the receipt of TSAP Grant was coded to Parks Capital Fund. The correct fund should be Information Capital to Transportation CIP Appropriations Transportation CIP fund. This request is to reverse the entries out of Parks Capital Fund and code them to Transportation CIP Fund. ,Services Q3FIS02 Finance& MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Credit Card Fee Increase NEW Multiple $ 155,000 The city has been experiencing increases in credit card fees over the past few years. As a part of FY2018 Q3 Supplemental Budget,a Information request was approved to increase the credit card fees by$120,000. However,this amount was not carried over to the FY2019 base Services budget for credit card fees in anticipation of a council decision to charge a convenience fee on all credit card transactions. At the September Workshop,while council approved charging convenience fees in Community Development,they declined charging the convenience fees in Utility Billing. In addition,during the first seven months of FY2019,credit card fees have surged more than 11% versus same periods for FY2018,requiring an additional$35,000 need for FY2019. This was driven by the increase in number of customers and higher usage of credit cards to pay the utility bills. The request is to increase credit card fees by the$120,000 that was not carried forward from FY2018 plus the$35,000 in additional activity in FY19 for a total request of$155,000. Q3FIS03 Finance& MULTIPLE MULTIPLE SDC Refunds to Polygon Homes NEW Unanticipated $ 3,135,553 Refund of System Development Charges to Polygon Homes per city code and state law. Impacted funds are Water SDC,Transportation Information Fund Balance Development Tax SDC,and Transportation SDC Funds.Refunds are for the city's obligation for eligible public improvements constructed Services by the developer as part of land use conditions of approval.These public improvements include road improvements,traffic signals, collector road upsize,turn lane widening,and water upsizing. Q3PW01 Parks and 270-Parks Utility Fund 6160-Recreation Add.1.35 FTE to Recreation NEW Miscellaneous $ 25,300 This request is to increase the Recreation Division staff by 1.35 FTE;1.00 FTE for Program Specialist and 0.35 FTE for Admin Specialist Grounds Division Revenue This is request covers the remaining three months of the fiscal year. The budget cut in FY2019 left the Recreation Division with just 1.00 FTE resulting in a significant reduction in recreation services in the community. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Council have recommended bringing the Recreation Division back to pre budget-cut service level with 2.35 FTE to allow the division to revitalize eliminated programs and add new ones that will improve the livability in Tigard. The funding will come from the increase in Parks and Recreation Fee by$0.52,which will be effective as of May 1,2019. Q3PW02 Public Works 530-Water Fund 6500-Water Increase Franchise Fees and NEW Contingency $ 131,000 Recently the city signed a new Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)with the City of Durham and Tigard Water District. The IGA induded Rebates for the new Durham and an increase in the rebate of water sales from 1%to 5%. Due to this agreement,the Franchise Fees and Rebates budget needs to be Tigard Water District IGA adjusted. This revision is effective as of January 1,2019. Public Works is requesting to increase the Franchise and Rebates budget by 6131.000. 1 oft Exhibit A O3CD01- Credit Card Service Fee Online Payment Development The Accela permit software provides an online payment solution to collect permit fees, however it does not have an option to configure the online payments to charge the customer a separate service fee that goes directly to US Bank. The software vendor has provided a tentative quote of$50,000 to create a custom payment adapter to assess and collect the separate service fee. As an alternative payment solution,the online payment program can be developed to accept e-Checks at a cost of$900.00. Costs to develop and implement the online payment of credit card service fee and e-Checks will be split based on the percentage of permit and system development fees collected. Fund 1 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised General Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 14,983,911 $ - $ 14,983,911 Property Taxes S 16,132,030 $ - $ 16,132,030 Franchise Fees $ 6,255,307 $ - $ 6,255,307 Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 1,157,614 $ - $ 1,157,614 Intergovernmental $ 6,346,572 $ - $ 6,346,572 Charges for Services $ 294,055 $ - $ 294,055 Fines &Forfeitures $ 1,069,498 $ - $ 1,069,498 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ - $ 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 $ - $ 56,432 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - S - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 237,070 $ - $ 237,070 Total Resources $ 46,636,211 $ - $ 46,636,211 Requirements Community Development $ 3,572,792 $ 1,730 $ 3,574,522 Community Services $ 24,355,821 $ - $ 24,355,821 Policy and Administration $ 1,154,157 $ - $ 1,154,157 Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ 29,082,770 $ 1,730 $ 29,084,500 Debt Service S - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ 341,000 $ - $ 341,000 Work-In-Progress S - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 3,272,416 $ - $ 3,272,416 Contingency S 549,650 $ (1,730) $ 547,920 Total Budget $ 33,245,836 $ - $ 33,245,836 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 13,390,375 $ - $ 13,390,375 Total Requirements $ 46,636,211 $ - $ 46,636,211 Exhibit A Q3CD01- Credit Card Service Fee Online Payment Development The Accela permit software provides an online payment solution to collect permit fees, however it does not have an option to configure the online payments to charge the customer a separate service fee that goes directly to US Bank. The software vendor has provided a tentative quote of$50,000 to create a custom payment adapter to assess and collect the separate service fee. As an alternative payment solution,the online payment program can be developed to accept e- Checks at a cost of$900.00. Costs to develop and implement the online payment of credit card service fee and e-Checks will be split based on the percentage of permit and system development fees collected. Fund 2 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Building Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,809,493 $ - $ 5,809,493 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 2,409,484 $ - $ 2,409,484 Intergovernmental $ 8,281 $ - $ 8,281 Charges for Services $ 7,035 $ - $ 7,035 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 19,782 782 $ - $ 19,782 Miscellaneous $ 932 $ - $ 932 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ _ Transfers In from Other Funds S 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 Total Resources $ 8,505,007 $ - $ 8,505,007 Requirements Community Development $ 1,772,787 $ 12,780 $ 1,785,567 Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works S - $ - S - Program Expenditures Total $ 1,772,787 $ 12,780 $ 1,785,567 Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ _ Contingency $ 191,450 $ (12,780) $ 178,670 Total Budget $ 1,964,237 $ - $ 1,964,237 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 6,540,770 $ - $ 6,540,770 Total Requirements $ 8,505,007 $ - $ 8,505,007 Exhibit A Q3CD01 - Credit Card Service Fee Online Payment Development The Accela permit software provides an online payment solution to collect permit fees, however it does not have an option to configure the online payments to charge the customer a separate service fee that goes directly to US Bank. The software vendor has provided a tentative quote of$50,000 to create a custom payment adapter to assess and collect the separate service fee. As an alternative payment solution,the online payment program can be developed to accept e-Checks at a cost of$900.00. Costs to develop and implement the online payment of credit card service fee and e-Checks will be split based on the percentage of permit and system development fees collected. Fund 3 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised PW Engineering Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - 1 Charges for Services $ 2,448,604 $ - $ 2,448,604 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 941,288 $ - $ 941,288 Total Resources $ 4,189,892 $ - $ 4,189,892 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works S 3,722,303 $ 6,260 $ 3,728,563 Program Expenditures Total $ 3,722,303 $ 6,260 $ 3,728,563 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Contingency $ 96,450 $ (6,260) $ 90,190 Total Budget $ 3,818,753 $ - $ 3,818,753 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 371,139 $ - $ 371,139 Total Requirements $ 4,189,892 $ - $ 4,189,892 Exhibit A Q3CD01- Credit Card Service Fee Online Payment Development The Accela permit software provides an online payment solution to collect permit fees, however it does not have an option to configure the online payments to charge the customer a separate service fee that goes directly to US Bank. The software vendor has provided a tentative quote of$50,000 to create a custom payment adapter to assess and collect the separate service fee. As an alternative payment solution,the online payment program can be developed to accept e-Checks at a cost of $900.00. Costs to develop and implement the online payment of credit card service fee and e-Checks will be split based on the percentage of permit and system development fees collected. Fund 4 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Central Services Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,036,677 $ - $ 1,036,677 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 39,211 $ - $ 39,211 Intergovernmental $ 74,900 $ - $ 74,900 Charges for Services $ 8,354,402 $ - $ 8,354,402 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 22,593 $ - $ 22,593 Miscellaneous $ 107,100 $ - $ 107,100 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 553,550 $ - $ 553,550 Total Resources $ 10,188,433 $ - $ 10,188,433 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ 8,901,825 $ 30,130 $ 8,931,955 Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ 8,901,825 $ 30,130 $ 8,931,955 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Contingency $ 199,650 $ (30,130) $ 169,520 Total Budget $ 9,101,475 $ - $ 9,101,475 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,086,958 $ - $ 1,086,958 Total Requirements $ 10,188,433 $ - $ 10,188,433 Exhibit A Q3CD02- Born Learning Trail Signs The City of Tigard has secured $8,700 from the 2018 HEAL Grant to purchase and install Born Learning Trail Signs.This supplemental budget item is to purchase six(6)trail kits for three(3)City of Tigard parks. Each parks will have one set of signs in English and one in Spanish. Lighter Quicker Cheaper(LQC)will pick up the additional cost of$1,300 for 3 additional English "Welcome" signs,3 additional Spanish "Welcome"signs, and shipping cost for all of the materials. In addition, LQC will also cover the cost of sign posts and anchors. Fund 1 of 2 FY 2019 Q3 Revised General Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 14,983,911 $ - $ 14,983,911 Property Taxes $ 16,132,030 $ - $ 16,132,030 Franchise Fees $ 6,255,307 $ - $ 6,255,307 Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 1,157,614 $ - $ 1,157,614 Intergovernmental $ 6,346,572 $ 8,700 $ 6,355,272 Charges for Services $ 294,055 $ - $ 294,055 Fines &Forfeitures $ 1,069,498 $ - $ 1,069,498 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ - $ 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 $ - $ 56,432 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 237,070 $ - $ 237,070 Total Resources $ 46,636,211 $ 8,700 $ 46,644,911 Requirements Community Development S 3,572,792 $ 9,730 $ 3,582,522 Community Services S 24,355,821 $ - $ 24,355,821 Policy and Administration $ 1,154,157 $ - $ 1,154,157 Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ 29,082,770 $ 9,730 $ 29,092,500 Debt Service S - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA S 341,000 $ - $ 341,000 Work-In-Progress $ - S - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 3,272,416 S 270 $ 3,272,686 Contingency 5 549,650 S (1,300) $ 548,350 Total Budget $ 33,245,836 $ 8,700 $ 33,254,536 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 13,390,375 $ - $ 13,390,375 Total Requirements $ 46,636,211 $ 8,700 $ 46,644,911 Exhibit A Q3CD02 - Born Learning Trail Signs The City of Tigard has secured$8,700 from the 2018 HEAL Grant to purchase and install Born Learning Trail Signs.This supplemental budget item is to purchase six(6)trail kits for three(3)City of Tigard parks. Each parks will have one set of signs in English and one in Spanish. Lighter Quicker Cheaper(LQC)will pick up the additional cost of$1,300 for 3 additional English "Welcome"signs, 3 additional Spanish "Welcome"signs,and shipping cost for all of the materials. In addition, LQC will also cover the cost of sign posts and anchors. Fund 2 of 2 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Parks Utility Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 825,127 $ - $ 825,127 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses &Permits $ 1,042,600 $ - $ 1,042,600 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings 5 500 $ - $ 500 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 2,682,100 $ 270 $ 2,682,370 Total Resources $ 4,550,327 $ 270 $ 4,550,597 Requirements Community Development S - S - $ - Community Services S - S - $ - Policy and Administration S - S - $ - Public Works $ 3,504,538 $ 270 $ 3,504,808 Program Expenditures Total $ 3,504,538 $ 270 $ 3,504,808 Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDD $ - $ - S Work-In-Progress S - S - $ - Transfers to Other Funds S 106,858 $ - $ 106,858 Contingency $ 96,742 $ - $ 96,742 Total Budget $ 3,708,138 $ 270 $ 3,708,408 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 842,189 $ - $ 842,189 Total Requirements $ 4,550,327 $ 270 $ 4,550,597 Exhibit A O3CM01- Citywide Performance Audit On January 29, 2019,the council awarded a contract for citywide performance audit services to the Matrix Consulting Group. Among the services provided, Matrix Consulting Group will be measuring the city's performance against pre- designated metrics, best practices, professional standards, or benchmarks as appropriate to the program or discipline. Total contract award is not to exceed $87,500. Fund 1 of 2 FY 2019 Q3 Revised General Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 14,983,911 $ - $ 14,983,911 Property Taxes $ 16,132,030 $ - $ 16,132,030 Franchise Fees $ 6,255,307 $ - $ 6,255,307 Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses &Permits $ 1,157,614 $ - $ 1,157,614 Intergovernmental $ 6,346,572 X346,572 $ - $ 6,346,572 Charges for Services $ 294,055 $ - $ 294,055 Fines&Forfeitures $ 1,069,498 $ - $ 1,069,498 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ - $ 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 $ - $ 56,432 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds S 237,070 $ - $ 237,070 Total Resources $ 46,636,211 $ - $ 46,636,211 Requirements Community Development $ 3,572,792 ,572,792 $ - $ 3,572,792 Community Services $ 24,355,821 $ - $ 24,355,821 Policy and Administration $ 1,154,157 $ - $ 1,154,157 Public Works $ - S - S Program Expenditures Total $ 29,082,770 $ - $ 29,082,770 Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDA $ 341,000 $ - $ 341,000 Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ Transfers to Other Funds $ 3,272,416 $ 87,500 $ 3,359,916 Contingency S 549,650 5 (87,500) $ 462,150 Total Budget $ 33,245,836 $ - $ 33,245,836 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 13,390,375 $ - $ 13,390,375 Total Requirements $ 46,636,211 $ - $ 46,636,211 Exhibit A Q3CM01 - Citywide Performance Audit On January 29, 2019,the council awarded a contract for citywide performance audit services to the Matrix Consulting Group. Among the services provided, Matrix Consulting Group will be measuring the city's performance against pre- designated metrics, best practices, professional standards, or benchmarks as appropriate to the program or discipline. Total contract award is not to exceed$87,500. Fund 2 of 2 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Central Services Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,036,677 $ - $ 1,036,677 Property Taxes S - $ $ Franchise Fees S - $ $ Special Assessments S - S S Licenses &Permits $ 39,211 $ - $ 39,211 Intergovernmental 5 74,900 $ - $ 74,900 Charges for Services S 8,354,402 $ $ 8,354,402 Fines &Forfeitures S - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 22,593 $ $ 22,593 Miscellaneous S 107,100 $ - $ 107,100 Other Financing Sources S - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds 5 553,550 $ 87,500 5 641,050 Total Resources $ 10,188,433 $ 87,500 $ 10,275,933 Requirements Community Development S - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ 8,901,825 $ 87,500 $ 8,989,325 Public Works $ - $ $ Program Expenditures Total $ 8,901,825 $ 87,500 $ 8,989,325 Debt Service $ - $ $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ $ Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ Contingency $ 199,650 $ - $ 199,650 Total Budget $ 9,101,475 $ 87,500 $ 9,188,975 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,086,958 $ - $ 1,086,958 Total Requirements $ 10,188,433 $ 87,500 $ 10,275,933 Exhibit A Q3FIS01 - Move TSAP Grant from Parks Capital to Transportation CIP As a part of Q2 Supplemental Budget requests,the receipt of TSAP Grant was coded to Parks Capital Fund. The correct fund should be Transportation CIP fund. This request is to reverse the entries out of Parks Capital Fund and code them to Transportation CIP Fund. Fund 1 of 2 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Parks Capital Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 559,036 $ $ 559,036 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses &Permits $ - $ - $ Intergovernmental $ 2,207,398 $ (32,000) $ 2,175,398 Charges for Services $ - $ - $ Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 3,015 $ - $ 3,015 Miscellaneous $ - $ $ Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds $ 5,273,802 $ (5,000) $ 5,268,802 Total Resources $ 8,043,251 $ (37,000) $ 8,006,251 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ Public Works $ - $ $ Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ 7,481,200 $ (37,000) $ 7,444,200 Transfers to Other Funds $ $ - $ Contingency S - S Total Budget $ 7,481,200 $ (37,000) $ 7,444,200 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 562,051 $ - $ 562,051 Total Requirements $ 8,043,251 $ (37,000) $ 8,006,251 Exhibit A Q3FIS01- Move TSAP Grant from Parks Capital to Transportation CIP As a part of Q2 Supplemental Budget requests,the receipt of TSAP Grant was coded to Parks Capital Fund. The correct fund should be Transportation CIP fund. This request is to reverse the entries out of Parks Capital Fund and code them to Transportation CIP Fund. Fund 2 of 2 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Transportation CIP Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,058,100 $ - $ 1,058,100 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ - $ - $ - Intergovernmental $ 2,100,905 $ 32,000 $ 2,132,905 Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous $ 927,325 $ - $ 927,325 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 2,171,000 5 5,000 $ 2,176,000 Total Resources $ 6,257,330 $ 37,000 $ 6,294,330 Requirements Community-Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 5,199,230 $ 37,000 $ 5,236,230 Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Contingency $ - $ - $ - Total Budget $ 5,199,230 $ 37,000 $ 5,236,230 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,058,100 $ - $ 1,058,100 Total Requirements $ 6,257,330 $ 37,000 $ 6,294,330 Exhibit A Q3FIS02- Credit Card Fee Increase The city has been experiencing increases in credit card fees over the past few years. As a part of FY2018 Q3 Supplemental Budget,a request was approved to increase the credit card fees by$120K. However,this amount was not carried over to the FY2019 base budget for credit card fees in anticipation of a Council decision to charge a convenience fee on all credit card transactions. At the September Workshop,while Council approved charging convenience fees in Community Development,they declined charging the convenience fees in Utility Billing. In addition,during the first seven months of FY2019,credit card fees have surged more than 11%versus same periods for FY2018, requiring an additional$35,000 need for FY19. This was driven by the increase in number of customers and higher usage of credit cards to pay the utility bills. The request is to increase credit card fees by the$120K that was not carried forward from FY18 plus the$35K in additional activity in FY19 for a total request of$155K. Fund 1 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Central Services Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,036,677 $ - $ 1,036,677 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ 39,211 $ - $ 39,211 Intergovernmental $ 74,900 $ - $ 74,900 Charges for Services $ 8,354,402 $ 155,000 $ 8,509,402 Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 22,593 $ - $ 22,593 Miscellaneous $ 107,100 $ - $ 107,100 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 553,550 S - 5 553,550 Total Resources $ 10,188,433 $ 155,000 $ 10,343,433 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ 8,901,825 $ 155,000 $ 9,056,825 Public Works $ - $ - S - Program Expenditures Total $ 8,901,825 $ 155,000 $ 9,056,825 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Contingency $ 199,650 $ - $ 199,650 Total Budget $ 9,101,475 $ 155,000 $ 9,256,475 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,086,958 $ - $ 1,086,958 Total Requirements $ 10,188,433 $ 155,000 $ 10,343,433 Exhibit A 03FIS02- Credit Card Fee Increase The city has been experiencing increases in credit card fees over the past few years. As a part of FY2018 Q3 Supplemental Budget,a request was approved to increase the credit card fees by$120K. However,this amount was not carried over to the FY2019 base budget for credit card fees in anticipation of a Council decision to charge a convenience fee on all credit card transactions. At the September Workshop,while Council approved charging convenience fees in Community Development,they declined charging the convenience fees in Utility Billing. In addition,during the first seven months of FY2019,credit card fees have surged more than 11%versus same periods for FY2018, requiring an additional$35,000 need for FY19. This was driven by the increase in number of customers and higher usage of credit cards to pay the utility bills. The request is to increase credit card fees by the$120K that was not carried forward from FY18 plus the$35K in additional activity in FY19 for a total request of$155K. Fund 2 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Sanitary Sewer Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 4,270,120 $ - $ 4,270,120 Property Taxes S _ $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses&Permits $ 42,200 $ - $ 42,200 Intergovernmental $ 1,285,835 $ - $ 1,285,835 Charges for Services $ 2,867,135 $ - $ 2,867,135 Fines& Forfeitures $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 10,333 $ - $ 10,333 Miscellaneous $ 13,091 $ - $ 13,091 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds $ 218,100 S - $ 218,100 Total Resources $ 8,706,814 $ - $ 8,706,814 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ Public Works $ 2,698,622 $ 29,450 $ 2,728,072 Program Expenditures Total $ 2,698,622 $ 29,450 $ 2,728,072 Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ 859,200 $ - $ 859,200 Transfers to Other Funds $ 826,350 $ - $ 826,350 Contingency $ 366,763 $ (29,450) $ 337,313 Total Budget $ 4,750,935 $ - $ 4,750,935 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 3,955,879 $ - $ 3,955,879 Total Requirements $ 8,706,814 $ - $ 8,706,814 Exhibit A Q3FIS02 - Credit Card Fee Increase The city has been experiencing increases in credit card fees over the past few years. As a part of FY2018 Q3 Supplemental Budget,a request was approved to increase the credit card fees by$120K. However,this amount was not carried over to the FY2019 base budget for credit card fees in anticipation of a Council decision to charge a convenience fee on all credit card transactions. At the September Workshop,while Council approved charging convenience fees in Community Development,they declined charging the convenience fees in Utility Billing. In addition, during the first seven months of FY2019, credit card fees have surged more than 11%versus same periods for FY2018, requiring an additional$35,000 need for FY19. This was driven by the increase in number of customers and higher usage of credit cards to pay the utility bills. The request is to increase credit card fees by the$120K that was not carried forward from FY18 plus the$35K in additional activity in FY19 for a total request of$155K. Fund 3 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Stormwater Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,433,806 $ - $ 5,433,806 Property Taxes $ _ $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ - $ - $ Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ Charges for Services $ 2,848,455 $ - $ 2,848,455 Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 7,936 $ - $ 7,936 Miscellaneous $ 3,100 $ - $ 3,100 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds 5 681,250 S - S 681,250 Total Resources $ 8,974,547 $ - $ 8,974,547 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ 3,048,935 $ 15,500 $ 3,064,435 Program Expenditures Total $ 3,048,935 $ 15,500 $ 3,064,435 Debt Service $ - $ _ $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ 2,293,600 293 600 $ - $ 2,293,600 Transfers to Other Funds $ 436,468 $ - $ 436,468 Contingency $ 117,660 $ (15,500) $ 102,160 Total Budget $ 5,896,663 $ - $ 5,896,663 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 3,077,884 $ - $ 3,077,884 Total Requirements $ 8,974,547 $ - $ 8,974,547 Exhibit A Q3FIS02 - Credit Card Fee Increase The city has been experiencing increases in credit card fees over the past few years. As a part of FY2018 03 Supplemental Budget, a request was approved to increase the credit card fees by$120K. However,this amount was not carried over to the FY2019 base budget for credit card fees in anticipation of a Council decision to charge a convenience fee on all credit card transactions. At the September Workshop,while Council approved charging convenience fees in Community Development, they declined charging the convenience fees in Utility Billing. In addition, during the first seven months of FY2019, credit card fees have surged more than 11%versus same periods for FY2018, requiring an additional $35,000 need for FY19. This was driven by the increase in number of customers and higher usage of credit cards to pay the utility bills. The request is to increase credit card fees by the$120K that was not carried forward from FY18 plus the$35K in additional activity in FY19 for a total request of$155K. Fund 4 of 4 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Water Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 17,877,719 $ - $ 17,877,719 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ 75,173 $ - $ 75,173 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ 21,463,256 $ - $ 21,463,256 Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 30,644 $ - $ 30,644 Miscellaneous $ 10,933 $ - $ 10,933 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 58,751 S - 5 58,751 Total Resources $ 39,516,476 $ - $ 39,516,476 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ 8,179,544 $ 110,050 $ 8,289,594 Program Expenditures Total $ 8,179,544 $ 110,050 $ 8,289,594 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 10,684,238 $ - $ 10,684,238 Contingency $ 416,562 $ (110,050) $ 306,512 Total Budget $ 19,280,344 $ - $ 19,280,344 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 20,236,132 $ - $ 20,236,132 Total Requirements $ 39,516,476 $ - $ 39,516,476 Exhibit A Q3FIS03 - SDC Refunds to Polygon Homes Refund of System Development Charges to Polygon Homes per city code and state law. Impacted funds are Water SDC, Transportation Development Tax SDC, and Transportation SDC Funds. Refunds are for the city's obligation for eligible public improvements constructed by the developer as part of land use conditions of approval.These public improvements include road improvements,traffic signals,collector road upsize,turn lane widening,and water upsizing. Fund 1 of 5 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Water SDC Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 8,072,632 $ 806,721 $ 8,879,353 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ 1,466,005 $ - $ 1,466,005 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 233 $ - $ 233 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds S - S - S - Total Resources $ 9,538,870 $ 806,721 $ 10,345,591 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 750,000 $ 806,721 $ 1,556,721 Contingency $ 100,000 $ - S 100,000 Total Budget $ 850,000 $ 806,721 $ 1,656,721 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 8,688,870 $ - $ 8,688,870 Total Requirements $ 9,538,870 $ 806,721 $ 10,345,591 Exhibit A Q3FIS03 -SDC Refunds to Polygon Homes Refund of System Development Charges to Polygon Homes per city code and state law. Impacted funds are Water SDC, Transportation Development Tax SDC,and Transportation SDC Funds. Refunds are for the city's obligation for eligible public improvements constructed by the developer as part of land use conditions of approval.These public improvements include road improvements,traffic signals,collector road upsize,turn lane widening,and water upsizing. Fund 2 of 5 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Water CIP Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,924,450 $ - $ 1,924,450 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ - $ - $ - Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 13,096 $ - $ 13,096 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 2,737,500 $ 806,721 $ 3,544,221 Total Resources $ 4,675,046 $ 806,721 $ 5,481,767 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 2,737,500 $ 806,721 $ 3,544,221 Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Contingency $ - $ - $ - Total Budget $ 2,737,500 $ 806,721 $ 3,544,221 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,937,546 $ - $ 1,937,546 Total Requirements $ 4,675,046 $ 806,721 $ 5,481,767 Exhibit A Q3FIS03 - SDC Refunds to Polygon Homes Refund of System Development Charges to Polygon Homes per city code and state law. Impacted funds are Water SDC, Transportation Development Tax SDC,and Transportation SDC Funds. Refunds are for the city's obligation for eligible public improvements constructed by the developer as part of land use conditions of approval.These public improvements include road improvements,traffic signals, collector road upsize,turn lane widening,and water upsizing. Fund 3 of 5 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Transportation Development Tax Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 8,353,479 $ 2,247,426 $ 10,600,905 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ 1,190,700 $ - $ 1,190,700 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 11,279 $ - $ 11,279 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S - S - S - Total Resources $ 9,555,458 $ 2,247,426 $ 11,802,884 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - SS - Public Works $ - $ - S Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 1,066,945 $ 2,247,426 $ 3,314,371 Contingency $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 Total Budget $ 1,316,945 $ 2,247,426 $ 3,564,371 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 8,238,513 $ - $ 8,238,513 Total Requirements $ 9,555,458 $ 2,247,426 $ 11,802,884 Exhibit A Q3FIS03 - SDC Refunds to Polygon Homes Refund of System Development Charges to Polygon Homes per city code and state law. Impacted funds are Water SDC, Transportation Development Tax SDC, and Transportation SDC Funds. Refunds are for the city's obligation for eligible public improvements constructed by the developer as part of land use conditions of approval.These public improvements include road improvements,traffic signals,collector road upsize,turn lane widening,and water upsizing. Fund 4 of 5 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Transportation SDC Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,086,802 $ 81,406 $ 5,168,208 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ _ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ _ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ _ Licenses&Permits $ 855,540 $ - $ 855,540 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ _ Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ _ Interest Earnings $ 500 $ - $ 500 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ _ Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ _ Transfers In from Other Funds $ - S - S Total Resources $ 5,942,842 $ 81,406 $ 6,024,248 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ _ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ _ Public Works S - $ - $ _ Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 120,000 $ 81,406 $ 201,406 Contingency S 30,000 $ - S 30,000 Total Budget $ 150,000 $ 81,406 $ 231,406 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,792,842 $ - $ 5,792,842 Total Requirements $ 5,942,842 $ 81,406 $ 6,024,248 Exhibit A Q3FIS03 - SDC Refunds to Polygon Homes Refund of System Development Charges to Polygon Homes per city code and state law. Impacted funds are Water SDC, Transportation Development Tax SDC,and Transportation SDC Funds. Refunds are for the city's obligation for eligible public improvements constructed by the developer as part of land use conditions of approval.These public improvements include road improvements,traffic signals,collector road upsize,turn lane widening, and water upsizing. Fund 5 of 5 FY 2019 Q3 Revised Transportation CIP Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,058,100 $ - $ 1,058,100 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ _ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ _ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ - $ - $ - Intergovernmental $ 2,100,905 $ - $ 2,100,905 Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous $ 927,325 $ - $ 927,325 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 2,171,000 5 2,328,832 $ 4,499,832 Total Resources $ 6,257,330 $ 2,328,832 $ 8,586,162 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ _ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ _ Public Works $ - $ _ $ - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 5,199,230 $ 2,328,832 $ 7,528,062 Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ _ Contingency S - S - $ _ Total Budget $ 5,199,230 $ 2,328,832 $ 7,528,062 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,058,100 $ - $ 1,058,100 Total Requirements $ 6,257,330 $ 2,328,832 $ 8,586,162 Exhibit A Q3PW01-Add. 1.35 FTE to Recreation Division 'This request is to increase the Recreation Division staff by 1.35 FTE; 1.00 FTE for Program Specialist and 0.35 FTE for Admin Specialist. This is request covers the remaining three months of the fiscal year. The budget cut in FY2019 left the Recreation Division with just 1.00 FTE resulting in a significant reduction in recreation services in the community. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Council have recommended bringing the Recreation Division back to pre budget-cut service level with 2.35 FTE to allow the division to revitalize eliminated programs and add new ones that will improve the livability in Tigard. The funding will come from the increase in Parks and Recreation Fee by$0.52. FY 2019 Q3 Revised Parks Utility Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 825,127 $ - $ 825,127 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 1,042,600 $ 25,300 $ 1,067,900 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 500 $ - $ 500 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds S 2,682,100 S - S 2,682.100 Total Resources $ 4,550,327 $ 25,300 $ 4,575,627 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ 3,504,538 $ 25,300 $ 3,529,838 Program Expenditures Total $ 3,504,538 $ 25,300 $ 3,529,838 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 106,858 $ - $ 106,858 Contingency $ 96,742 5 - $ 96,742 Total Budget $ 3,708,138 $ 25,300 $ 3,733,438 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 842,189 - $ 842,189 Total Requirements $ 4,550,327 $ 25,300 $ 4,575,627 Exhibit A 03PW02 - Increase Franchise Fees and Rebates for the new Durham and Tigard Water District IGA Recently the city signed a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Durham and Tigard Water District. The IGA included an increase in the rebate of water sales from 1%to 5%. Due to this agreement,the Franchise Fees and Rebates budget needs to be adjusted. This revision is effective as of January 1, 2019. Public Works is requesting to increase the Franchise and Rebates budget by $131,000. FY 2019 Q3 Revised Water Fund Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 17,877,719 $ - $ 17,877,719 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses &Permits $ 75,173 $ - $ 75,173 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ Charges for Services $ 21,463,256 $ - $ 21,463,256 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 30,644 $ - $ 30,644 Miscellaneous $ 10,933 $ - $ 10,933 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds $ 58,751 S - S 58,751 Total Resources $ 39,516,476 $ - $ 39,516,476 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ Public Works $ 8,179,544 $ 131,000 S 8,310,544 Program Expenditures Total $ 8,179,544 $ 131,000 $ 8,310,544 Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ Transfers to Other Funds $ 10,684,238 $ - $ 10,684,238 Contingency S 416,562 $ (131,000) $ 285,562 Total Budget $ 19,280,344 $ - $ 19,280,344 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 20,236,132 $ - $ 20,236,132 Total Requirements $ 39,516,476 $ - $ 39,516,476 Exhibit B Total All Funds FY 2019 Q3 Revised Total All Funds Revised Q2 Amendment Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 106,222,434 $ 3,135,553 $ 109,357,987 Property Taxes $ 18,344,035 $ - $ 18,344,035 Franchise Fees $ 6,255,307 $ - $ 6,255,307 Special Assessments $ 60,000 $ - $ 60,000 Licenses &Permits $ 13,237,677 $ 25,300 $ 13,262,977 Intergovernmental $ 16,694,550 $ 8,700 $ 16,703,250 Charges for Services $ 42,809,828 $ 155,000 $ 42,964,828 Fines &Forfeitures $ 1,070,957 $ - $ 1,070,957 Interest Earnings $ 436,639 $ - $ 436,639 Miscellaneous $ 1,311,659 $ - $ 1,311,659 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 25,292,956 $ 3,223,323 $ 28,516,279 Total Resources $ 231,736,042 $ 6,547,876 $ 238,283,918 Requirements Community Development $ 5,345,579 $ 24,240 $ 5,369,819 Community Services $ 24,506,714 $ - $ 24,506,714 Policy and Administration $ 12,328,518 $ 272,630 $ 12,601,148 Public Works $ 26,590,958 $ 317,830 $ 26,908,788 Program Expenditures Total $ 68,771,769 $ 614,700 $ 69,386,469 Debt Service $ 11,638,000 $ - $ 11,638,000 Loan to TCDA $ 341,000 $ - $ 341,000 Work-In-Progress $ 21,840,730 $ 3,135,553 $ 24,976,283 Transfers to Other Funds $ 25,292,956 $ 3,223,323 $ 28,516,279 Contingency S 4,129,680 S (425,700) 5 3,703,980 Total Budget $ 132,014,135 $ 6,547,876 $ 138,562,011 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 99,721,907 $ - $ 99,721,907 Total Requirements $ 231,736,042 $ 6,547,876 $ 238,283,918 Exhibit B General Fund FY 2019 Revised General Fund Revised Q2 Q3CD01 Q3CD02 Q3CM01 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 14,983,911 $ - $ - $ - $ 14,983,911 Property Taxes $ 16,132,030 $ - $ - $ - $ 16,132,030 Franchise Fees $ 6,255,307 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,255,307 Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ 1,157,614 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,157,614 Intergovernmental $ 6,346,572 $ - $ 8,700 $ - $ 6,355,272 Charges for Services $ 294,055 $ - $ - $ - $ 294,055 Fines&Forfeitures $ 1,069,498 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,069,498 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ - $ - $ - $ 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 $ - $ - $ - $ 56,432 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 237,070 $ - 5 - $ - $ 237,070 Total Resources $ 46,636,211 $ - $ 8,700 $ - $ 46,644,911 Requirements Community Development $ 3,572,792 $ 1,730 $ 9,730 $ - $ 3,584,252 Community Services $ 24,355,821 $ - $ - $ - $ 24,355,821 Policy and Administration $ 1,154,157 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,154,157 Public Works $ - S - S _ S - S - Program Expenditures Total $ 29,082,770 $ 1,730 $ 9,730 $ - $ 29,094,230 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ 341,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 341,000 Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 3,272,416 $ - $ 270 $ 87,500 $ 3,360,186 Contingency S 549,650 S (1,730) S (1,300) S (87,500) S 459,120 Total Budget $ 33,245,836 $ - $ 8,700 $ - $ 33,254,536 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 13,390,375 $ - $ - $ - $ 13,390,375 Total Requirements $ 46,636,211 $ - $ 8,700 $ - $ 46,644,911 Exhibit B Building Fund FY 2019 Revised Building Fund Revised Q2 Q3CD01 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,809,493 $ - $ 5,809,493 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 2,409,484 $ - $ 2,409,484 Intergovernmental $ 8,281 $ - $ 8,281 Charges for Services $ 7,035 $ - $ 7,035 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 19,782 $ - $ 19,782 Miscellaneous $ 932 $ - $ 932 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 Total Resources $ 8,505,007 $ - $ 8,505,007 Requirements Community Development $ 1,772,787 $ 12,780 $ 1,785,567 Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works S - $ - S - Program Expenditures Total $ 1,772,787 $ 12,780 $ 1,785,567 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - 1 Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Contingency $ 191,450 S (12,780) $ 178,670 Total Budget $ 1,964,237 $ - $ 1,964,237 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 6,540,770 $ - $ 6,540,770 Total Requirements $ 8,505,007 $ - $ 8,505,007 Exhibit B Parks Capital Fund FY 2019 Revised Parks Capital Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS01 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 559,036 $ - $ 559,036 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ - $ - $ - Intergovernmental $ 2,207,398 $ (32,000) $ 2,175,398 Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 3,015 $ - $ 3,015 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 5,273,802 $ (5,000) $ 5,268,802 Total Resources $ 8,043,251 $ (37,000) $ 8,006,251 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 7,481,200 $ (37,000) $ 7,444,200 Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Contingency S - S - S - Total Budget $ 7,481,200 $ (37,000) $ 7,444,200 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 562,051 $ - $ 562,051 Total Requirements $ 8,043,251 $ (37,000) $ 8,006,251 Exhibit B Parks Utility Fund FY 2019 Revised Parks Utility Fund Revised Q2 Q3CD02 Q3PW01 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 825,127 $ - $ - $ 825,127 Property Taxes $ - $ _ $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ 1,042,600 $ - $ 25,300 $ 1,067,900 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 500 $ - $ - $ 500 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 2,682,100 S 270 5 - S 2,682,370 Total Resources $ 4,550,327 $ 270 $ 25,300 $ 4,575,897 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ _ $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - S - $ - $ - Public Works $ 3,504,538 $ 270 $ 25,300 S 3,530,108 Program Expenditures Total $ 3,504,538 $ 270 $ 25,300 $ 3,530,108 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 106,858 $ - $ - $ 106,858 Contingency S 96,742 $ - S - S 96,742 Total Budget $ 3,708,138 $ 270 $ 25,300 $ 3,733,708 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 842,189 $ - $ - $ 842,189 Total Requirements $ 4,550,327 $ 270 $ 25,300 $ 4,575,897 Exhibit B Transportation Development Tax Fund FY 2019 Revised Transportation Development Tax Revised Q2 Q3FIS03 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 8,353,479 $ 2,247,426 $ 10,600,905 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 1,190,700 $ - $ 1,190,700 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 11,279 $ - $ 11,279 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ - $ - $ - Total Resources $ 9,555,458 $ 2,247,426 $ 11,802,884 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ Public Works $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 1,066,945 $ 2,247,426 $ 3,314,371 Contingency S 250,000 $ - 5 250,000 Total Budget $ 1,316,945 $ 2,247,426 $ 3,564,371 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 8,238,513 $ - $ 8,238,513 Total Requirements $ 9,555,458 $ 2,247,426 $ 11,802,884 Exhibit B Transportation CIP Fund FY 2019 Revised Transportation CIP Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS01 Q3FIS03 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,058,100 $ - $ - $ 1,058,100 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ _ $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ _ $ _ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - $ _ Licenses&Permits $ - $ - $ - $ _ Intergovernmental $ 2,100,905 $ 32,000 $ - $ 2,132,905 Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ - $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous $ 927,325 $ - $ - $ 927,325 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - $ _ Transfers In from Other Funds S 2,171,000 S 5,000 S 2,328,832 $ 4,504,832 Total Resources $ 6,257,330 $ 37,000 $ 2,328,832 $ 8,623,162 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - $ _ Community Services $ - $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ _ $ - $ - $ Public Works $ - $ - $ - $ - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 5,199,230 $ 37,000 $ 2,328,832 $ 7,565,062 Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - $ _ Contingency S - S - S - $ _ Total Budget $ 5,199,230 $ 37,000 $ 2,328,832 $ 7,565,062 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,058,100 $ - $ - $ 1,058,100 Total Requirements $ 6,257,330 $ 37,000 $ 2,328,832 $ 8,623,162 Exhibit B Transportation SDC Fund FY 2019 Revised Transportation SDC Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS03 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,086,802 $ 81,406 $ 5,168,208 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses&Permits $ 855,540 $ - $ 855,540 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 500 $ - $ 500 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ - S - $ Total Resources $ 5,942,842 $ 81,406 $ 6,024,248 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ _ Public Works $ - $ - $ Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ _ Transfers to Other Funds $ 120,000 $ 81,406 $ 201,406 Contingency S 30,000 $ - S 30,000 Total Budget $ 150,000 $ 81,406 $ 231,406 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,792,842 $ - $ 5,792,842 Total Requirements $ 5,942,842 $ 81,406 $ 6,024,248 Exhibit B Sanitary Sewer Fund FY 2019 Revised Sanitary Sewer Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS02 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 4,270,120 $ - $ 4,270,120 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 42,200 $ - $ 42,200 Intergovernmental $ 1,285,835 $ - $ 1,285,835 Charges for Services $ 2,867,135 $ - $ 2,867,135 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 10,333 $ - $ 10,333 Miscellaneous $ 13,091 $ - $ 13,091 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 218,100 $ - $ 218,100 Total Resources $ 8,706,814 $ - $ 8,706,814 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ _ Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ 2,698,622 S 29,450 $ 2,728,072 Program Expenditures Total $ 2,698,622 $ 29,450 $ 2,728,072 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 859,200 $ - $ 859,200 Transfers to Other Funds $ 826,350 $ - $ 826,350 Contingency S 366,763 S (29,450) $ 337,313 Total Budget $ 4,750,935 $ - $ 4,750,935 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 3,955,879 $ - $ 3,955,879 Total Requirements $ 8,706,814 $ - $ 8,706,814 Exhibit B Stormwater Fund FY 2019 Revised Stormwater Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS02 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,433,806 $ - $ 5,433,806 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses &Permits $ - $ - $ Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ Charges for Services $ 2,848,455 $ - $ 2,848,455 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 7,936 $ - $ 7,936 Miscellaneous $ 3,100 $ - $ 3,100 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 681,250 S - $ 681,250 Total Resources $ 8,974,547 $ - $ 8,974,547 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ _ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ Public Works $ 3,048,935 $ 15,500 $ 3,064,435 Program Expenditures Total $ 3,048,935 $ 15,500 $ 3,064,435 Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ 2,293,600 293 600 $ - $ 2,293,600 Transfers to Other Funds $ 436,468 $ - $ 436,468 Contingency S 117,660 $ (15,500) $ 102,160 Total Budget $ 5,896,663 $ - $ 5,896,663 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 3,077,884 $ - $ 3,077,884 Total Requirements $ 8,974,547 $ - $ 8,974,547 Exhibit B Water Fund FY 2019 Revised Water Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS02 Q3PW02 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 17,877,719 $ - $ - $ 17,877,719 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - $ Licenses&Permits $ 75,173 $ - $ - $ 75,173 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ $ Charges for Services $ 21,463,256 $ - $ $ 21,463,256 Fines &Forfeitures $ $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 30,644 $ - $ $ 30,644 Miscellaneous $ 10,933 $ - $ - $ 10,933 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds $ 58,751 $ - $ - $ 58,751 Total Resources $ 39,516,476 $ - $ - $ 39,516,476 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - $ Public Works $ 8,179,544 $ 110,050 $ 131,000 $ 8,420,594 Program Expenditures Total $ 8,179,544 $ 110,050 $ 131,000 $ 8,420,594 Debt Service $ - $ - $ $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ $ Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ $ Transfers to Other Funds $ 10,684,238 $ - $ - $ 10,684,238 Contingency $ 416,562 $ (110,050) $ (131,000) $ 175,512 Total Budget $ 19,280,344 $ - $ - $ 19,280,344 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 20,236,132 $ - $ - $ 20,236,132 Total Requirements $ 39,516,476 $ - $ - $ 39,516,476 Exhibit B Water SDC Fund FY 2019 Revised Water SDC Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS03 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 8,072,632 $ 806,721 $ 8,879,353 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ _ Licenses &Permits $ 1,466,005 $ - $ 1,466,005 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ _ Charges for Services $ - $ - $ - Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 233 $ - $ 233 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ _ Transfers In from Other Funds S - $ - S _ Total Resources $ 9,538,870 $ 806,721 $ 10,345,591 Requirements Community Development $ - $ _ $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ _ Public Works $ - $ - $ Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ _ Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - Transfers to Other Funds $ 750,000 $ 806,721 $ 1,556,721 Contingency S 100,000 5 - S 100,000 Total Budget $ 850,000 $ 806,721 $ 1,656,721 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 8,688,870 $ - $ 8,688,870 Total Requirements $ 9,538,870 $ 806,721 $ 10,345,591 Exhibit B Water CIP Fund FY 2019 Revised Water CIP Fund Revised Q2 Q3FIS03 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,924,450 $ - $ 1,924,450 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ Licenses &Permits $ - $ - $ Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ Charges for Services $ - $ - $ Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 13,096 $ - $ 13,096 Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds $ 2,737,500 $ 806,721 $ 3,544,221 Total Resources $ 4,675,046 $ 806,721 $ 5,481,767 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ Public Works $ - $ - $ Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ 2,737,500 $ 806,721 $ 3,544,221 Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ Contingency S - S S Total Budget $ 2,737,500 $ 806,721 $ 3,544,221 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,937,546 $ - $ 1,937,546 Total Requirements $ 4,675,046 $ 806,721 $ 5,481,767 Exhibit B PW Engineering Fund FY 2019 Revised PW Engineering Fund Revised Q2 Q3CD01 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses &Permits $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ 2,448,604 $ - $ 2,448,604 Fines &Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds $ 941,288 $ - $ 941,288 Total Resources $ 4,189,892 $ - $ 4,189,892 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - $ - Policy and Administration $ - $ - $ - Public Works $ 3,722,303 $ 6,260 $ 3,728,563 Program Expenditures Total $ 3,722,303 $ 6,260 $ 3,728,563 Debt Service $ - $ - $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ _ Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ _ Contingency S 96,450 S (6,260) $ 90,190 Total Budget $ 3,818,753 $ - $ 3,818,753 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 371,139 $ - $ 371,139 Total Requirements $ 4,189,892 $ - $ 4,189,892 Exhibit B Central Services Fund FY 2019 Revised Central Services Fund Revised Q2 Q3CD01 Q3CM01 Q3FIS02 Q3 Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,036,677 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,036,677 Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - $ $ Franchise Fees $ - $ - $ - $ $ Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Licenses&Permits $ 39,211 $ - $ - $ - $ 39,211 Intergovernmental $ 74,900 $ - $ - $ - $ 74,900 Charges for Services $ 8,354,402 $ - $ - $ 155,000 $ 8,509,402 Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Interest Earnings $ 22,593 $ - $ - $ - $ 22,593 Miscellaneous $ 107,100 $ - $ - $ - $ 107,100 Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Transfers In from Other Funds S 553,550 5 - 5 87,500 S - S 641,050 Total Resources $ 10,188,433 $ - $ 87,500 $ 155,000 $ 10,430,933 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Community Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Policy and Administration $ 8,901,825 $ 30,130 $ 87,500 $ 155,000 $ 9,174,455 Public Works $ - $ - S - $ S Program Expenditures Total $ 8,901,825 $ 30,130 $ 87,500 $ 155,000 $ 9,174,455 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ $ Loan to TCDA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Work-In-Progress $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Transfers to Other Funds $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Contingency S 199,650 $ (30,130) $ - S - $ 169,520 Total Budget $ 9,101,475 $ - $ 87,500 $ 155,000 $ 9,343,975 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 1,086,958 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,086,958 Total Requirements $ 10,188,433 $ - $ 87,500 $ 155,000 $ 10,430,933 AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: April 2, 2019 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR THIRD QUARTER SUPPLMENTAL BUDGET This is a City of Tigard public meeting,subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: April 2, 2019 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. I Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address : p.�ne No. Name,Address&Phone No. Aprik ri 1. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. AIS-3785 6. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes Agenda Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR 95TH AVENUE ZONE CHANGE Prepared For: Gary Pagenstecher, Community Development Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Ordinance Business Public Hearing - Quasi Judicial Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall Council approve the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from R-4.5 to R-7(PD)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff and the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. Staff and Planning Commission further recommend changing the zoning classification from R4.5 to the R-7 zone, with future development reviewed through a planned development process, as conditioned in the Planning Commission recommendation to Council. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and a Zoning Map Amendment from R-4.5 to R-12, preferably, or R-7. The R-12 request by the applicant was designed to maximize the approvable density on the site. To obtain approval for some increased density, should the R-12 zone not be approved, the applicant also provided findings in support of the R-7 zone. The applicant intends to build single-family detached dwellings on the subject site. The project site is located south of SW Greenburg Road in the north-central area of the city bounded by Hwy 217 to the northeast, the Washington Square Regional Center District to the northwest, the Pacific and Western railroad to the southwest, and Pacific Hwy to the southeast. The Comp Plan designations and zoning classifications of property within this area have remained stable since the early 1980s when the Comp Plan was initially adopted. However, zone changes occurred at the periphery of this area northwest of Greenburg Road with implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in 2001 and along Pacific Hwy with the expansion of the MU-CBD zone in 2009. The area can be generally described as having a core of low-density single-family dwellings ringed by denser residential areas and mixed use and commercial zones. The subject property is centrally located within this neighborhood, gently sloped north to south, and contains a few structures associated with the prior salvage yard use. A grove of mature trees, including Oregon white oaks, were present on site at the time of application, but many were cut down recently in advance of the first scheduled City Council hearing. Approval of the request requires consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and a demonstration that the proposed development can be adequately served by public facilities. The findings in Exhibit B, Planning Commission Recommendation, conclude that the proposal is consistent with the applicable policies and requirements, as conditioned. In summary, the recommended R-7 zone best meets the neighborhood compatibility criteria for density and building type and size,while the recommended planned development overlay process ensures the best chance for protecting any remaining trees on the site and open space. Public comment raised issues of spot zoning if rezoned to R-12, proximity of bus service to serve the subject site, and clarity of the type and size of buildings that could be permitted under each zone. Staffs responses to these issues are found in Exhibit B, Planning Commission Recommendation on Remand. Initially, on November 19, 2018, and on remand on February 25th, the Tigard Planning Commission held public hearings, noticed in accordance with city standards, recommending approval of the proposed CPA2018-00003 and the proposed ZON2018-00004 with conditions (R-7 zone, with planned development overlay). Note: On January 29, 2019, City Council remanded the Planning Commission's recommendation for reconsideration because trees had been cut on the subject property in advance of the Council Hearing and the presence of trees on the site were a significant part of the factual basis for the Commission's recommendations to Council. The findings in the Commission Recommendation on Remand address the change in circumstances in support of the Commission's recommendation, which remains unchanged. The applicant's rationale for cutting the trees is contained in the February 25th Planning Commission minutes attached to this AIS. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may: • Approve the proposed R-12 or R-7 zone change,with or without conditions, • Remand the application back to the Planning Commission, • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain, or • Deny the application. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS None DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION January 29, 2019 Attachments Ordinance Exhibit A Zoning Map Exhibit B PC Recommendation PC Minutes 2-25-19 PC Minutes 11-19-18 Public Comment Applicant's Materials PPT Presentation CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 19- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA2018-00003 AND ZONE CHANGE ZON2018-00004 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP FROM R-4.5 TO R-7(PD) ON TAX LOTS 1S135DC 03600,03700 AND 03800. WHEREAS, Section 18.710.080 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires quasi-judicial amendments to be undertaken by means of a Type III-Modified procedure when a zone change application also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment, as governed by Section 18.710.070;and WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and a Zoning Map Amendment from R-4.5 to R-12,preferably,or R-7;and WHEREAS,on November 19,2018,the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing,which was noticed in accordance with city standards,and recommended approval of the proposed CPA2018-00003 by unanimous vote in favor and approval of the proposed ZON2018-00004 (R-7 zone, with recommended planned development overlay) by a vote of six in favor and one abstention; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2019, a public hearing was noticed in accordance with city standards for Tigard City Council to consider the Commission's recommendation on CPA2018-00003/ZON 2018-00004, hear public testimony, and apply applicable decision-making criteria; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2019, the Tigard City Council, without opening the hearing for testimony, remanded the application back to the Planning Commission to address a change in site circumstances involving tree removal occurring between the two hearings that changed the factual basis on which a large portion of the recommendation had been made; and WHEREAS, on February 25,2019, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on remand from Council, which was noticed in accordance with city standards, and affirmed its approval of the proposed CPA2018-00003 by a vote of eight in favor, one opposed, and approval of the proposed ZON2018-00004 (R-7 zone,with recommended planned development overlay) by a vote of seven in favor, one opposed, and one abstention; and WHEREAS, Council's decision to approve CPA2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 and adopt this ordinance was based on the findings and conclusions found in Exhibit "B" and the associated land use record,which is incorporated herein by reference and is contained in land use file CPA2018-00003/ZON2018-00004. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard City Council amends the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications as shown in Exhibit "A" ORDINANCE No. 19- Page 1 SECTION 2: Tigard City Council adopts the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit"B"in support of the Council's action and to be the basis for this ordinance. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of ,2019. Carol Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2019. Jason Snider,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney ORDINANCE No. 19- Page 2 MUC R-12 Pp 1 �._ i I I I i I I � Zoning Map A ORTH DA ++TA ST l Hill v ,,,,_1- _ � .44 \ I - -- 1~ Generalized Zoning Categories F-_ 1 \ I _Lri �A r' R=12 M _ _ _ r Zoning Descri tp ion i I' .� "gill �_ 1111 R-4N W Residential 6R a = Q ■ Z Mixed Use Residential *It/ n �� — oii I al Commercial Q m Q ' — Mixed Use 1.2 11111111ftillillili Triangle Mixed Use + — UMixed Use Employment Industrial -- 1.1 IIII 1111111111111r \ Parks and Recreation R-12 I .44Q WA-CNTY ,S- I__---1i� ■ N Proposed Change from R-4.5 to R-7(PD) IS LN PS o Overlay Zones EllW� • \ -� n• QL historic District Overlay r _ .1 4 N , , Planned Development Overlay PIHAS CT • PIHAS ST u —� • • \ CAL- , R-4.5 ` • II r _d . Subject Site I ,,, . .0, oirn I I •• NGELA CT ) 1111 . mi %/�� .4 R-12y Ty 011094W Mil 16 c_p .�� r � Map pnnted at W 43 AM on 14-Jan-19 �. /ry424 ( ■y+ ■ .__/ . •C� 'T4 I Inblm.tbn on MN map ie by enner Servs n s DI.M ahold be venRetl vMh the q41,l'�,�'�y+i� De e4oame Se ba.D Ylabn. .4. ' S•'•,��,� �// / WARRANTY,REIPR SENOTATION ORLGU RA TEE AS TOITHHE CONTENT MACCURACY, ,:. ' TIME UNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN THE I-P /G4 .... R-4s5 R-� CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR _ INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. Rbys I� � COMMUNITY DEVELUPMhNI DEPARTMENT ' J� City of Tigartl ,Qa D 13125 SW Hall Blvd � ' Q ,- TiGAR �0 Tigard,OR 97223 Flet , M 503 639-0171 '� 0 MU CBD ``� :ti 4 334 A. - www.tlgardor.gov ..1 �&�.... R-2S ... TIGAFiD EXHIBIT B Hearing Date: April 2,2019 Time: 7:30 PM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND 1111 TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD 120 DAYS = (with 90-day extension) April 25, 2019 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2018-00003 Zone Change (ZON) 2018-00004 FILE TITLE: 95th AVENUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS APPLICANT: Brian Cobb Infinite Architecture PO Box 664 Donald,OR 97020 OWNERS: Winters Salvage Yard,LLC 747 Micheltorena Street,Unit B Los Angeles,CA 90026 Hyperfight Holding,LLC 7420 SW Bridgeport Rd#101 Portland,OR 97224 REQUEST: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from R- 4.5 to R-12, preferably, or R-7. The subject property is comprised of three existing lots totaling 1.64 acres (71,438 sf),which are predominantly flat and open. The site is accessed on the west by 95th Avenue and on the east by 92nd Avenue. The R-4.5 zone abuts the property to the north and west and the R-7 zone abuts to the south and east. The purpose of the zone change is to increase density for the development of single-family housing units. Note: On January 29th, 2019, City Council remanded the Planning Commission's recommendation for reconsideration because trees had been cut on the subject property in advance of the Council Hearing and the presence of trees on the site were a significant part of the factual basis for the Commission's recommendations to Council. The findings in this Commission Recommendation on Remand address the change in circumstances in support of the Commission's recommendation, which remains unchanged. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 1 OF 15 LOCATION: 11700& 11730 SW 95th Avenue;TAX MAP 1S135DC 03600,03700,and 03800. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: Existing: R-4.5: low-density residential zone. The R-4.5 zone is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory dwelling units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. Proposed: R-12: medium-density residential zone. The R-12 zone is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet.A wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. Proposed (Alternate): R-7: medium-density residential zone. The R-7 zone is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory dwelling units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks are permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapter 18.795; Comprehensive Plan Goals REVIEW 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth CRITERIA: Management Functional Plan Title 1,Housing Capacity. SECTION II PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. The Planning Commission further recommends changing the zoning classification from R4.5 to the R-7 zone with' future development reviewed through a planned development process,as conditioned below. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. To ensure compatibility with adjacent development, protection of mature trees and provision of open space on the subject site, approval of the R-7 zone shall require future development to be reviewed through the planned development process. SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Description The project site is located south of SW Greenburg Road in the north-central area of the city bounded by Hwy 217 to the northeast, the Washington Square Regional Center District to the northwest,the Pacific and Western railroad to the southwest, and Pacific Hwy to the southeast. The Comp Plan designations and zoning classifications of property within this area have remained stable since the early 1980s when the Comp Plan was initially adopted. However,zone changes occurred at the periphery of this area northwest of PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 2 OF 15 Greenburg Road with implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in 2001 and along Pacific Hwy with the expansion of the MU-CBD zone in 2009. The area can be generally described as having a core of low-density single-family dwellings ringed by denser residential areas and mixed use and commercial zones. The subject property is centrally located within this neighborhood, gently sloped north to south, and contains a few structures associated with the prior salvage use. A grove of mature trees, including Oregon white oaks, were present on site until a portion of them were removed by the owner prior to the City Council hearing on the matter. Proposal Description The applicant's narrative includes the following proposal description(edited for clarity): The proposed scope of this application includes re-zoning three separate but contiguous lots totaling 1.64 acres, from low-density R-4.5 to a medium-density residential zoning designation. Within a quarter mile of these properties there are six different planning zones ranging from R-4.5 to R-25 and I-L, C-P to CBD (see figure below). We are proposing a change in zoning for the subject parcels to R-12. While this would be a locally isolated section of R-12 zoning, for the time being, the subject parcels will be contiguous with the adjacent R-7 zone. The Comprehensive Plan considers R-7 & R-12 to both be medium density. So,in this respect, either R-12 or R-7 is consistent with the Comp Plan's Medium Density designation that the properties are adjacent to. Furthermore, there is a large area of existing R-12 zone within approximately 500 ft. of the northwest corner of the subject property (see figure below). The large section of R-12 zoned property to the northwest is second in size only to the R-4.5 low-density property that comprise the subject properties. The adjacent R-7 zone is smaller in size and more disconnected than the higher R-12 zone we are proposing to eventually connect with. We believe it is reasonable to see the R-4.5 zone in the surrounding area being changed to R-12 or split into R-7/R-12. These changes would provide more consistency to the zoning in the area by producing larger blocks of similar zones. We strongly feel that a R-12 zone change would be most beneficial to this area and aid in the future retention of the large blocks of lower density housing areas in other parts of the city, as addressed in R-12 compliance narrative in this application. Higher density housing in this area, as a buffer to commercial &industrial zones,works best as it allows for larger swashes of lower density homes away from less family-oriented zones. We feel that this zone change can be a catalyst to quality development which can provide additional living units, enhance the higher density zone buffers, and protect the large blocks of low density from the pressures of population needs. While we feel changing these properties to R-12 and their eventual connection to the northwest R-12 zone, we have provided an alternate request for a zone change to R-7, as addressed in the R-7 compliance narrative in this application. This request would provide additional living units, would be contiguous with an existing R-7 zone, and compatible with Comprehensive Plan for medium density housing. There is a high demand for housing of all types within the city limits that is close to essential services. Increasing density within the city reduces sprawl, costly service extensions, and PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 3 OF 15 automobile traffic. This zone change will bring much needed residential units within the city limits, aesthetically improve and contribute to the neighborhood, and dramatically increase the property tax revenue for these three lots. These three lots, and included street right-of- way, represents a large block of contiguous land adjacent to a R-7 zone and compatible in the larger&more long term"medium density" zone of the Comprehensive Plan. UI'MILE RADUIS FROM PROPERTY CENTER ` "WOE"' M P.-2 0115i,.; tbs MU R-t fs is * •�, k-45 # ` 0.l , 500 FT RADIUS FROM PROPERTY CORNER ` ,�j , ' E • ••• E 6P • . r• - _ MUE • L '• 4-25:PC - t :�{ ) -- 1/4 hie 0 1. 411116116._ ,, ,-4-41-_ A : WHINE T.TE MOMS PO.Bm669 REFERENCE DRAW9IG', CAM __._._.. OMIT pi (r)503GR9013 PROJECT AREA ZONING (D)503889.2991 we'"°-901.02 n''''' C 5o3neso,3 SW 95TH REPEAT Z W HIU(TIRE •1700 8 11730 SW 9555 TIGARD,CR 97223 SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section contains all of the applicable city, state and metro policies, provisions, and criteria that apply to the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. 18.795 MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS 18.795.030 Quasi Judicial Amendments A.Approval process. 3. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments that require a comprehensive map plan amendment shall be processed through a Type III-Modified procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080, which shall be decided by the city council with a recommendation by planning commission. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment is from low-density residential R-4.5 to Medium-Density Residential R-12 or R-7. Therefore,a Type III-Modified procedure is applicable. B.Approval criteria.A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment or quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment shall be based on the following: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 4 OF 15 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the community. Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions were given the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Several opportunities for participation are built into the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including public hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.710 of the Tigard Community Development Code. On September 27, 2018, public hearing notice of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested parties list and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On October 3,2018,the proposal was posted on the City's web site. On November 1,2018,the site was posted with a notice board. On November 12, 2018 the staff report was made available on the city's website and at the permit center for public review. On November 19, 2019, a Planning Commission hearing was held at which the Commission decided to recommend to Council approval of the proposed R-7 zone change, subject to a condition requiring planned development review. On January 29, 2019, City Council decided to remand the case back to the Commission to reconsider their recommendation based on a change in site circumstances involving tree removal. On February 4, 2019, a notice of public hearing for the Commission hearing on remand was mailed to property owners within 500 feet and interested parties. On February 25, 2019, a Planning Commission hearing was held at which the Commission decided to affirm their original recommendation to Council of approval of the proposed R-7 zone change, subject to a condition requiring planned development review. On March 18, 2019 a notice of public hearing for the City Council hearing was mailed to property owners within 500 feet and interested parties. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above,the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies 2 and 5 are met. Chapter 2: Land Use Planning Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative basis of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 2 The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 5 OF 15 The City's development code,Title 18,and its Comprehensive Plan amendment process have been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. Potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies were given an opportunity to comment. Any comments that were received are addressed in Section VII: Outside Agency Comments,below. This policy is met. Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas. The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that Pacific Hwy, through Tigard, is designated as a "Corridor."The subject site is located within one quarter mile,within walking distance,of Pacific Hwy. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments from low-density residential, R-4.5, to medium-density residential, R-12 or R-7, would promote more intense urban level development than the existing zone. The R-12 zone allows more dense development with a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet per lot, versus 7,500 square feet per lot in the R-4.5 zone or 5,000 square feet per lot in the R-7 zone. This policy is met. Policy 14 Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and when necessary,those of the state and other agencies. In the applicant's narrative, they acknowledge that they bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this application is consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code. City staff have provided findings for each of the relevant approval criteria in this staff report with analysis based on the information and narrative provided by the applicant. This criterion is met. Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; Transportation and other public facilities and services are available and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation because the site is already served by all necessary public facilities and services, which can accommodate the proposed development with some facility upgrades (as detailed in the city's Development Review Engineer's Pre-Application Memorandum dated March 23, 2018). The site has street frontage on SW 95th and access to a stubbed Tangela Street off of SW 92nd Additionally, there is available transit service with two major bus lines (76 and 78) and four bus stops within 500 feet to provide sufficient capacity for increased density and to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation.This criterion is met. B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 6 OF 15 Pre-Application Notes from Tigard's Development Review Engineer, included as Exhibit 5 in the application, demonstrate that public facilities and services can be available to serve the subject site without negatively affecting existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services. This criterion is met. C.The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; The new land use designation fulfills a proven community need with the provision of needed housing in this particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties because this area currently consists of low density housing but it is located close to city services that would support higher density housing.According to the findings in the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Planning Chapter: • "One of the biggest growth management challenges that Tigard will face, as well as the rest of the Portland region,is the need to accommodate up to a million new residents..." • "Another growth management challenge that Tigard faces is the lack of large vacant parcels available for urban development. This type of development is a thing of the past and most household and employment growth in Tigard will be the result of redevelopment and infill." • "Future commercial, employment, and multi-family growth will likely occur through redevelopment." The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Amendments from Low-Density Residential, R-4.5, to Medium-Density Residential, R-12 or R-7, will allow more housing options with close proximity to Highway 99W and transit service including two major bus routes and four bus stops within 500 feet. This criterion is met. D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; The findings in the Comprehensive Plan state there is a lack of undeveloped parcels to accommodate affordable housing (Housing Strategies Report, May 28, 2013). The subject site is a small infill project surrounded by low and medium density residential development, including single-family and multi-family units. Increased density allowed by either the R-12 or R-7 zone, would contribute marginally to more affordable housing by spreading the cost of public facilities improvements over more units. Additionally, proximity to Highway 99W and public transportation warrants increased density at this location. This criterion is met. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; No overlay district applies to the subject property. Land uses allowed in the proposed R-12 or R-7 zone could be developed in compliance with applicable regulations.This criterion is met. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible,with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and The proposedos d R-12 zone would permit multi-family residential,which is not allowed in the surrounding R- 4.5 or R-7 zones. Additionally, the R-7 zone would allow an increase in building height limits from 30 to 35 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 7 OF 15 feet over the existing R-4.5 zone. However, existing land uses on adjacent properties include both single and two-story single detached houses and non-conforming single and two-story apartments. The environmental conditions of the site consist of relatively flat land with no wetlands or streams but did include the natural features of a grove of mature trees, many of them Oregon white oak trees,until many of them were cut down during this development review process in February. The existing land uses immediately around the site are primarily single dwelling houses. There are also a few non-conforming apartment complexes mixed into the neighborhood. Because of the mix of existing land uses in the area, either the proposed R-12 or R-7 could allow development potentially compatible with surrounding land uses. Compatible means uses that are capable of existing with or functioning well with other existing uses. Because the R-12 allows more density it may not be compatible with the existing environmental conditions to the extent that some mature trees remain on the subject site (no tree inventory of the site before or after tree removal has been available). Because there is existing non-conforming higher density in the neighborhood, it would be less compatible to the existing single dwelling houses to allow additional density. Less density with the proposed R-7 zone, together with the flexibility allowed with planned development review, would be more compatible with environment conditions and surrounding land uses. Additionally, the site borders R7 zoning to the south and east an R7 zone designation would be a compatible extension of that existing zone. As conditioned with planned development review, this criterion is met. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Staff finds that the natural systems on the property primarily consist of mature Oregon white oaks and other trees, in addition to open space.. Removing trees and eliminating open space does not support the viability of the on-site natural systems so to the extent that the proposed amendment allows for more retention of trees and open space the greater it meets the standard to "not detract from the viability of the natural systems." To the extent the zone change allows more dense development, the less likely it will be to retain existing tree canopy and open space. There is no guarantee that any future development proposal at the densities allowed under the proposed R- 12 zone would be designed to "not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems" through preservation of any remaining trees or open space on the site. In order to meet this criterion, the proposed R-7 zone seems more appropriate for the site and limits density to a level that would allow for some remaining trees and open space to be preserved within lots. The planned development review process offers developers flexibility to design the development to accommodate existing trees and open space. With the R- 7 zone and application of the planned development overlay,this criterion is met. Policy 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. The applicant/owners intend to develop the site with single family detached residential units and, as stated in testimony at the Planning Commission on February 25th, 2019, they have so far indicated that they are accepting of the Commission's R-7 recommendation. The Commission's deliberation, as shown in the minutes of the February 25th hearing, favor the R-7 zone and application of the planned development process. Commissioners expressed a desire to allow the increase in zoning but were concerned about the lack of assurance that the viability of the trees and open space would be addressed with future development and that compatibility with adjacent development would PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 8 OF 15 be maintained. In order to assure development of a definite land use and per specific design and development requirements (i.e., the viability of the trees and open space and compatibility with adjacent development), the Commission recommends a condition of approval for the zone change to ensure a deliberative process provided by planned development review. As determined through the public hearing process, the city may exercise its discretion to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements and require a condition of approval to require future development be approved through the planned development process. Policy 17. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use. The applicant has applied for a zone change at this time and plans to follow the zone change decision with a subdivision application at a later time. Policy 21 The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development regulations. The proposal is for a zone change of the subject property and not for development,at this time.At the time a development application is submitted the city will require conformance with the applicable site design/development regulations. Policy 23. The City shall require new development,including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. The proposed zone change would permit up to 16 lots that could be arranged on both sides of an extended Tangela St. from 92nd Avenue to 95th Avenue. On the south and east, the lots would back up to five single and two-story existing single family detached dwellings in an R-7 zone. On the north, the lots would back up to one existing two-story detached dwelling and two non-conforming apartment buildings in an R-4.5 zone. Existing abutting development would potentially experience an additional abutting lot each under the proposed R-12 zone than under the R4.5 zone with an additional five feet in height permitted from 30 to 35 feet. This could result in greater massing due to three-story construction and increased density. The extension of the existing public street would be the same regardless of the zone. Currently, the neighborhood is a mix of conforming and non-conforming building types and heights. New development under the proposed zoning would continue this quality of dynamic infill. The proposed R-12 or R-7 zone could result in development compatible with the adjacent existing development that surrounds the subject site depending on the product type and size. As stipulated in Policy 16, above, the city may condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. The R-7 zone would limit the maximum number of units to 10 and the height to two stories to ensure proposed development would be consistent with adjacent development. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed zone change from R-4.5 to R-7 can be made consistent with the applicable Land Use policies as ensured by the city's discretion to add conditions of approval to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and specific design /development requirements,as determined through the public hearing process. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 9 OF 15 CONDITION To ensure compatibility with adjacent development and the potential incorporation of mature trees and open space on the subject site, the Commission recommends approval of the R-7 zone with future development reviewed through a planned development process. Chapter 10: Housing Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 5. The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square), and along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the future. The site is within a half mile of Highway 99W, a transit corridor, and within 500 feet of four bus stops on SW Greenburg Road. The site can support R-12 densities with existing and planned public facilities. There is a demonstrated need for more affordable housing in the city. These factors combined make this location appropriate for increased density from low-density to medium density residential, zoned either R-12 of R-7. This policy is met. GOAL: 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability Policy 5. The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resources, easy access to public transit and other efficient modes of transportation, easy access to services and parks, resource efficient design and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources. The proposed amendments would allow denser residential development on the subject site, from six units under R-4.5 to a maximum of 16 units under R-12. Higher densities generally are a more efficient use of land and the site has easy access to services and parks. Staff has determined that the mature oak trees on the property are the only natural resources on the site. The highest densities requested (R-12) may not support the conservation of these natural resources on the site. As discussed elsewhere in this staff report,with development of a definite land use and specific design /development requirements, established through conditions of approval, the natural resources in the form of the mature oak trees can be conserved and resource efficient design and construction with the use of renewable energy resources can be ensured. The subject site is located within 500 feet of four bus stops on SW Greenburg Road and within a half mile of Pacific Hwy. The proposal supports a sustainable infill development pattern that promotes the efficient use of land and easy access to public transit and other efficient modes of transportation. As conditioned, this policy is met. Policy 6. The City shall promote innovative and well-designed housing development through application of planned developments and community design standards for multi-family housing. The developable configuration of the subject site is determined in large part by the required extension of SW Tangela Street through the center of the site and the preservation of the mature trees. The application of planned development standards or the community design standards for multifamily housing would need PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 10 OF 15 to be required through conditions of approval. Multi-family housing would only be permitted by the R-12 zone. If Planning Commission decides to allow the proposed R-12 zone change, then the Commission should consider a condition of approval requiring a planned development process to develop the site with multi-family housing.With such a condition this policy is met. If R-7 is approved,this policy does not apply. Policy 7. The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to locational characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and natural resources, availability of public facilities and services, and existing land use patterns. Staff has determined that the natural resources on the site consisted of mature trees,including Oregon white oak trees. The residential densities allowed by the R12 zone may not be appropriate for this location due to site conditions and the presence of the remaining mature trees. The higher density makes it more difficult to develop the site while preserving these natural resources. The density resulting from the R-7 request is more appropriately related to locational characteristics and site conditions in regard to the natural resources on the site.There does not appear to be any evidence of natural hazards on the site. The site is an infill parcel with a zone change request to allow a more dense single-family residential use. Public facilities are available, or can be improved, to serve additional development on the subject site. The proposed amendments allow for additional density where services exist, including public transit. The proposed R-7 zone best matches the existing land use pattern and site conditions.This policy is met. Policy 8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or more intense, land uses on residential living environments, such as:A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another; B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. The applicant proposes a zone change for the subject property to increase density to better distribute the cost of improvements over more units. The proposed R-12 zone would allow up to 16 units, the proposed alternate R-7 zone would allow up to 10 units over the currently allowed six units. The applicant proposes single-family detached development and has expressed a willingness to accept a condition to assure that outcome. Given the site configuration would most likely not support multi-family housing type construction, the adverse impacts are most likely to be due to single-family development due to the impact on lot and street configurations and overall site development resulting from the increased density. The density allowed by R-12 will likely create adverse impacts to existing vegetation, natural resources, and provision of open areas due to the more intense land use. In addition, the increase density would impact the back yards of the 14 units abutting the subject site more or less depending on whether the zone is changed to R-12 or R-7. An R-7 zone would provide a more orderly transition between zones and proved greater potential to preserve trees. The applicant states, "While a change to R12 would provide more financial security and opportunities for the development as a whole, a R7 zone change would provide a suitable increase to meet the project goals as well as City of Tigard development codes." Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the R-7 zone change request with previously stated conditions of approval in order to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the request.With such conditions,this policy is met. At issue,given removal of the oak trees,is whether the conditioned planned development review procedure is still applicable. Policy 8 requires the City to require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or more intense, land uses on residential living environments, including, among others, the provision of open space areas. Therefore, in considering the proposed zone change that would permit R-7 zoning adjacent to R-4.5 zoning along the northern property line, the Commission could require the PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 11 OF 15 proposal to include open space, such as a pocket park,within the development area. The City's Park System Master Plan (2009) identifies the subject area as park deficient and includes guidance for pocket parks that are applicable to the proposed site. Accordingly, the Commission continues to recommend approval of the R-7 zone with a planned development overlay to ensure an open space component is included in the development plan to ensure the Goal of maintaining a high level of residential livability and the policy to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or more intense,land uses on residential living environments are met. Policy 9. The City shall require infill development to be designed to address compatibility with existing neighborhoods. The application is for a zone change and not development, at this time. However, the city may still exercise its discretion to condition the subsequent development permit to be compatible with the existing neighborhood on approval of the zone change.With previously discussed conditions of approval,this policy can be met. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment from low- density to medium-density residential complies with the applicable comprehensive plan Housing policies. On balance, the proposed R-7 zone better meets the applicable comp plan policies than the R-12 zone with respect to compatibility with existing adjacent development and protection of existing vegetation and natural resources. Proposed conditions of approval would ensure future development of the site would be designed to preserve the mature oaks on the site. METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Housing Capacity The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a "fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity. FINDING: The City's Housing Strategies Report indicates "in general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone, which allows attached housing on 3,050 square-foot lots and multi-family unit housing. With this quasi-judicial action, the zone change to R-12 on the subject site will result in a marginal increase of R-12 zoned land in the City of Tigard resulting in an increasingly compact urban form and a contributing towards its "fair-share" of regional housing needs. The proposal increases Tigard's housing capacity, consistent with the purpose of Title 1. 18.795.030.B.2 Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property, the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use, and the characteristics of the property and development proposal,if any. The proposed change in zoning from R-4.5 to R-12 more than doubles the allowed density from six units to 16 units maximum. The applicant provided the following findings with respect to the adequacy of public services to serve the increased density: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 12 OF 15 "As part of the preapplication process, City of Tigard Engineering reviewed our potential preliminary subdivision plans (Pre-Application Notes, Exhibit 5 of the application). It was noted that there would be adequate public utilities available to the site, based on R4.5 density, with some potential upgrades and adjustments. Public utilities will continue to be adequately available to the site to serve higher density development such as R-12. The water line may require upsizing and the storm system may require repairs in the area for known maintenance issues. Both of these issues, as well as others, are correct-able as part of and over the course of this development." FINDING: As shown in the findings above, the applicant demonstrates that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of the proposed R-12 zoning. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Development Services Division (Engineering) reviewed the proposal for a Pre- Application Conference on April 3, 2018 and provided comment in a Memorandum dated March 23, 2018. The findings of the Memorandum are contained within this Staff Report. SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: Metro Land Use and Planning and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the proposal and provided a comment letter dated April 3, 2018 addressing basic approval standards for potential subdivision development, as proposed at the applicant's pre-application conference. SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 11, 2018. Documentation is provided in Exhibit 4 of the application. Fourteen attendees discussed the proposed comprehensive plan and zone change amendments. Issues discussed focused on consistency with the Comp Plan, spot zoning, multifamily development,quality of product,traffic,parking,ownership vs rental units, and schedule of development. On September 27, 2018, the city mailed notice of Notice of Public Hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and to interested parties. The city received two written comments: Robert Ruedy, an interested party at 14185 SW 100th Avenue, submitted a comment letter, undated but received on October 11, 2018, opposing the application. Mr. Ruedy raises the issue of spot zoning arguing the three stories allowed under R-12 represents a "neighborhood livability"issue with the surrounding two- story R-4.5 zone. Mr. Ruedy also worries that "Frequent Public Transit" is too far to be useful to future residents of the subject property. RESPONSE: The following is a working definition of"spot zoning" in the opinion of land use attorney Daniel Shapiro,on the Planners Web site: "When considering spot zoning, courts will generally determine whether the zoning relates to the compatibility of the zoning of surrounding uses. Other factors may include; the characteristics of the land, the size of the parcel, and the degree of the "public benefit." Perhaps the most important criteria in PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 13 OF 15 determining spot zoning is the extent to which the disputed zoning is consistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan." The city's goal of increasing affordable housing is a public benefit identified in the city's comprehensive plan policies. The protection of existing uses by ensuring new development is compatible is also a public benefit identified in the city's comprehensive plan policies. The Commission's recommendation and Council's action on the proposed amendments can address these potentially competing "goods" through exercise of their discretion to condition the zone change to reduce the impacts while supporting density. For example, approving the R-12 zone, while limiting the use allowed to single-family detached units not to exceed two stories. Bus lines # 76 and #78 run on Greenburg within approximately 500 feet of the subject property on both SW 92nd and 95th, which have 30-minute headways where 15-minute headways are generally considered frequent service. More frequent service is provided within a half mile on Pacific Hwy. Wayne Chapman, property owner at 11850/11900 SW 95th Ave., submitted a comment letter undated but received on October 11,2018 (attached),raising questions of procedure and substance and opposing the zone change. Mr. Chapman worries that "ordinary procedure for public input seems to have been short- circuited" with inclusion in the application of an alternate R-7 proposal to the R-12 primary request. Mr. Chapman is similarly concerned with spot zoning where the proposed R-12 zone may not be compatible with existing adjacent R-4.5-zoned property. The prospect of apartments,allowed under the R-12 zone,and the need for a clearer comparison of types of construction permitted under the two proposed zones are also at issue. RESPONSE: The hearing process provides interested parties notice of hearing which provides information to timely access the application to become fully aware of the proposal. In addition, the staff report to the Planning Commission and, in turn, the City Council, is made available to the public one week prior to the hearings. In this manner, the city provides the public access to the substantive content of the application, as demonstrated in Mr. Chapman's case. The issue of spot zoning is addressed above under the response to Mr. Ruedy. The issue of multi-family use and the comparison of types of construction permitted under the R-7 and R-12 zones is addressed in the findings in the staff report,above. In addition, at the Commission's February 25, 2019 Hearing on Remand, additional written and oral testimony was received by the city in opposition to the proposed development. The concerns ranged from increased traffic, hazardous materials on site, pedestrian safety, through traffic, and tree removal and are contained in the record for CPA2018-00003 and reflected in the minutes of the Commission hearing. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment from R-4.5 to R-7 complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances,as conditioned. By a vote of 8 in favor, one opposed, the Planning Commission recommends the Tigard City Council APPROVE the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. By a vote of 7 in favor, one opposed, one abstention , the Planning Commission further recommends amending the zoning classification from R4.5 to R-7 (PD) consistent with the Comp Plan policies to mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent properties and to identified on-site natural resources. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 14 OF 15 RECOMMENDED: THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. tiop Brian Feeney, Planning Commission Vice President Dated this 15th day of March 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2018-00003/ZON2018-00004 95th Avenue Zone Change PAGE 15 OF 15 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, February 25,2019 Location:Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CALL TO ORDER Acting President Feeney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Acting President Feeney Commissioner Brook Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Alt. Commissioner Quinones Commissioner Roberts Alt. Commissioner Sarman Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Tiruvallur Commissioner Watson Commissioner Whitehurst Absent: None Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher, Project Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant COMMUNICATIONS —None. CONSIDER MINUTES Acting President Feeney asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the December 17 minutes; there being none, Acting President Feeney declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING - 95th Avenue Zone Change- Remand Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA)2018-00003; Zoning Map Amendment(ZON)2018-00004 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from R-4.5 to R-12.The subject property is comprised of three existing lots February 25, 2019 Page 1 of 12 totaling 1.64 acres (71,438 sf), which are predominantly flat and open. The site is accessed on the west by 95th Avenue and on the east by 92nd Avenue. The R-4.5 zone abuts the property to the north and west and the R-7 zone abuts to the south and east. The purpose of the zone change is to increase density for the development of single-family housing units. LOCATION: 11700 & 11730 SW 95th Avenue QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS Acting President Feeney read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi- judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Jackson, Whitehurst, Feeney, Schmidt, and Tiruvaller had visited the site. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Project Planner Gary Pagenstecher introduced himself. As a reminder for the commissioners who were present during the original hearing, and to familiarize the new commissioners with the case he went over the original PowerPoint that he'd used at the November 19, 2018 original public hearing (Exhibit A). After the review, he explained why it was remanded back to the Commission. Basically, a week before the City Council hearing took place, the trees that were part of the discussion were removed. Neighbors made staff aware of that. At that point, since the circumstances had changed on which they had based their recommendation, staff recommended that the Council remand it back to the Commission. In the meantime, staff has received additional comments from both the applicant and neighbors. The applicant has indicated in emails and letters that the trees were not fit to be retained. They were hazardous in some way, but there were no arborist reports or data. Gary noted that the photos that were shown documenting the tree removal in the memo show clean cuts of Oak trees that looked to be in good condition. Both the canopy and the butt cuts of those trees seemed to indicate that at least some of the trees may have been worth keeping. At this point,Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire addressed the Commission. He said, "It's a bit unusual to have a hearing like this as technically, the tree cutting was legal; the Commission is not looking at any kind of a code violation. However, staff is not happy with the way this was conducted —the way it was done. For the record, I think that given that the trees were a part of the discussion of the Planning Commission, and that there was an expectation that we were looking for additional information on the quality of the trees and their character, that that would be brought to the City Council hearing; that would be part of the discussion. I believe that was what the Planning Commission was expecting. So,we were very surprised to hear that the trees were cut down. We didn't get a copy of any kind of report—we didn't even get notified that it was going to happen ahead of time;it just happened. We wouldn't have found out about it if the neighbors hadn't told us. It's pretty bad form to do that in the middle of what is essentially the discussion of the case. I wanted to get that on the record, but again - technically it was legal, and I want to make sure the Planning Commission understands that." February 25, 2019 Page 2 of 12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low- to medium- density residential. And that the Planning Commission further recommends changing the zoning classification from R4.5 to the R-7 zone, with future development reviewed through a planned development process as conditioned in the staff report. QUESTIONS So, the main thing we're talking about is whether or not they need the Planned Development review —that's our main topic of discussion, right? That is one of them,yes— that would either change your recommendation or decide to keep it. Is the City's recommendation still an R-7 approval? Yes. The Planned Development was not part of the original November 19 request? Or was staff's recommendation? That was staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission voted to recommend that to City Council. There was a question about the "dead-end" where one side is 95th and one side is Tangela Court —which is off of 92nd.The right of way is abutting a property—it has access from that right of way. Tom McGuire came up and explained that that is technically a "Stub Street." He said, `Normally, if it's not intended to go through as the neighboring properly develops, the city requires a cul-de-sac. So when we intend it to go through sometime in the future with the next development, we stub it like that. It's not a cul-de-sac;the intention is that it eventually goes through." There were questions about the neighbors' written comments asserting that the Planning Commission didn't consider several applicable approval criteria when it submitted its recommendation to the Council last November. Gary Pagenstecher went through them one by one and explained why they were internal policies for the City rather than applicable approval criteria. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION —Architect Brian Cobb, Owner of Infinite Architecture addressed some of the written comments. He said, "Some of the comments questioned what the site benefits; the immediate local residents; and the salvage yard. The City as a whole is benefitting from the addition of housing. It's the law of Supply and Demand —if supply is down, then the cost comes down as well—until the demand - and so forth. On the other hand, there's potential for hazardous or toxic materials on the salvage yard portion. Well, that's been around for a very long time. The benefit to the immediate neighborhood is that we are removing that. We're changing the designation and taking that back to residential use -and we didn't comment on that in our original presentation and materials because there are laws out there stating that the hazardous materials found on the site need to be cleaned up or mitigated. So we're benefitting the neighborhood itself while reducing the hazard of the salvage yard. We're aware there may need to be some soils reports and things done —we feel that level of detail is not this process. The zone change process isn't the time or place to be doing that. It's February 25, 2019 Page 3 of 12 more in the subdivision material where you get into the detailed location of the lot lines, the roads, the houses and where things are placed." He reiterated what Tom McGuire had spoken about —that Tangela Court is an extension, and not a cul-de-sac. 92nd Avenue is actually a cul-de-sac as it terminates in the turnaround. He went over a .pdf of various trees to explain the damage to the trees (Exhibit B). He noted that 57% of the trees that were counted, remain. The majority of the White Oaks happened to be near or at the middle third of the site, and most of those were damaged as the various pictures show. He used the photos to show that damage. Because of the level to which the trees were damaged —a couple of the trees fell on their own. He explained why they felt it necessary to take the damaged trees down—mainly due to liability if the diseased tree falls on top of a person or a house. The soils report showed some of the effects of the current use (the uses that they're changing) —there were materials and debris that were compacting the soils and things that were damaging the trees that exist on site now - which is why some of them were in bad health. Regarding the traffic studies —he said they certainly are willing to do anything that's required, as long as it's required of everybody else. But that particular level of detail is something that would be covered in the subdivision phase of the project,which has to go through this similar process. He said, "I don't believe it goes to City Council, but it goes through Planning Commission. So you'll see that as well —with the neighbors being able to comment on that." QUESTIONS Do you want to have the option of going through Planned Development Review, or do you not care? We would prefer to stay out of a Planned Development if there's no particular reason to cover that. It's just an additional level of time and effort that brings up the cost and then gets pushed on down the road. Do you have reports from the arborists that were on the property? No. We didn't feel it was worth the cost of the report to substantiate some of the clearly deficient trees. It's over$1,000 for the report and just additional fees, time and effort At the time it didn't seem to be of benefit for the overall project. Are any of the arborists here tonight? No, they are not. As City staff mentioned —this is about timing. The applicant had a right to take down the trees at any time, but why in between Planning Commission approval and recommendation to right before City Council? It seems a little strange. By the photos, yes, it appears there are diseased trees — I don't doubt that. But I'm curious about the timing. It seems a little questionable. I would agree that we could have at least discussed the situation with you all earlier. I wasn't fully involved in it for the whole period o f time or I could've helped out with the communication between the two. The issue of it happening the week before the council meeting was not really our intent. The owner and his mother(who owns the other propery —the salvage yard part if I remember correctly)— they both took a lot of time to decide whether or not they wanted to save the trees or work with the trees, and they spent two or three weeks trying to decide whether or not they wanted to remove them. In the end they left it up to the owner's representative to make the decision about whether or not the trees stay. It wasn't their intent to wait until the week before, but it was just the time needed to make that decision. We should have communicated with you all about what was happening and the health of the trees before we went ahead with it. February 25, 2019 Page 4 of 12 You mentioned that it is currently a scrapyard but that you are no longer having a scrapyard on the site. What is going on currently with that process? The owner may be able to address that, but I believe during the last couple of months they've been clearing out the stuff that is on the site. They are clearing the site and that's one of the reasons they felt it necessary to cut the trees — because they did have other people working on the site and there were limbs falling— so there would be liability for people getting hurt while working on the site. With the future development, have you considered open space designation if the Planning Commission decides to suggest a Planned Development review to include the open space designation? I'm glad you asked because I meant to talk a little bit about the park space. Given the site is fair#small in relationship to other developments of size—there's at least four parks of multiple acres within a half mile of the site. l(e didn't feel that we would be able to create a park of a useful enough size other than a place where a dog could go and sit on the grass or perhaps to locate a picnic table. To make it worthwhile for more than just the immediate residents, and since there are acres of parks within a half mile,we don't feel that it's necessary to create another park that would split services. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Andrew Jones, 11715 SW 95th Ave., Tigard is the property owner. He said he lives directly across the street from the junkyard on the property that he's developing. He noted that he personally financed both properties to do what was right. His mother owns the property next to him because he gave it to her. He worked hard for a long time to purchase both properties, and he did that with the city in mind. He understood when he bought the junkyard first that the city had a plan to push that property through. That's why the street behind there is not a cul-de-sac. It wasn't easy for him to obtain both properties. The person who sold the other property knew that as well and highly taxed him on it. But he did it because he felt it was in the best interest of the city because that's what the city wanted. He didn't see a way forward for the city to develop that street through if one person owned one property and the other person didn't want to do it. It looked like a dead end. He reiterated that while everybody does have an opinion about his trees... they are his trees. He paid for them. He understands the timing issue and he gets the communication issue; he said he's not a land developer by trade. He has a job —he owns multiple companies in multiple states —that's what he does. This is a hobby for him. He wants to do something good for his neighborhood and the city. But at the end of the day —those trees are owned by him —he worked for them. There are multiple reasons why he did what he did, but at the end of the day, they were his to do with what he wanted to do. At the last meeting it had been noted that the trees were able to be cut. They were not heritage trees. Staff mentioned that there wasn't a city issue at the time. He felt that was an understanding by the commission — nobody asked him not to do it; nobody said not to do it. Everybody said that it was okay and he feels like he's getting reprimanded for acting in his own best interest, with my own property—in a legal way —for something he worked hard to pay for. He wants everyone to keep in mind. At the end of the day, he's working under the guidelines that he was presented by everyone in a legal fashion for the property that he worked very hard to own. He hopes that will be respected. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION February 25, 2019 Page 5 of 12 Josh Jones (no relation), 9555 SW Lewis Lane said he and other neighbors put together a letter with several concerns that they have as neighbors of the property and of 95th Avenue. The biggest concerns they still have are parking, 92nd is lined with cars constantly. Additional houses on a through street could extremely impact available street parking with increasing the density. He thinks R-7 would add too many cars to the area. The street is difficult to navigate as it is because it's so narrow; the street is only 20'wide. QUESTION Do you prefer the R-7 or R-12 designation? Mr.Jones answered — I'd like to keep the same designation —R-4.5. Eric Nicholson 9550 SW Lewis Lane is against unknowns. He's neither for or against the development. He is against ploughing forward without figuring out certain unknowns. He said he heard a lot of"trust me's" and "Let's kick the can down the road."Ultimately the purpose of the zone change is for development. We need a traffic study. Why not have these studies, so we have the knowledge before we kick it down the road further. Generally, he's for the development —no one likes having a scrapyard right next to them. But at what cost does it come? He doesn't know and doesn't think anyone on the commission does. He asked that they use their discretion—they have the ability to submit to Council and they have the discretion to apply certain conditions to a zone change — 1) Traffic Study 2) Soil Study 3) Greenspace. He asked that they please consider that. Mitch McBride 9630 SW Lewis Lane —Recently purchased his house. They have an 8- month-old son and he's concerned that there are very few sidewalks on 95th. He's unhappy they cut the trees down. Stacy McCormick 11690 SW 92nd Ave. had written a letter. She's representing the 13 homes on the cul-de-sac that will be affected. She's said she's here to let the commission know that they want to keep the cul-de-sac. She would like it if they don't cut through Tangelo Ct. She's concerned about what that will do to the parking and traffic. She said they bought their houses on a cul-de-sac because that's what they like. Julia Good —11865 SW 95th Ave. She believes 95th offers a variety of housing options. She is against this because this would triple housing density. There are other areas that can tolerate such a project; 95th Avenue is not that area. RESPONSE FROM STAFF QUESTIONS &REPLIES If it were to stay R4.5 —then Tangelo would open up and it would become a thru-street. Is that correct? Any development would require the street to be completed. No deerentiation. Could we as a condition of approval say you can do R-7, but require that they give a traffic study —or a soil study? Is that within our jurisdiction? You could require that,yes; February 25, 2019 Page 6 of 12 however,you would have to tie it to the approval criteria you would want to tie that requirement to. In this case that it meets the relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies —so in requiring a traffic study you would need to indicate which goals and policies you think require that traffic study — or would inform your decision as to whether they meet those goals and policies by needing the information in that traffic study — or in that soils report. There was a comment regarding the distinction between Geotech —or the ground stability, vs. a soils report that might be looking for contaminants. Generally, issues of soil contamination are under the purview of the Department of Environmental Quality at the state level—the City doesn't usually get into that. I don't believe we have any goals or policies that would be specific enough to tie into that particular requirement. Is it within our ability to require they replace similar trees relative to the new design and whatever the zoning designation is? Kind of going through that way rather than arguing open space? Again, in this process you would have to find a relevant Comprehensive Plan Goal or Poliy that you think wouldjustify that type of condition. APPLICANT COMMENTS Andrew Jones said he has no intention of building the amount of homes that R-12 allows. He doesn't want to do that and doesn't want to pay for that. It's expensive. He's not doing it for profit—he said he's doing it to build the neighborhood that he lives in. He's interested in the flexibility of being able to build the way they would like to build —being able to adjust the lot sizes to fit the land in the appropriate way that's beneficial to just how they want the area to look. Regarding walkability, he said he's heard a lot of issues along 95th Ave and it's a problem to walk because there's a huge junkyard there. It's had metal sitting there for 60 years. People come and drop trash on it. He said, "I keep hearing opposition to us putting in a sidewalk where people are talking about walking their dogs and kids through a junkyard! That doesn't make any sense to me at all. People literally dump truckloads of garbage there that I have to throw away all the time. I can't imagine how anybody doesn't want to not see that there —doesn't want a nice sidewalk and so forth. I hear a lot about parking as well —people can't park there because it's my property. You can't park in my junkyard driveway —being able to put a sidewalk there will allow more people there —give people more places to park than they currently already have. I'm not understanding where this huge traffic jam,parking problem walkability issue keeps coming up that isn't going to be improved by more sidewalks in an area right down the middle of those two properties where everybody can go and park that currently doesn't do it now. I'm finding this disconnect between the reality of the situation and people trying to convince me that their kids have it better now walking through my junkyard. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever." "Regarding adding trees? I fully plan on adding as many trees as I possibly can. I love trees. That's in the plans to do. I plan on adding quite a few trees, including redwoods if possible. I saved what I could." Brian Cobb added,"Regarding white oaks and the sensitivity and liability issue there - it was actually a large white oak that fell down in January in one of the parks —the Dirksen Nature Park. It damaged the playground equipment — so that is the type of thing we were trying to avoid. Regarding parking and sidewalks —we are obligated to put in enough parking to cover February 25, 2019 Page 7 of 12 the new houses we're putting in. There will be on-street and off-street parking in the driveway — and there will be garages. So there are a number of places for people and guests to park within the development area. Sidewalks will be required along our property on 95th as well as along the new street that connects the two. That will improve the walkability as well. You will be able to walk through the property and that will create some connectivity. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 60 acres of parks within 1/2 mile of the site, so we don't think an additional couple thousand square feet of park will benefit the overall city. Regarding R-12 vs. R-7 vs. R4.5: You all approved R-7, which we are fine with. The R-7 would be adjacent to an already designated zone of R-7, so that would be much more compatible and adjacent; so there won't be any spot zoning required. Regarding additional studies —those processes are more easily regulated by the commission during the sub-division process which is the next step in this development. So you will be able to add to whatever other documentation that we already presented in the process for that approval." COMMENT Commissioner Hu noted "Just to be clear, if this is a straight subdivision, it doesn't come before the Planning Commission again. There's no planned development review. And regarding Mr.Jones's point about R-12 saying "I don't want to build that many houses" — you have to understand that if it's designated as R-12,it's out of our control. We cannot be sure that you will not build up to 16 units. That's why we can't just take your word for it. If you really want to pursue the R-12, you could resubmit this again (staff can confirm with that) with concept plans - pretty much going through Planned Development review at the same time, and we've done that before. But without that we can't just take your word that you're not going to build 16 units with an R12 designation. So, I hope you understand that." Mr.Jones answered, "I do understand that." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION Acting President Feeney reminded the commission that they are looking for a recommendation to City Council and asked for comments. Commissioner Brook: "The last time we discussed this particular situation I was 110% onboard with the R-7 change, but I don't feel that way anymore. If we keep it as an R-4.5, the land will still be developed, and the neighborhood will still be improved because no one wants to live next to a scrapyard. It's better to live next to some brand new beautiful houses. And also, the addition of the sidewalks, and all the other regulations we have with every zone type —as they all have certain standards to meet — so it will have a certain number of trees, etc. In my opinion, I think our city's rules on parking is a little stingy; I think we need more parking than that. But they will have to abide by all the rules for whatever zone we pick, so I think that even if we keep it at R-4.5, this development would increase the benefit of the neighborhood, and it would not February 25, 2019 Page 8 of 12 detract as much as it would if it were an R-7 or R-12. The streets would be lined with cars. Also —I think if diseased trees were a legitimate concern, I think an arborist report would have been provided.I think the benefits of developing at R-4.5 do not have as many negative repercussions as the R-7 or R-12, so I think it's a better match to keep it zoned as is." Commissioner Watson was concerned about the safety and the amount of traffic. She was also concerned about lighting and safety concerns. She believes the benefits of additional parking and the sidewalks are going to occur regardless of the zoning, but the roads don't seem terribly wide or necessarily well lit, so there's that other level of concern. Even though this would just be a few more houses and not multi-family housing going in— she believes it would still increase the amount of traffic going through there. Commissioner Roberts was good at the R-7 at the last recommendation and wonders if there is something that would drive them to change that recommendation —either up or down. He said, "I was actually thinking —do they really get more flexibility by going to an R-12? Can we still limit what happens on the 12 by going through the planned development process? I was thinking keep it the same or go up with some semblance of control over how things get laid out." Commissioner Jackson noted that the only actual material change compared to when they first looked at it is the trees are gone. He noted, "From that perspective, I was for R-7 then and still am now. I still don't want R-12. I understand the argument for flexibility using the R-12, but there's a higher minimum density requirement, so there would be to some degree more houses." Alt Commissioner Quinones said, "Another consideration to compromise both is that because the flexibility is still there with R-7, you can think about the open space designation, because if there's a small lot and if that's something we can control on that open space size, that would also limit the density of the houses with the R-7. So that could also be a compromise, plus you're negating increased traffic." Commissioner Hu said "Last time I was here too, and I was okay with R-7 without any conditions or R-12 with the condition that it be only single-family housing. I concur with Commissioner Jackson —the only material change I see is the lack of trees. I understand Mr. McGuire's frustration, and I'm frustrated too. My favorite professor in law school used to say "Just because something's legal doesn't mean you should do it" and I think the applicant just did it. I'm not happy with that, but having said that - I don't think we should punish the applicant for doing what he's legally allowed to do. The staff recommendation last time was R-7, and we found R-7 was the most appropriate zoning based on all the factors; and the neighborhood is already R-7. I don't think I would push R-12 this time and I will fully support R-7 rezoning without the condition of planned development review. For a small property like this, I don't see why the landowner should bear the burden of providing a public park. If there was a motion for R-7 rezoning without any conditions, I would fully support it. Commissioner Brook believes what we can limit the negative repercussions by keeping it R4.5. February 25, 2019 Page 9 of 12 Commissioner Whitehurst thinks staff's recommendation of R-7 is appropriate.He thinks it will improve the walkability, and also believes the lighting and street improvements will better the community. Commissioner Roberts is for the R-7 because of the missing middle potential option. He'd like to make it as easy as possible for them but thinks they should give visibility as they go forward - so he's for the R-7, but in favor of keeping the Planned Development. Commissioner Schmidt believes the R-7 is still appropriate.He thinks the Planned Development review is appropriate because it gives options for potential open space and other amenities that the site could offer. He thinks the R-7 provides a better chance of affordability and connectivity with the existing development as a whole. He'd like to see an arborist report with the Planned Development, but he's in favor of the R-7 designation with the Planned Development. Acting President Feeney thanked the neighbors for coming back out. He shares their concerns and frustrations regarding the trees. He can go either way with R7 —with or without the condition of the PD. He thinks the PD gives more flexibility to the applicant. They would have to put some open space in there, but they could maneuver things around; propose some lots to make something work. Regarding an R4.5 he said, "I just don't believe you're going to be able to connect that street that's required by the city, and get the number of lots out of it that would make it viable for them to move forward—just because of the size. I still believe the R-7 is the way to go. Opening that up will also allow emergency vehicles more access." Commissioner Watson thinks R-7 is a reasonable way to go;especially because it abuts other R7 property. The trees are a done deal and it's not about punishment —but lessons learned are that there's a hole in the code about this that could probably be cleaned up so that the contradiction is less. She doesn't believe the property owner should be rewarded for making an abrupt change to the property in an undocumented way. MOTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "I move that we recommend to the City Council in the case of CPA2018-00003 to amend the Comprehensive Plan from low density to medium density based on the staff report and testimony received today." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberts. VOTE Eight in favor, one opposed. Commissioner Brook cast the opposing vote. RESULT Motion carries. MOTION FOR ZONE CHANGE February 25, 2019 Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Roberts made the following motion: "Regarding ZON2018-00004, I move that we recommend that the City Council changes the zoning from R-4.5 to R-7,with a condition added to it that the application needs to go through a Planned Development process. Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion. VOTE Seven in favor. Commissioner Brook opposed, Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT —Motion carries. Acting President Feeney asked staff when this will be going to the City Council. Gary Pagenstecher said that this will have to be confirmed by City Council, but that it's planned to go to Council on Tuesday, April 2 at 7:30 PM. OTHER BUSINESS Tom McGuire said that he'd talked with the City Attorney Shelby Rihala about meeting with the Planning Commission to have a legal Land Use 101 type of discussion. He noted this has been done in the past, but it's been quite a while, and he believes the commission might benefit from that. Attorney Rihala would come to talk to them and would be available for any questions they may want to ask her after the discussion. The Planning Commissioners agreed that this would be a good idea, and they would like for her to come out to have that discussion. ELECTIONS The Planning Commission bylaws state "The president and vice-president shall be elected at the first meeting of each odd numbered year, and shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified." This being an odd year, nominations were entertained at this first Planning Commission meeting in 2019. NOMINATIONS for President Commissioner Schmidt nominated Acting President Brian Feeney for President. There were no other nominations. Commissioner Hu seconded the nomination. All in favor —none opposed. NOMINATIONS for Vice President Commissioner Brook nominated Commissioner Hu for Vice President. There were no other nominations. President Feeney seconded the nomination. All in favor —none opposed. RESULT • Commissioner Brian Feeney was elected President, and • Commissioner Yi-Kang Hu was elected Vice President. February 25, 2019 Page 11 of 12 ADJOURNMENT President Feeney adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Co 'ssion Secretary ATTEST: President Brian Feene February 25,2019 Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done )1, • r TIGARD 95th Avenue Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Low-Density to Medium-Density Residential R-4.5 to R-12 or R-7 Planning Commission Hearing November 19, 2018 Community Development C I `1' Y O F TIG ARD Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Proposed change from Low- Zoning DAKOTA Si Zoning Map Density Residential, R-4.5 to Generalized Zoning Categories Medium-Density Residential, R-12 E r ' ] EVCRFTT I _W W ung Daeriotiou TCR R-12 or R-7 s a _ , i-1 R-4.5 Residential m - m Mixxi Use ResiJennnl „, a ... n _ _ 6NFErygf/ v { — -- 4 I wMi.aed Use O - h- I I "—.1-r �- �II I •Tnanglc Mixed Use 1 { r_ — -i INMixed Use Employmera 1.64 acre site bordered byR-4.5 I a. � I J�Wrlal R-12 1 ( I_ ( 1 -- va;I arke mJ tom:Ion Proposed change from R-4.5 to R-iZ +^ ! 1 --. I WA-CNrV and R-7-zoned properties 4 1 C T .__ 1 I W' .,. _... I �'RF , al L)vrrIav Zo R ' ?DIHAS PIHAS ST l ”'�` —,,,T, rrnrxlerratneto,ley m CI r- a ,' ?rei ( i Planned Des clement Cherie, R-7 allows increased density up "' `" R-7 ' ' SubicetSim to four additional units, and '' °r' T c=P I-P» R-25(PD) increased height to 35 feet. a ,1 cr_p ONogz ¢ _ 1 . r: .2.3!) A 4� " ,��`�°�Q �R-7 ,......w.:,.-F....-,,,A7,..7-:,,,,e, ,,,,t r -P ri co c . R-12 allows increased density �No ) . MU Bd, fT ? LUNYIM TT 0030PMENT.E'4RTNEM �O S up to ten additional units, { , ... ,� ��° R�` 2 9n .s ���'�� n�+4°t�n►s '1011:"":7,:: increased height to 35 feet, and ® `— ' `�PPw R-25.•-PR, .. a�`�` 5; multifamily housing type. CITY OF TIG A R D Existing Zoning and Adjacent Development "Permitted land uses compatible P-12 Apartments with surrounding land uses." Apartments Immediate neighbor- a Apartments R-hood has retained 1980's zoning. inimm ■ Legal non- R-7 conforming rvi apartments exist : At.irtma ills j Apartment within the R-4.5 and R-7 zone �rN k, 1111111111110111 CITY OF TIGARD Oregon white oak tree canopy on site "Demonstrate k , °'�' "l Amendment w i. does E 1 5"575 11575 1157s 11571 not detract from the viability of the ( !.. ,,,,4, City's natural systems." , Extension of Tangela Street shows net ..; -' ry4i . . developable areas fir ." • north and south . .,:. containing Oregon white oaks and other trees. Feet 0 42 . CITY OF TIGARD v K v .. T, i rM;F.d.r r1 kM' x .., " •. w -r or,v Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. Additionally, staff recommends changing the zoning classification from R4.5 to the R-7 zone with future development reviewed through a planned development process, as conditioned. - 2• '. lt, ., ,,,1" 11, ,, e - ' I /* . .. :ea,:Mitili40,0),1 lit ,,,,- 4-4r.s..tot,, .,, ,.. • -, , f, , •0 4,,t, 4, - ..".r.,L. ' 4 \-1 tt . 't T• .111111116.:. Ai " ";'.N. - 144"k?-.. . : iloit:::":'1711._1$111-1,,N. Mt.11*.e....:L.., . 411111143 .....',1,:tt, iv .414.1.,;:t;;.:11, 1,,stia,1:15:,-,,A„.''':',:111167.111AP: '''';":- :-...-441;f,.fr'.' •',Fr : .''1", '46/1"1 ' '. - 0. .ffi „ , , , . .I. Tr ',%. '.'I.; , /bp - ••• , .1. f*. It '‘ ikt ' iio,k''... ''4I, i %If t 41. ek, . ' , ,.°:1146. fa an, Ail%, , . ., * ,to,• t Itc;* . r• '440.Vo, -.1.r 'V, .%.41 414.41e gs.: ",,, ....• . . -,, +AiioNktitl 4.6k" • 4 " ' . *11•14* ''' ' V1 gs 4iii.,„ 134 . c.,. . . , ,y;,t '4 .• Pk . . ii ," ,4 i ih . ,i , -- 4s4-• -", T. -:e '''' . ;, q . .. .k , ,- 1k .• . ; 1 ,, if,,, i • 1 :11 -11141L.. ..411'' . 4 ''' , '1"6:7111.1..' ....N-1111111k."1.•:::.'% lb'""14,-. -'-'-':•`..-it. :Niv‘r.,. Ito; .. , .1 fi . :.f ..-.1',. •.-si iti , 1. 41,4 ‘tt:,tiii„ , . . " . ''' ' ' ' '' -N,,,,-.24,,„ - —...:, -*--4-- - 'TA)* a ie. .° tk#•''' . '''' ilitli ' 1,41114,''' ..4.41i.;•'vs isitia-4 IP''+. ' '' '..':',„: , '' \i„ ,t6 1, Or •,'It ,,sil m,,„ ,,,,i6t- 4. ,, . - , ''''' 1 '11.4. ,A:4-.1,1't'.'..,-•-.... ••,..-17--`, . ) .',, ` • " • ' ...4,1111111111VOW+6„, -"• '40. 4* 1 . .., .44 , ..,..,,or............ ..„:„.,411 ,1140,... 1,141/4. ,,,v,., . . 4 . .."'.' ) 4 • ,.... .1644011 II1P' '#-;146611.%,*111111k :711ks 4114.(1,',.'v., .\ 4 ie,,...-;,,• . •...-. illinitiNisi -a .0'., •-.0 - Aii. .... Nit P. - V L i , --dildelibas. s '.4-‘421/4 ikVileirgiellililliWINIr-letnir ,. .. ... . . , ili-*- 4Aimit4.---. '41Ikeik•idli---‘viritemb. illetisPW11111hk- .. - .01114 "ft' **4 _ .. ?1 ri' dij,„,.,..-"."411111•061111P.,„..... .•JO •••••.' • - . ., .. , • , . •.: •.4 I 1 0 I 1, • ".01°fr -.3,„..., 4:0 . 4 111:V., . v . •T. . ..„ Iv- , I; . . , • -,,,, :, '. - , j • 1 * •-•- eA ,t .... A. . . ,,. 1; • ir-,jab OA - .'„I , '---- - f , AV: 400°` - 4 , Atiligit - ill V ..idAllircr". die" ." , , #1. * -I Z-.,- ' • 7-.,, - ',,f,,:;, --;,- , fie A - ..r. -.., 'i-1.•,,,., ,, -. ' ', '. ' '''''.7;;',. ' firir ...4 IP! --ii 1.', .0 40 *: _-, •' - - -'. x--1 ' -1 s '. :11%1.4 :', ' - ' i , . . j<IPI „w . . lb. f ,' i;•, iro" .°7,0.10 *1,, ' ' 1101,'1.,.4%,?* i'lii; i' i ,1"---.0Ac-"....1, .:.-•,-,A '4,11 ,. 14. 4 , N 'Iiir '' :-'1'..x. .- i . , 1P , .. 1011 • ..1 i A 4r ti,i‘40 tk 4 ,,,, , ,,, 4 • ,z,ti,,,, ,„,„, , (.., 4. 14• '... -. •• • -,t...q..,- , .. -: ---- 4.414,*.!. "qh, ii.17,1-k.' i' . , ' ?ti:,.,.4-. .r:lt"-..•';ii-o... •, ., '!. ,, ' •it -• ' ...4.,,,,i'14%,`•,- ",‘i .".le,,,,,,R4-4,4., , \.,i '‘.1`mk...::'14.`4,..".. . . .as , ._. . ,.. . `-'''.,-'';--4"..''ith:.7 77...°14:41:111104,"4111%.1;!)'•.:F "!:411/A 7';'``' "-t.•;-0-0;;"• ` 44 ' 4'1.. : •:, • .',. '". :.` 4` r 1, ''' '. '..-001""`-j. - - •#' ' ' • 44t, '•''•4 .-.1,::,.‘`'.,,;;,,,''T .• 4,'" 'V attitt.'iojsvi , 40 - 40 AF Ilk' 11! .‘,.,...,, . ,,,", ...,,,'rl'. "Illal 114;4' .,,,'114 • ,,...,4,feir;01:1/4 IVIC:1411H441**'4,,,... .1.1r4 ., ;! , 5,..:.•:•.,."a,....'!fl',7.10!.:.:z.^ . ,-,•Vilic"'..;. - — • -.....,,,040'.^,•,,,,„-- - -, 11 , e iiiAti , ,4#1-1.:,: , i..',,„,,..-,:,%'„‘1.-1-,-1_...,4.°"t,.7,4:,r1,:,04,0V,.....1;S,/4,.:A,/A...-,„P6,,,,,P,.,..,4,,,,,e0•:,„,-t.„,,.;,-,:„,„-.--1.,.-.1.-.v*,., -i-,- w , rL . ... . .: , ' 4:- ,”A.j,,,,.., t:,,- 'ii.-; t•-)../,.; . .4.,-410. ‘,...i;:i;ly..4;VI 4111;4.-44ei:? 41_3!-oi si-,•4"*•$?' - ,., • t it,-- , - •L---/':' ,4''il it.'"Er.,,, ',......',10.4,r...'II ' ',, it ; „,01.1"4 ''-."0• 1' Iv,'...0 at; ,Nirl'=" .-,..,A, , ,' ... ••gi% 1114 � , : 5 . ......... .,. . . 4` ,--,. r+' .�. ,...11.r.,,, - "x x �� 4. ;vy ,;.„,,,,.,' ' �'• s i ......444.00-.'.' Frq ss Miii':`e i ' sib; "+�' at ..'" t^ gym*„ % 04tts,k. , "'';,R.,y ,, , = a.-^a�'" ,,.`> +zy`,p+ x^r... �^►-? t • • +�" t ' t r a i a Mai 4r '''''"7.-- ViOE� a cF �,' t` • ��. FS .74,42,v,..'"" r, < ,a @ '"' t�,*y� �1-! ' Ru e 14a. J ' "- .- `oA * ' " 141034..".",„ YR .A � .. .., vi• :�7'AxxM>Vr,, f! `.... '4 " ^ud �y + i -h � p) Rr �: t ,.,-,...7.... ..„.m..*: � — ' " a rr: . —Liolyy � 'y `. * k . ' ` fiw '' , � f, � ' � ' .t a ris � 'V:� 1 �.. -�, -c, m, ,� �"� � ' av a'. - ti . rYof*es- � -'...::*r:;:',',."'''. "` xV " m ,, • IP' i:r • "hv —_._. qy to �• 4 it. f 4.4. J a • y s s f t ..x 1 } za - .- ... ...w+— .Y mgym . C^.^ rq� " �....-- 4Rr -_.7---.7;,. , .,rmasL ' § • ._ k . q '',;,.....-1 -r °'.0.',...,4,A,'....--,{4 . gsr: A.'rc 1 tt V"YM1rily1 *4� + t .. _ 4,.a ;x, Y:#, Ar ; ^r, "t V....:,-:.1'44-- , A't%;-**, M vfl YR -a e" ,J5 f ' Rhe�-0tf i " . y , msh Y! e - , ;;Q` ,� f • �. . r f . i4 . ..+;..;''';..7.'•'..1"-,../;:,'„,7f,,,": R $^'ter^/� .. f ' t m i ;.,4;7:'''''!P,,„[1:,-,,,,:s,),. . s E w 1 � ) •,'. �` '� :* ? ay 6 i ./ rx 7. ` '`‘.,... ...1--: w" '`'" -...',,,,,:4,',.....i',',„ » Ij� 4 �.' '''''k '''' " '^ ova R'{ } I} ::,„‘....,- -.,,ii, '9 1 .,4 .i�.,.1 '�i 5 R,,,:i.,401,':,, --)1„,-.,4,1:,'-'4,t r , • S fid{ t t. .'.. ,'-';,,,,1 .,moi ,y� • ,,y < #1 -. �� xx- �� .„:.*-11..)1,c4. i tsT ! ""ra' a ka$ q , - II Via,, �, A. . • „,.. . 44. 1 1 .,...4 , ., .. , . , . . / N ,,,,-„•• •• ,..i'',..-,,,T.; .. , .... . - "tv't-4' -,-1t . ,- : ri- A ' -•.., ' 4V .-. \ -,• ,. , --„,. 0'!'`f ".%. ,,,. ,fr 44-r• .44.' dh.4(4 , 4 'N''',E. .....'n?e,,, .,41'5,,' 44:"4;1" ''..', '' lk.'' ' i ,-:: : „,' . ':-. ."4.— • ''''.44 4 • ' gni ' ,„ ,,„. , ,,..„ ! ‘,„ ‘'1/4%, ".: -, ; .'..;,,. "' '',!. '' „)..* , 4 • 1i ,‘!jkl,14\11,..,..'. fr''' './ ''.,•;..1. ' .1? - L'Io4 ••,. ,,, • 1' • '4:- '1 ...-- ti 0 r.4 it* /... ..t . . , . ... „,,,,;.',,,, , , - IL”' ,1 4 c .51,,ii... AO!' 4 i ,. , , ,.* '4 1,.,‘') .0 ,. -. 4 *.3'i'6 '.- ' . , 1*, ^ f„, .,GViL. 411 1.1 , • 44/40 v` '7.•, ,-, * 7at Ilk. - '' --'46'::, = , . ,. . * ' 'V1 4:1 '''' II ,.:, '. ,'i.,4,),..;1,,,,1!;4,1 ' '%.. ,!,..4.;+".t.,,t,•. ,, , IN ' f-, `•.0.-Ift , ,,k *••,••`"4..1,,' 1(1.°., ' . ' a• ,.. . , '• 'f'.•'•-!-, 7.4; ., 4'. ''''•,,,,e. 4' 1... Ni - - : `,‘..".,.. le - '- , i '*i. s..,,, 7.:Jwikk,o\smi k 1•401,.14'; .11.14.:A1,.-1, 1"-• .* )•• r - , . - ,, 'a... ' ' ` s =y r rt : g 'tom := 33 s p {t {fit 4 <..t-(a ',,7,.-'4,..e•;.,7,3- . �',i,, ;#, 4. s fes'" a"' z•' ' i t +�.k.>t` } .Se ,fie if r 5. w gob i r♦f t �" # w^t+ E Y 4 £ YTL mss'x 4. Ar a� t- 3 "g< a 41 qq ` �''�' '4'1' 9 r .....;';'-',46;F'4 i� ' ,'.moi 1i: s� ,t�° ',:',.1,,i-,'-',`;.:,,V,,, 'I°� # �� i k r f -.,`,441,4!4: ti s s *4" F s ` ' ,.. - ,.- , t( s 3f _a't, ,. �' ., `may #I 1. ,� < _ irk 4: gra +' ,i � �r r .h ¢ t - .ai ,fit • _ -z4`i i ::;.::tttn 4 q`. 47 t `t. r ` .. } t- v, �° { a ♦ IF- - Vt£ t a A ,-.se tr{rr.5 ryC& 1 .f,a<t Ott .,. ;.......... _V- : ,,'''''. , ,z: '1'' 1.' .:4 4.7.;, '''''.','', ''' " 4,...,''''' ',',4 i,- .' á •t a ` "� _ " ib fi,a ,.\., ,;;,,,,,,,,, ..:4_ - !,,r,.. ,: - : , 3 r ... ., „, ...,,„,44, *•,,,12 '..44,1• (ti...:. „,..t:‘,;,,‘4 li,,1,:',',,,, . �r,r .:.4.r ,, " � B^'t✓4 'J .y ;.1p.a '.,:fi'.7:' '.:. „ ,..'41,—l'! • ,,,...-_;,,,,..- ,:,:,,,,,,,, AOtio....,,.... ii ` • r ' r ,�, � . r * s 1.41ffew a" rev:A (k .d ^ ks 7'M� a tt t� o ti ?`a� r4 -,..1,-;44.1 .' Aatky� r itl ly• y` $ C 7•+r! )� , ^ }. � , y.+ • irP t �'N ' ` � r l x� d �, „.„" 4.... ,. c, , nt ,' , r--.7,, „ ,M , PSRAr'..ti!-,?,,..54,!,,,,,,,,„„.„,,,,,,t,!:;„,,, .,ka? r K�” . 4 gii � ek w r�"" 4 , t.10 t° x' f .a. . i ,r,..--te�„_� •",.a�TM' - 4°11..r "- l',' � ��1 t �',^ �r it., P t 5e ,ac'a � �,�'"ate^ ,oR P� ^C' {. � his yy` f° • R gyp, • • }j Sv ,r • ae r e ,' "aa ^r �: 71 � te { -�+s mak' r� �� �§ Y +IL",� �ra �,e,,, �r Y Y- S _ � lielr � ¢i( - i A 0- I ' s , `� �. .. i l i? f Y i 11 t !� �' ,y i �' a a }S et C4:, t �� + 4� 1 f, x' ;� ., ., ra t ., a s.. u . . `r rj = �}# via f . - r t' ��T'�'$� 'Y."' 'Syde���''-`..� �' `T ��(y 1 is �V¢ s� . t . iL .gia£ y t'lit`'-.,*/47. >- mobL,�. kY / _ �g `� 34 Y* -,4:4. *„_ o.._ ...titi: itit t�N _} $k 'r yfy ' ''''' 1' iikx," ' y +>t a --': -Ait. e , 1,",„,,/,..:,.., ,,,....0„,_ _.t. . - ,,,, „,,, g 41,/ ' . d -�` r; +. -i x 4,44 .1.,, - kf w. + q .�}{. - Sit .; (j d R - t i €, off+f. ' f #. Y'. 1-/' / .1* t' . ' . H. 4 e* " cr ' e + , ‘ ._ 'K, Xti c.. lei- f rt , jr h'` . fi a.. t sm , - -. � � y j . /* A $ jig �� Y � r �*3 sn, 4. , \e„, '., ' y. R! J ��: ' \ _ Mfg• rr ,n ;it �{ ,� ,M� � �4 64 Tr b _ . �„ ,...,-,,r-'-...._ fir! a!';. � ""t41 M t a4++ L b'� • l, 4,, } .*T. ;, ( -++74411.-'41,,,,, .'i;- J • �� AV- ' ' SFX eJ *P4 n F ; / r rid' �" �` �^"�f ' �f• �y a �'' � iti: itoq,..„ ,C 41 �@��$, 1 , „ . • *44 : _ .µ .` a , 000 ws 1 k . y t. � J __,.., T , b, , -7,,,,i,-,,,',,..4,;',Ii4. S c. / n , p µ„ w.. • ,+""" '' ;ate u,•±�o .W?a g 'ems � � Y•\ c ^mow l/ \ k xM a " .. . . .. , , '"` .. . .,. Mv , . •� x{ » -.." " A`2t * �, »« ,..„w ,. w ,. �,,,a �„ §a � w'tea. "9n, .';, ,s^ ,. ra r1F CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes,November 19, 2018 Location: Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CALL TO ORDER Vice President Feeney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice President Feeney Commissioner Brook Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schmidt Alt. Commissioner Whitehurst Absent: President Fitzgerald; Commissioner Lieuallen Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin,Executive Assistant; Gary Pagenstecher,Project Planner COMMUNICATIONS -None CONSIDER MINUTES The November 5, 2018 minutes will be considered at the December 17 public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - 95th Avenue Zone Change - Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2018-00003; Zoning Map Amendment (ZON) 2018-00004 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from R- 4.5 to R-12,preferably,or R-7. The subject property is comprised of three existing lots totaling 1.64 acres (71,438 sf),which are predominantly flat and open. The site is accessed on the west by 95th Avenue and on the east by 92nd Avenue. The R-4.5 zone abuts the property to the north and west and the R-7 zone abuts to the south and east.The purpose of the zone change is to increase density for the development of single-family housing units. LOCATION: 11700& 11730 SW 95th Avenue November 19,2018 Page 1 of 8 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS Vice President Feeney read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex parte contacts: Commissioner Middaugh disclosed that he lives on 94th Avenue - the street next to 95th. He said he did not speak to anyone in the neighborhood regarding this case, and will not be biased. Site visitations: Commissioners Whitehurst, Feeney, and Middaugh had visited the site. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Project Planner Gary Pagenstecher introduced himself and reminded the commissioners that staff is looking for a recommendation of approval to the City Council—not a decision. He went over the staff report (Staff reports are available on-line at the City website one week before scheduled public hearings). He also went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A). He noted the proposed change is from Low-Density Residential, R-4.5 to Medium-Density Residential, R-12 or R-7. The site is 1.64 acres bordered by R-4.5 and R-7 zoned properties. He said the majority of the area around the subject site has been fairly stable since it was zoned in the `80's. The applicant made the case that R-12 will, over time, become the predominant zone in this area. Legal non- conforming apartments exist in this neighborhood within the R-4.5 and R-7 zone and apartments would be allowed in the R-12 zone—Gary noted the applicant has said they are not proposing to have multi-family dwellings there; however,if the zone were to be approved R-12 they could potentially sell the property, and that would be allowed. Regarding natural resources, he said, "Even though R-12 development could be compatible with the adjacent development,if it were to be limited in terms of its height or to the type of housing—being single-family for example,when you add the retention of natural resources—the tree canopy—that really argues for a development pattern that can be nimble and flexible enough to work tree preservation in the development—and that's why staff recommends the lower zone of the R-7 and the Planned Development process to ensure that happens. That seems to be more protective of the adjacent development and these natural resources." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. Additionally, staff recommends changing the zoning classification from R-4.5 to the R-7 zone with future development reviewed through a planned development process as conditioned. QUESTIONS Regarding the various zones—R-12 apartments are allowed,but R-7 are not allowed - is that correct?Yes, that's correct. November 19,2018 Page 2 of 8 So even if it were changed to only R-7,you are recommending a review process later on —is that just because you want to protect trees? Because I don't see why we can't just say R-7 and be done with it, like the rest of the neighborhood. We have an image that shows there are Oak trees there,but we do not have an inventory that says what the condition of them are,what size, or anything like that. We just have a photograph suggesting that that resource, and those mature trees would be worth protecting. We are extending our care of White Oaks to wherever they are in the city. If you have the flexibility allowed under the Planned Development standards to adjust to any measurable development standard—that is, the set-backs, or lot sizes - then with that flexibility you have a much better chance of avoiding the trees when you do your lot layout, and siting houses within those lots. So, are there any other reasons why we'd want to recommend a planned development process other than preservation of trees?Trees are the main focus. But there is no law that could prevent the applicant from cutting down all the trees on their property right now, right? Correct. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION —Architect Brian Cobb, Owner of Infinite Architecture noted they'd put this proposal together to essentially combine the three different lots which are under one local family's ownership. They are wanting to develop the property and provide some nice, affordable, single-family homes. While acknowledging that R-12 allows multi-family up to three-story—that's not the intent. He said, "We're asking for R-12 because that reduces the size of the lots minimum square footage, so we can have more lots to distribute the overall cost of the general development, the street, all the other things that will be required to build on the lot. The intent is to improve the areas,but in the end the number of lots increased by skipping over R-7 and going to R-12 will allow the overall costs of the individual homes to be brought down. A quick number... if you were to take an R-7,you'd essentially get 10 lots, you take an R-12,it's 16 lots, so the overall cost of each lot is about 40%more if we were to go for R-7 in lieu of R-12. So, there's a fixed cost that could help alleviate some of the end user's affordability rating. There's a lot of additional commercial zones—there's Washington Square to the Northwest,you've got the transit center to the southeast—so there's fairly close proximity to a lot of different activity in the area. We're trying to make the most of the land now." He said they're looking for single family homes and while adding a bunch of other restrictions are generally more prohibitive on the city side,we don't have issues with limiting the building types on R-12. The zone will allow it,but the only thing I can offer on that is we're looking for smaller lots and not necessarily taller buildings. Regarding a hybrid—R-7 vs R-12—speaking for us we want one or the other—we don't want a portion of the site being R-7 and another R-12. It makes no sense to have a smallish plot of land split like that. QUESTIONS I'm curious if you've considered "missing middle housing" options in your initial plans. I wasn't aware of that, but we can certainly look into it. November 19,2018 Page 3 of 8 TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—Andrew Jones, 11700 SW 95th Ave.,Tigard is the property owner. He said he knows a lot of the opposition has been having the possibility of putting in apartment complexes—and the ability to have the property rezoned to R-12 - and then maybe resell it down the line. He wanted to explain the situation—both properties are paid off in full; all his property is paid off in full; they aren't getting any lending on the building; he's self- financing; and his builder is in the room. They have a set plan—nothing is going to come up that's going to require him to sell the property. They want to build single-family homes in the neighborhood. He lives across the street,he grew up there,played there,went to Tigard High, etc. He said he's explained that to the neighbors and he realizes that someone could think he's lying and that he's really going to sell the property and someone is going to come and build apartment complexes on it - but he said he's there to say that is simply not the case. He said he's testifying because he wanted to take the opportunity to explain the situation to those concerned. Mark Lane 2633 19th Ave., Forest Grove 97116—said he is an unbiased person. He's worked with Andrew Jones (the property owner), and with Joe Green Jr. (the builder) for a long time. He owns a welding and fabrication shop in Forest Grove, and he's done a lot of work for these men. He said his experience in working with them is that he's literally never seen them go sub- standard with anything—ever. It's always been the highest of standards and it's always trying to make sure they work with the community, that they work with everyone involved, and that there's never any way where things will be detrimental to everybody around them. He said he's literally watched this happen to the point where they sometimes drive him crazy because the aesthetics are always important, the standards are always important, and everything that they do they make sure it reaches the highest level, even to some of the smallest details. And that's just working with them and it's his experience with the whole thing. He believes that when they do this project and they build it, and they make it happen,it's will always have that high standard - because they don't know to do anything else. Kaylie McClung 11700 SW 95th—is in favor of R-12. It's hard to find affordable housing. This would be a good opportunity for that. The houses going into it will not affect the parking in a detrimental way. She thinks that would also bring more children into the neighborhood. She thinks it would be a great thing to make it an R-12. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Cory Montgomery 11680 SW 95th Ave.,Tigard 97223 is not opposed to the development— his issue is he doesn't see a reason for the change, nor does he see it improving the neighborhood. The current zone R-4.5 would accommodate six new properties and homes and would not significantly impact the livability of the neighbors. He likes the neighborhood's open feel. The lots are enormous but the streets are narrow. The zone change could also be used to incorporate multi-family units which was discussed earlier. This could cause much more traffic. His children walk those streets every day to get to the school bus and it's already dangerous with no sidewalks and the narrow streets. With more vehicles parked on those crowded streets —it's going to get even more dangerous. Adding sidewalks in 50 years isn't going to benefit anyone in this room. November 19,2018 Page 4 of 8 Josh Jones—9555 SW Lewis Lane,Tigard 97223 stated that he is not related to the applicant. He said he came opposed to this change because of all the verbiage that had been received and all the communications showed just changing it to R-12. He's very much forR-7. He would love to see the lots—the area developed. He'd prefer R-4.5 for the same reasons as Mr. Montgomery. The traffic change between Greenburg and Shady Lane has already caused an increase in traffic on 95th. Adding 16 dwellings to this acreage is too much of an increase for the area to handle. He's lived there 10 years and enjoyed walking and taking his kids and his dog out as well as visiting with all the neighbors;it's a very tight knit community. He was unaware of the alternative for R-7 until this evening when looking at the application— so that's why he signed up for the opposition;however, he's actually a proponent for a change to R-7. Wayne Chapman,property owner at 11850/11900 SW 95th Ave.,Tigard 97223 read and submitted his written testimony for the record (Exhibit B). He endorses staff's recommendation for an R-7 change. Marilyn Manson - wife of Wayne Chapman 6324 NE 32nd Place, Portland 97211 read and submitted her testimony for the record (Exhibit C). She opposes the change to R-12. Julia Good—11865 SW 95th Ave. 97223 is opposed to an R-12 change. The small lots will not work to continue the community feeling she has. She's concerned about flooding and no sidewalks. The street needs improvement and she'd like to see it stay R-4.5. RESPONSE FROM STAFF No follow-up. QUESTIONS I'm concerned about walkability;will they be required to build sidewalks in front of the houses? Yes, they will—they are required to build the street section in front of the house— sidewalk included. What is staff's opinion on spot zoning? If it's bad, how would we otherwise increase the density in the neighborhood? Gary read a working definition of spot zoning in the opinion of land use attorney Daniel Shapiro—"When considering spot zoning, courts will generally determine whether the zoning relates to the compatibility of the zoning of surrounding uses. Other factors may include; the characteristics of the land, the size of the parcel, and the degree of the "public benefit." Perhaps the most important criteria in determining spot zoning is the extent to which the disputed zoning is consistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan." So, the applicable comprehensive plan criteria are the ones that are in the staff report. Tom McGuire continued "These types of cases—you've seen a few of these quasi-judicial zone changes on individual properties come through and oftentimes there are unique circumstances why a zone change makes sense. The general answer is,we don't prefer to do it this way—the preferred method of increasing density or changing zoning is through a legislative project like the Triangle project or the River Terrace project. Oftentimes it happens when we update our Goal 10 Housing Study,we have a housing study that says we have a needs analysis November 19,2018 Page 5 of 8 —that we need a certain range of housing types and/or prices—and then we do more of a citywide look to see what makes sense." Is there a way the builders can pass along the savings? The houses would be smaller so they would cost less. APPLICANT COMMENTS Brian Cobb—since this is new development,we have to put in the appropriate number of street trees and sidewalks,while all stormwater has to stay on site as part of this development we'll have to fix some of the flooding issues on the east end of the site. They'd have to put sidewalks on 95th or at least on our property line so at least that's a start to getting sidewalks and activity up to Greenberg. But we'd certainly be connecting to any sidewalks and street systems on the street side. As far as the question about the number of lots and R-7 versus R-12—R12, our thinking is R-12 Planned Use Development would allow us to have smaller lots and wouldn't necessarily add up to 16 because you'd still have to maintain water quality contained on site - so a portion of the lot will be devoted to clean water. Ken Sandblast Westside Consultants—said this is a good chance for needed housing. To save the trees on the end, the R12 does give the extra flexibility. The site planning and the idea about the density—yes—on paper it may look like 10 more units, but that's really not what happens— what happens is you calculate this on a piece of paper, then you put it on the ground—and when you do that, and especially on a constrained dimensional situation, achieving maximum density is usually something less than maximum density on paper. It is an area that has some R- 4.5 and also is in transition for other reasons and will be in the future. Staff did a good job in the staff report. The medium density is appropriate,without question. The question is just the R-7 or the R-12—we would look for the R-12 support from you for some of the reasons talked about this evening. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION Commissioner Brook said she was a bit conflicted on this. She's concerned about parking and walkability and thinks the car situation is not acceptable. She's against the R-12, but open to R-7. She doesn't like the idea of 32 additional cars. Commissioner Jackson is comfortable saying that he thinks the proposition of it being rezoned R-7 satisfies the criteria. He's less comfortable with R-12 without at least a couple of additional conditions of approval. Between the two - he likes the R-7 zoning better. Commissioner Hu thinks the first motion for the Comprehensive Planned Amendment rezoning from low to medium density is fine and everyone agrees. The issue for them is to make it into R-7 or R-12,which would be the second motion for the zone change (ZON2018-00004). He's comfortable with R-12 with the condition of limiting it to single detached homes. He believes it offers more flexibility. And for tree preservation purposes, there's really no guarantee that R-7 will preserve more trees. R-12 may even allow for more tree preservation and a way of November 19,2018 Page 6 of 8 managing water runoff. Also, affordable housing is important. He's okay with R-7, but he thinks R-12 might be the better approach. Commissioner Middaugh understands the concern with R12 and the apartments. He knows the owner has said they would not sell property to build apartments,but he's also heard other public testimony against the R-12 and with staff recommending R-7 as well,he's leaning more towards R-7. Commissioner Roberts is also in favor of R-7, the people of the neighborhood are asking for it. Commissioner Schmidt is in favor of R-7 —he believes it's the right move—it gives flexibility and is more consistent with the adjacent neighborhood than an R-12. Commissioner Feeney is in favor of R-7 over R-12. It's consistent with the neighborhood—a transition from the R-4.5. The larger lots allow for more parking. Adding connectivity would spread the traffic out a bit more and allow for better fire protection to that neighborhood as well. His recommendation is to adopt the staff report as written. MOTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for CPA2018-00003,which is a proposed Comprehensive Plan designation change from low to medium density residential, and adoption of the findings based on the testimony received." Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion. VOTE 7 - 0 All in favor, none opposed 7-0 RESULT Recommendation for APPROVAL passes. MOTION FOR ZONE CHANGE Commissioner Roberts made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Zone Change ZON2018-00004 from R-4.5 to R-7 per the staff report and the testimony received. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmidt. VOTE Six in favor, none opposed, one abstained Commissioner Hu cast the abstaining vote. November 19,2018 Page 7 of 8 RESULT Recommendation for APPROVAL of a Zone Change from R-4.5 to R-7 passes. OTHER BUSINESS —Tom McGuire talked to the commissioners briefly about the calendar. He noted that at the first meeting of the year the commission will be voting for President and Vice President, so he asked that commissioners to be thinking about whether or not they'd like to fill those positions or who they would like to nominate. ADJOURNMENT Vice President Feeney adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. c41110111b u)._‘ 411111br ° Doreen Laughlin,Plant gg Co .sion Secretary ATTEST: Vice Presi ent Brian :eney November 19,2018 Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done 11 I " TIGARD 95th Avenue Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Low-Density to Medium-Density Residential R-4.5 to R-12 or R-7 Planning Commission Hearing November 19, 2018 Community Development CITY OF TIG ARD Comprehensive Plan and zoning Map Amendments ___ ___ _ Proposed change from Low- - OR TM_DAKOiA57 --`- — I (—; �. Zoning Map Density Residential, R-4.5 to hH - — Genereitzed Zoning Categories Medium-Density Residential, R-12 EVEpf TT u TER Lonin¢1)cxrintiop R-4.5 n _ _ • _ = Reaidcntial R-12 or R-7 K m 0 W ¢ Mixed Use Residential ndNcn GRFCNAUgtt<AO c ‘>' Mixed Use n .;..�wP c �TriangIe Mixed II, R!i •Mised Use Employment 1.64 acre site bordered by R-4 5 R-12` 10dualrfal I'atks and Itcv.•reanon and R-7-zoned properties s1 proposed Mange from R-4.S to R-13 1 4``' r ■VYA-CYTV CTa w a Zr, a. Overlay Lo ne,'R firini ti9Nxnlm, mulct Overlay PIHASy PIHAS ST GAc CT r < GH Developmentplanned Devel0pent Overlay 0 �NAdRA IN R-7 allows increased density up p R-7 ; ' --- _ 'fO ! i._L_ VINGELA CT t to four additional units, and ' hP .R-25,(PD) 1 increased height to 35 feet. , ........0=381.1.1 en. .o-n R-4.5 R-7 . R-12 allows increased density G4 ,� Y _ B' m e4 LOM auN TY DEVELOPMENT e•KRTMENT tia s� r �� � up to ten additional units, r P R 12 ,�G.�t,. ,� Nva I �- increased height to 35 feet, and .._ �'" (oma,° i R-250"RX �P 5� , - ';"' multifamily housing type. CITY OF TIG ARD Existing Zoning and Adjacent Development "Permitted land uses compatible R-12 Apartnts with surrounding - me; Apartments land uses." I Apartments Immediate neighbor- R-4.s hood has retained 1 1980's zoning. Legal non- conforming M apartments exist ,__,,„.„, , I, —.,) Apartments ... within the R-4.5 and ti, R-7 zone. . r H - , . 2-25 (RD)._ t; - CITY OF TIG ARD Oregon white oak tree canopy on site :- F...,;,,,,,- , , "Demonstrate 4( "" 1 f m Amendment does . �� 5 „ , , 4. syr „��,. ( 157` � _� t 57,, " ,,,,,,,,,, Iwo-xi __ not detract from the _ . r . viability of the 0,4'# City's natural systems." ba a �� �. Extension of Tangela Street shows net % , � developable areas north and south a , , , . r---1,.., containing Oregon ,4 , I , r„white oaks and othercii,,,,, . trees. teS dot,: 1 o Fe° as N �mi � '�.. rat CITY OF TIGARD . en.^u w...wilia M. r 3 2p.+4 .n,iP y>J role ,a4-* *k:r Y..r.#aC:tt=T;mawn.1.•. ni rym '.d'±>,N3'"4* 1'pPK]F*+n..waw p»ry1Y re N,3:?w"+Y' .e,'rg^':'.r. ". .. i , .. ,... ,.. , ,. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential. Additionally, staff recommends changing the zoning classification from R4.5 to the R-7 zone with future development reviewed through a planned development process, as conditioned. CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done TIGARD 95th Avenue Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Low-Density to Medium-Density Residential R-4.5 to R-12 or R-7 Planning Commission Hearing November 19, 2018 Community Development EXHIBIT B Wayne K.Chapman, property owner at 11850/11900 SW 95th Ave., Tigard,OR 97223 Date:November 19,2018 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment/95th Avenue Zone Change,Case ID CPA 2018-00003;Zoning Map Amendment(ZON)2018-00004. Dear City of Tigard Planning Commission— Having voiced opposition to the applicant's request for a zone change to R-12, I'm grateful to see all of my objections addressed in the subsequent staff report.As I suggest in my letter of October 11th,a change from R-4.5 to R-7 is better.Thus I support the staff's findings and recommendation to approve that very change to R-7,not to R-12. My sister,Sharon Chapman,and I wish to see development consistent with features most valued in the neighborhood. The report speaks to those elements in its discussion of Land Use Planning Policy 15,parts F and G, regarding compatibility with environmental conditions and natural systems—that is,on the effort to preserve as many mature Oregon white oaks as possible. Also,Policy 23 asks for compatibility with"adjacent existing and future land uses,"and the report finds there in favor of R-7.This involves blending with the surrounding community. On livability(Housing Goal 10.2,Policies 5 and 7),the staff report acknowledges that greater density"may not support the conservation of[the site's] natural resources"though"the proposed R-7 zone best matches the existing land use pattern and site conditions."The report goes on to address concerns submitted by Robert Ruedy and myself on"spot zoning"and"neighborhood livability."In short,I endorse the staff's recommendation for an R-7 change "to mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent properties and to . . . on-site natural resources."Thank you. Wayne K. Chapman Exhibit C November 19, 2018 To Members of the Tigard Planning Commission From Marilyn Manson My name is Marilyn Manson, wife of Wayne Chapman who has spoken in opposition to the proposed zoning change from R 4.5 to R 12. I also oppose the proposed R 12 zoning change because it would degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood. As noted in the Planning Commission Report, an R12 zoning would adversely affect the environment in a number of ways, including increasing problems with flooding during the rainy season. The higher density would also increase traffic making difficult for our neighbors to enjoy their family walks with their children and dogs. Bicyclists and skateboarders would face more hazards as well. These activities strengthen the community and enable our neighbors to build personal and community relationships. RECEIVED Neighbors of 95th FEB 19 2019 CITY OF TICARD RE:Comprehensive Pan Amendment(CPA)2018-00003 PLANNING/ENGINEERING Zoning Map Amendment(ZON)2018-00004 Tigard Planning Commission and Tigard City Council, "Neighbors of 95th"is a coalition of neighbors with real property ownership within 500 ft of the proposed "SW 95th Ave zone change." Given our proximity to the proposed subject property,we stand to be the most impacted, either positively or negatively, as a result of any proposed zone change and/or proposed development within our neighborhood. We want to ensure any proposed zone change and/or proposed development follows all municipal,county, state and federal laws. We are particularly focused on ensuring that the City of Tigard gives particular scrutiny to the Goals and Policies of"Chapter 2:Land Use Planning" that will directly impact our property ownership before rendering any decision on the proposed zone change. GOAL : 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan,implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. POLICIES : 1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements,and serve its citizens' own interests. The current "Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council For the City of Tigard, Oregon"makes no mention of Policy 1. This is of particular concern as there is no commentary or study on how this proposed zone change will"serve its citizens' own interests". As citizen-property owners who will be most affected,we believe consideration of this policy has been inadequately addressed. How will this proposed zone change serve the citizens' own interests,namely the citizen-property owners in closest proximity to the proposed zone change who will be impacted the most by any proposed zone change? 4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs. The current"Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council For the City of Tigard, Oregon" makes no mention of Policy 4. This is also of particular concerns as there is no 1 commentary or study on how this proposed zone change promotes "the efficient use of land through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs." What particular incentives and programs has the City considered? Has the City considered incentivizing the applicant to provide open,green space or public park lands by conditioning approval of the proposed zone change on providing such public benefit? 11.The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities. The current"Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council For the City of Tigard, Oregon" makes no mention of Policy 11. The applicant's request for zone change is,"to increase density for the development of single-family housing units." The majority of the subject property has served as a metal scrap yard in continuous use for well over 50 years. What"regulations and standards" has the City considered adopting to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to the prior land use activity? Has the City considered requiring studies to evaluate the extent of heavy metal migration into subsoil and groundwater and related public health concerns caused by the prior land use activity? The high likelihood of heavy metal contamination on the proposed zone change site must be considered to protect the public safety and welfare before considering any proposed zone change that would allow for higher density. Any proposed zone change that allows for higher density will expose more citizens,particularly children,to severe environmental hazards that are more likely than not present at the subject site. It is important to note that the applicant recently removed all mature Oregon White Oaks from the subject property. Prior to the removal of the trees,the City Planning Commission had determined that the trees were a "natural resource worth protecting." The applicant claims that the trees were "reviewed and evaluated" and determined to be in such "bad shape" as to create liability for the property owner. This is particularly concerning as all surrounding mature Oregon White Oaks appear to be in excellent condition. If the Oregon White Oaks were in fact in the poor condition stated by the applicant,it would certainly suggest that severe environmental hazards exist on the subject site as a result of the prior land use activity. This must be investigated prior to approving higher density land use that could put future citizens at exposure to unnecessary risk and harm. 12.The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development,design standards, and conservation easements,that encourage results such as: C. Protection of natural resources; Prior to the applicant's removal of all mature Oregon White Oaks,it was the City Planning Commission's position that the trees were a "natural resource worth protecting" through a planned 2 development review procedure. The applicant's removal of the trees may render the planned development review moot,but the community interest in tree canopy retention and loss of natural resources is not moot. The applicant violated no law or regulation by removing the trees,despite the clear interests of the City and the community in the protection of these natural resources. By failing to adopt a regulatory framework that addresses mass clear cutting of"natural resources worth protecting"the City has failed in its mandatory requirement to "provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development,design standards,and conservation easements,that encourage results such as: Protection of natural resources." What does the City intend to do to avoid similar, future losses of natural resources and tree canopy? What does the City intend to do to address this specific loss of natural resource and neighborhood benefit? 1). Preservation of open space. The neighborhood surrounding the proposed zone change is already under-serviced compared to other Tigard neighborhoods with regards to open and park space. Given the loss of natural resources due to the mass clear cutting of mature Oregon White Oaks on the subject property,the City should condition approval of any zone change on the preservation of open and/or park space for the use and benefit of all citizens. There are NO parks in close proximity to the subject site. This presents an excellent opportunity for the addition of a park in the neighborhood. 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A.Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available,or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; The planning commission report claims that"transportation and other public facilities and services are available and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation." Neighbors of 95th who are impacted daily by the high volume traffic patterns on SW 95th Avenue respectfully disagree. SW 95th Ave is a narrow roadway that can barely handle current traffic levels. There is minimal parking,lack of sidewalks, and frequent vehicular traffic traveling at speeds in excess of the designated speed limit. SW 95th Ave does not have sufficient capacity to handle any significant increase in vehicular traffic that increased density would bring. The City should require a traffic study of the proposed area and develop plans to mitigate the concerns addressed above before considering any higher density zone change. 3 B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; For all the above cited reasons,Neighbors of 95th disagree with this determination and request that the City conduct appropriate studies to ensure that the any new designation will not negatively affect transportation,other public facilities and services before considering any higher density zone change. F.Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible,with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; The proposed R-12 zone would allow for such increased density that it would not be compatible with surrounding land uses or existing environmental conditions. The only surrounding property with similar density is non-conforming to current City code standards. The proposed R-12 zone would permit multi-family residential building. Although the applicant has stated that he does not intend to do so,there is absolutely no guarantee that multi-family residential development won't be sought by the applicant or other future property owners. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. As addressed above,the removal of the mature Oregon White Oaks renders direct application of certain City policies moot,however,it does not render moot the citizen interest in preservation of natural resources and open,green space. To not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems, any proposed zone change should be conditioned on the preservation of open and/or park space for the use and benefit of all citizens. 16.The City may condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design/development requirements. The City should exercise discretion and condition the approval of any proposed zone change by requiring appropriate studies: 1)Traffic Study: Any proposed zone change to a higher density will have a significant impact on traffic. An appropriate traffic study should be required to identify impacts to traffic and neighborhood livability due to increased density under various zoning,i.e.,R-7 versus R-12. Neighbors of 95th contend that it's impossible to properly evaluate any proposed zone change without specific knowledge of current traffic volume and patterns and the projected impact of higher density zoning on traffic under various proposed zoning changes. Without this knowledge there is simply no basis to evaluate the projected traffic impact of any zone change. 2) Soil study: Salvage and scrap yards are well known sources of pollution that can endanger inhabitants and nearby communities. Large areas of the subject site have been used as a scrap and salvage yard continuously for over 50 years. 4 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life.CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws,such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability°Act" and how it would relate to subjectthe site. (1-1Cril" 6tM jc471±2--"C) Cibb)\/ * S8k-O—C1- GYu ec MA/1 k--C., • aunk,rs d.F. 115% sin/ --179a-k4 0722 5 t Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze, Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil, and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks.Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos, and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well. Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. $ A A... 6,727)94.--".)7-5 . 6) l ,-t erZL w 2.� ©5 AW tr y /v6 s ri v G i/ e,t.,. 0;2_ ,,���- ./�l»2E OF 77 fT 7 EES 72t.�'�o✓"L D, 4,F /10 4 77--/Z' :Z�e----k-L-/L c'',z)�'rl �0 T l.�' 1 /i9.8 e .),z) ? -i.,T'9 ' J 77/4— y--c7Z 0n7.c o /7,'c z S 5'500 ill 7_ 6t...//277' 7;4/.797- ti . /3 ; C /71C 03.&3 .44-1 .5 u c/71 7 .4,,.e)./ --Ge"--n-2/' .t6= //s<y SO 5 cc) J j,/c' 5 ./1//6/90 OR- 97z-23 J Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos, and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the Cit'Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws,such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the sit 0510'. + M.ol ly �i 55 S SG.) Li 5 1 v .1-, arct OR q-1.223 '� , I dit 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze, Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil, and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks.Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals,soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws,such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. t /er 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze, Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks.Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney, and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. Ctilk„CT— Cc :t, , l ( so cs i c-\ c c� L4,uroc 0, 9:1;1'5 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons `CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well. Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal,"Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act"-and how it would relate to subject the site. / r s 7 s` S _ ,` 1\1 r ( ` Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches, anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks.Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems. Asbestos, and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts, if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. ----k ,e62- V Glu Rs S 3 L-et ft5 Li.-tyLL u dt oict:s 47223 6litd IS 5 SLO qS-114 K-ealA 722 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well. Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any, that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. T r, 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems. Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well. Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws,such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subjectthe site. Jct 1)Z--(_/4-1e kf)/0K--) q6/7oci ..) Lc//,)/1.6 6') - `x' 01 / 9 ?3 Atror-v_ taIle ' 11110 Lof 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil, and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney, and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and I,iability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. t N' 144 /7/LTi q5 Oia ‘hcs Lia' Tr-4 dR 47/7,9,0-/ 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney, and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals,soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws,such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. GOO 62 6 , l �°5 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos,and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. 244 1515 SL 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems.Asbestos, and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. -7 ) ,./6(-41/ 1 dA ji6-(/ 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems. Asbestos, and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney, and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life.CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Coniprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. " t , b' o\ice Wiete‘ N\cksok I ekAce2ridL Wy/7 et* 4I,w M� 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil,and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems. Asbestos, and PCBs, arc carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver,kidney, and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well.Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life. CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any, that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws, such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. tit1171C1 S (y ?' "Lc nc � 97223 • I 1 (f2fLfd"e"") Wte-1/14 6'61'ut ,„ ectd2-eAr ot,(..) , • 5 Salvage and scrap yards are known to contain many hazardous materials including lead batteries, mercury from light switches,anti-freeze,Freon from cooling systems,Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos found in the brake pads and lining of older cars, motor oil, and other heavy metals. These toxins pose serious and well documented health risks. Mercury is linked to kidney disease. Lead from batteries may cause brain damage,problems with blood circulation and damage to the reproductive and nervous systems. Asbestos, and PCBs,are carcinogenic. Oil-products hAve been linked to liver, kidney,and bone marrow diseases. Heavy metals and other contaminates may enter drinking water and pose a risk to human health for everyone living near a salvage yard or sharing an aquifer. There are environmental concerns as well. Anti-freeze is toxic to aquatic life.CFCs and Freon emitted from vehicles cause air pollution. If oil is spread on the ground,it may contaminate plants, animals, soil and groundwater. Before allowing any proposed zone change to higher density a soil study should be conducted to address the impacts,if any,that Winter's Salvage had on the subject site. Any proposed zone change should be conditioned on proper mitigation of any soil contamination. Further,we urge the City Attorney to review and prepare a report addressing any applicable state and/or federal environmental laws,such as the federal, "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act" and how it would relate to subject the site. 0 5 Z Itt/f, 691&- t- o z//7/20/7 5 Wayne K.Chapman,property owner at 11850/11900 SW 95t'Ave.,Tigard, OR 97223 Date: February 18,2019 RE:Comprehensive Plan Amendment/95th Avenue Zone Change,Case ID CPA 2018-00003;Zoning Map Amendment(ZON) 2018-00004. Dear Tigard Planning Commission— This letter updates the argument I made on January 16,2019,to the Tigard City Council,now that action has been taken by the Council to remand the zoning change request back to the Planning Commission due to the clear-cutting of properties at 11700 and 11730 SW 95th by the applicants.Reconsideration because of changed circumstances makes it even more imperative,per the Commission's recommendation of a zoning change from R-4.5 to R-7,that a zone change to R-12 is neither in the interest of residents nor the interest of their property in real or intrinsic terms. Having voiced opposition to the applicants'request for a zone change to R-12,I was grateful to see all of my objections addressed in the staff report.Thus,I supported the staffs findings and recommendation to approve a change at most to R-7,not R-12.As the record shows,my sister, Sharon Chapman,and I wish to see development consistent with those features we believe most valued in the neighborhood.My family has lived a long time just down the street,in fact 69 years this month.The Commission addressed matters with which we fundamentally agree—for instance,those elements in its discussion of Land Use Planning Policy 15,parts F and G,regarding compatibility with environmental conditions and natural systems such as native Oregon white oaks.Four of those trees stand on our property,averaging in age,by an arborist's recent estimate, 125 to 150 years.The properties involved in the applicants'request were the location of an entire grove of these trees,as well as other varieties,until they were cut down rather than inventoried for consideration as the Commission advised in its deliberations on November 19,2018.The clear-cutting is felt as an affront to community standards,to due process,and to the policies of progressive,municipal government. Policy 23 asks for compatibility with"adjacent existing and future land uses."The report finds in favor of R-7 in that respect.As we see it,this policy is about the blending of developments with the surrounding community.The absence or presence of trees does not absolutely change the applicability of Policy 23 in this case.Because our property lies within the R-7 zone,which is notably adjacent to the land in question, we would expect this policy to be relevant to a planned development initiative that we hope to see in the future.This fact makes preferable the Planning Commission's R-7 recommendation. On livability(Housing Goal 10.2,Policies 5 and 7),the staff's report acknowledges that greater density "may not support the conservation of[the site's]natural resources"though "the proposed R-7 zone best matches the existing land use pattern and site conditions."I would note here that clear-cutting has only hastened the need for the remediation of soil and water waste conditions that have been exacerbated by the sudden removal of trees and associated vegetation in a time of heavy precipitation and flooding.The original report goes on to address concerns submitted by Robert Ruedy and myself on"spot zoning"and "neighborhood livability." Finally,there is nothing gained,in effect,when a half-acre right of way is subtracted from development for a through public roadway,Tangela Street,because shallow depths north and south will hardly render the maximum number of lots permitted with R-7 zoning,if one allows for the presumed retention of the renovated house at 11700 SW 95th,installation of at least one storm-water swale,and said commitment to single-family housing with driveways and attached garages.R-12 is meant for a different type of housing, including apartments,to which the community is especially opposed due to increased noise and traffic. In conclusion,while I remain strongly opposed to rezoning to R-12 in the neighborhood,I do endorse the Planning Commission's previous recommendation to approve a zone change to R-7"to mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent properties and to . . . on-site natural resources."In light of the damage that has been heedlessly rendered to the applicant's own property,I would hope that the Planning Commission and City Council will require immediate stump removal,grading, and seeding to take place in order to secure the property environmentally for the months and years before methodical development can take place.The applicants are responsible to repair what they have broken.I urge you to recommend to the City Council either the alternative change to zone R-7 or to leave unchanged the current R-4.5 zoning in that section of the neighborhood. Thank you for inviting and considering these comments. Sincerely, Wayne K. Chapman Gary Pagenstecher From: Molly Jones <mollyjones©outlook.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 10:04 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: 95th Ave Zone Change concerns-CASE ID- CPA 2018-00003 &ZON 2018-00004 Hi Gary, after speaking with more neighbors this evening,a neighbor who boarders one of the properties mentioned that there was Osprey living in the white oak trees on the lots(several of them) and that it is unfortunate they won't be able to nest there any longer. I recalled this being an issue for another builder when I lived on the east side. When I went to research this Osprey are covered under the Migratory Bird Treating Act of 1918. From my rough review of this it is illegal to move/remove any Osprey nest that may be inhabited. I would like to formally request that the city attorney look into this and the proper law enforcement agency to investigate. Here is a link to a PDF that discusses the specific part of treaty: https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/pdf/osprey/m-opinion memo-signed 4 11 18.pdf I feel like because the trees were taken down so hastily this was overlooked and it feels like this should be looked into for follow up and whatever legal action may need to occur. Thank you, Molly Jones home owner 9555 SW Lewis Lane Tigard,OR 97223 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 11690 SW 92"d Ave. Tigard,OR 97223 2/6/19 Gary Pagenstecher 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 Case ID: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) 2018-00003 Zoning Map Amendment(ZON) 2018-00004 Dear Mr. Pagenstecher, I am writing to clarify a point of fact in the Notice of Public Hearing dated 2/4/19.The notice states that "the site is accessed on the west by 95th Ave and on the east by 92"d Ave."This is misleading and not exactly true. The reality is that there is currently no access from the east.The road ends at the property line and is fenced off(see attached photo).Please understand that 92' Ave is currently a cul-de-sac. (Technically, the site butts up to Tangela St, not 92nd Ave.Tangela is a very short road off of 92"d.)What the developers do not explain fully is that there is currently no through access to the site from Tangela. If Tangela were made a through street,then 92"d Ave is no longer a cul-de-sac. This is a significant detail for those of us living in a quiet cul-de-sac with many children. I do not have a problem with the proposed zoning change from Low Density to Medium Density, but I have a big problem if they plan to make Tangela a through street to their property.The developers have conveniently down-played the full ramifications of the east side access.The proposal is not clear to me of their exact intentions for eastern access. I want the council to understand the full impact that the eastern access road would create for the residents in the cul-de-sac if it were to become a through street. Please save our cul-de-sac! Thank you for your consideration, Stacey McCormack 503-737-4470 stacey@musimackmarketing.com Cc:Tom Anderson,City Councilor 1,04-1O o4voTA ST ' Zoning Map I r, f 1 0..•nasos zoom.,citi•oon“ R-12 1 ita/43.1./614'..14.1.1 , 4 11. R.4.5 : P.. .,,..: is - - . 1 ; .4 It 5:,E R-12rj 7. ' gh.i...1...iw.."--..... 1......„.1 i 1 - ' ' - li t, ti,,:11.4.441o$44 champ from t.4.5 04.R:1? ; I '''' V./64.4, ti 11... . `I ... ... A ' ,I.. ' R ;'‘.1 1 i '• , Iii,,, ' S F l'i '1 Parlor ttr *r. Jill •4 R-7 J QAp...1.aus .t.,r ...4 INN " r, ,, ; 1. '. fr 44" - I 1-P R-25(PD) I \\ .. !, R-4.5 ,, R-7 ...., %0' •`.1 R;:"12 , 1........ L Above:The green arrow points to Tangela St.,a very short road off of 92"°Ave.which butts up against the site. ":'';',:,-,- ' ' , ..,,-.-.• ... "''..*:-..;•`. • .454 - .-.... • 1 - - ' ir - - i .A. Above:Tangela Street,facing west toward the site.This is the current status of the east side"access"road. ^, > f L ire g -.0 a711 a` .^.+ ' - JF It , 4 4101.- ,, 1" ,v :,..,-.04-+ .. ♦?earl.t i ;, ��f�` + i ti , t OA% ,.+ - .Rs +.I _ �Y i t i a[� � t.�.L o WTAI•GE�AST ' ,/ r , t¢T�t' , MM t` ,44p.. , t �,t. \d" ; ofi't' -' y �.- r� '4:. r ,'' .,...,-...-03/4.,,1y�:: S ".`",:s',, ft • /s iatl i `' t e. i pp _ y t fit i„,spy 41 A t, r ° 1 1 1.., ,. 4, S iCiF7 % i+ C ,.. -..- ... + .¢ter r��"� t" v, • r i r 4 tat +#` a r Above:The intersection of 92nd Ave and Tangela St. February 2, 2019 Re: (CPA)2018-00003 & (ZON) 2018-00004 ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher I am writing this letter to address the proposed zoning change. I feel that changing the zoning from low density R4.5 (7500 sq ft lots)to high density R12 (3050 sq ft lots)would hurt the neighborhood characteristics. I think a better solution would be to change the density to R7(5000 sq ft lots). It would help preserve the neighborhood and would be a fair compromise. It would also be more in line with the current zoning around the property. Currently all the adjacent land is either R7 or R4.5 which is more appropriate for the neighborhood. The traffic on 95"' street is already very fast and adding that many more houses would only exacerbate the situation making for unsafe situation for a street without sidewalks. I am directly across the street and I have owned the property for 23 years. Thank you for you consideration Justin Lawrence 503-703-0439 / t +, ,... } - -'10, .--- • ,04 ir— 4100.„-: 'ci,t .,4t. t-- "` 2 • _ __,—;:iiiiii.,-.' , ,,,,,,:. m s �+,s ilix ,4°° r._i' rx ' 9C 4 .,t14;: it "` ''' ', ' 'il,.. ' -.' /'yams 1 cum. 4- - �a ',a x *k , -:**7-..-3-4—„. :. --4-- _I.:— _ , x �" " . iiii4taltir iGreenburg Oaks , 'v Apartments = _ , re SW 95k" ZONE CHANGE 11700& 11730 SW 95TH STREET TIGARD, OR 97223 L.0............. la/Inn-4 411cHIIT4ffUR4 PO BOX 664 DONALD,OREGON 97020 503.989.2992 in�inrr� �140IIT cTUR4 1 PO BOX 664 % DONALD,OREGON 97020 503.989.2992 INFINITEARCHITECTURE@WBCABLE.NET TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION&NARRATIVES SECTION 1 APPLICATION TITLE TRANSFER/DEED NARRATIVES&COMPLIANCE SECTION 2 WRITTEN SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL 1 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE;R12 3 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE; R7 1 1 NEIGHBORHOOD NOTICE SECTION 3 NOTICE OF MEETING LETTER SIGNED AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SECTION 4 MEETING SIGN-IN SHEETS MEETING MINUTES HANDOUT MATERIALS PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES SECTION 5 DRAWINGS&EXHIBITS SECTION 6 EXHIBIT Al -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT A2-PROJECT AREA ZONING City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TICARD Master Land Use Application LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE ❑ Adjustment/Variance(II) ❑ Planned Development(III) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment(Legislative) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review(II or III) ❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Site Development Review(II) El Development Code Amendment(Legislative) ❑ Subdivision (II) ❑ Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review (III) ❑ Transportation Mitigation (II) El Downtown Design Review(II,III) 0 Urban Forestry Plan Modification (I) ❑ Historic Overlay(II or III) lir Zone Change (III or Legislative) ❑ Home Occupation(II) 0 Zone Change Annexation (III or Legislative) ❑ Land Partition(II) NOTE:For required submittal elements,please refer to your pre-application conference notes. PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description) Zone change of approximately 1.64 acres of R4.5 to R12 PROPERTY INFORMATION (where proposed activity will occur) Location (address if available): 11700 & 11730 SW 95TH Tax maps and tax lot #s: 01S135DC03600, 03700, &03800 Total site size: 1.64 acres Zoning classification: CURRENT R4.5-PROPOSED R12 FOR STAFF USE ONLY APPLICANT INFORMATION Case No.: Name: INFINITE ARCHITECTURE Mailing address: PO BOX 664 Related Case No.(s): City/state: DONALD, OR Zip: 97020 Application Fee: Application accepted: Phone number: 503-989-2992 Primary contact name: Brian Cobb By: Date: Phone number: 503-989-2992 Application determined complete: Email: infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net By: Date: I:\Community Development\Land Use Applications\02_Forms and Templates\Land Use Applications Rev.12/14/2017 City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • wwwtigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2 PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER INFORMATION (Attach list if more than one) Name: Winters Salvage Yard, LLC& Hyperfight Holding LLC see attached page for complete information Mailing address: City/state: Zip: Phone: Email: When the owner and the applicant arc different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,map be revoked if it is found that any such statements arc false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). Brian Cobb 6/20/18 \pr lic Ines signature Print name Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property required 441 ArktoRc"?..) - S—tr Owner's si Alum: Print name Date qt/AQI (Ton,os fp-act-1g n signature Print me Date Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard.Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 2 of 2 1— Project Information; Address— 11700 & 11730 SW 95th, Tigard, OR Assessor/Lot— 1 S135DC03600, 03700, &03800. [Fir Dale Lots 7, 8, &9] Property Owner 11730 SW 95th Winters Salvage Yard, LLC 747 Micheltorena Street, Unit B Los Angeles, CA 90026 Property Owner 11700 SW 95th Hyperfight Holding, LLC 7420 SW Bridgeport Rd #101 Portland, OR 97224 in.1inrr4 fl110111 GU 4 PO BOX 664 Donald, Oregon 97020 503.989.2992 infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net September 17, 2018 Project Information; Address- 11700 & 11730 SW 95th, Tigard, OR Assessor/Lot- 1 S135DC03600, 03700, &03800. [Fir Dale Lots 7, 8, &9] Properly Owner 11730 SW 95th Winters Salvage Yard, LLC 747 Micheltorena Street, Unit B Los Angeles, CA 90026 Property Owner 11700 SW 95th Hyperfight Holding, LLC 7420 SW Bridgeport Rd #101 Portland, OR 97224 Summary of Proposal; This proposal encompasses three existing lots, addressed to 11700 & 11730 SW 95th, are all within City Limits. The combined lots represent 1.64 acres (71,438 sf)with very limited existing development. When first purchased,these properties were in a great state of disrepair. The buildings on the properties have since been repaired and a fence added around the salvage yard to screen from the property from the adjacent residences. With the continued demand for housing, especially homes for families, the Owner is pursuing development of these parcels to provide quality single family housing units. The proposed scope of this application includes re-zoning these three separate, but contiguous, lots from zone R-4.5 to a higher density residential zone designation. Within a quarter mile, 1,300 ft., of these properties there are six different planning zones ranging from R4.5 to R25 and IL, CP to CBD, see exhibit Al. This area of the city is, as noted, essentially pockets of different and varying usages. While the Comprehensive Plan does not show any planned changes in this area, the immediate vicinity is essentially a collection of spot zones of various sizes. We are proposing a change in zoning for the subject parcels to R-12. While this would be a locally isolated section of R-12 zoning, for the time being,the subject parcels will be contiguous with the adjacent R-7 zone. The Comprehensive Plan considers R7 &R12 to both be medium density. So, in this respect, either R-12 or R-7 is consistent with the Medium Density designation, in the Comp Plan,that the properties are adjacent to. Furthermore,there is a large area of existing R-12 zone within approximately 500 ff. of the northwest corner of the subject property, see exhibit A2. The large section of R-12 zoned use to the northwest is second in size only to the R4.5 lower density that the properties are currently in. The adjacent R-7 zone is a smaller in size and more disconnected than the higher R-12 zone we are proposing to eventually connect with. We believe It is not unreasonable to see the R4.5 zone in the surrounding area being changed to R12, or split into R-7/R-1 2. These changes would provide more consistency to the zoning in the area by producing larger blocks of similar zones. We strongly feel that a R-12 zone change would be most beneficial to this area and aid in the future retention of the large blocks of lower density housing areas in other parts of the city, refer to the R12 compliance narrative as part of this application for more information. The surrounding neighborhood(s) contains several areas of differing residential zones with the R-12 zone,to the northwest, being the largest after the R4.5 zoned area the parcels are currently within. Higher density housing in this area, as a buffer to commercial &industrial zones, works best as it allows for larger swashes of lower density homes away from less family oriented zones. We feel that this zone change can be a catalyst to quality development which SW 95th Zone Change; Written Summary of Proposal PAGE 1 OF 19 can provide additional living units, enhance the higher density zone buffers, and protect the large blocks of low density from the pressures of population needs. While we feel changing these properties to R12 and their eventual connection to the northwest R12 zone, we have provided an alternate request for a zone change to R-7, refer to the R7 compliance narrative as part of this application for more information. This request would provide additional living units, would be contiguous with an existing R-7 zone, and compatible with Comprehensive Plan for medium density housing. There is a high demand for housing of all types within the city limits that is close to essential services. Increasing density within the city limits reduces sprawl, costly service extensions, and automobile traffic. This rezone will bring much needed residential units within the city limits, aesthetically improve and contribute to the neighborhood, and dramatically increase the property tax revenue for these three lots. These three lots, and included street right-of-way, represents a large block of contiguous land adjacent to a R-7 zone and compatible in the larger&more long term"medium density'zone of the Comprehensive Plan. End of Summary SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance PAGE 2 OF 19 ins 8114 4111011 -UTUR4 PO BOX 664 Donald, Oregon 97020 503.989.2992 infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net September 17, 2018 Comprehensive Plan & Quasi-Judicial Compliance - R12 GOAL 1 -CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. COMPLIANCE:As part of this Zoning Application process, the required neighborhood meeting was held and the intended project goals, i.e. eventual sub-division into single family homes, was discussed. We believe we listened to all the citizen's concerns and that they had all their questions and concerns discussed at this meeting. Meeting notes are attached to this application as required. Citizens will have further opportunities to express their concerns and/or support for this project to the City of Tigard at future planning &city council meetings regarding this application. GOAL 2-LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. 2.2 To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees. 2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations. COMPLIANCE: The Comprehensive Plan does not show this area of the city as having any planned changes. Within a quarter mile, i.e. 1,300 ft., of the properties there are six different planning zones ranging from R4.5 &R25 to IL, CP&CBD. This area of the city is, as noted, essentially pockets of different usages. While the proposed change to R-12 would be a locally isolated zone,the Comprehensive Plan considers R7 &R12 to both be medium density. The subject parcels will be contiguous with the adjacent R-7 zone. In effect, either R-12 or R-7 is consistent with the Medium Density designation, in the Comp Plan, that the properties are adjacent to. Furthermore,there is a large area of existing R-12 zone within approximately 500 ft of the northwest corner of the subject property. We believe It is not unreasonable to see the R4.5 zoned area surrounding the properties being changed to R12 and connecting to the R-12 to the northwest, see exhibit Al &A2. These changes would, over time, provide more consistency to the zoning in this area. Furthermore, higher density housing in this area will provide a buffer from the commercial &industrial zones to the north and east to the lower density residential zones to the south and west. In addition, increasing the density in this area also allows the larger swashes of lower density residential to remain while increasing available housing within the city limits. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 3 OF 19 2.1 Policy 14: Requires;Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code,the Comprehensive Plan,and when necessary,those of the state and other agencies. Compliance:Applicant&Owner acknowledge that we bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this application is consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code. We have reviewed Tigard's Title 18 as well as Tigard's current Comprehensive Plan and to the best of our knowledge and understanding this applicant meets these requirements, as demonstrated by this document. 2.1 Policy 15: Requires; A:Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available,and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; B: Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; C: The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D: Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable,appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; E: Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; F: Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and G: Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Compliance: The property is contiguous with residential uses and activities with similar densities to the west and southeast. The current and proposed designations of the adjacent and the proposed properties are R4.5, R7 &R12 all of which are compatible adjacencies as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project areas will not adversely affect any natural open areas as there are none at the proposed site or adjacent to these properties. The existing properties are currently developed, albeit very low density, and therefore development of the properties will be less impacfful compared to raw undeveloped land. There is still a very strong and continuing need for housing in the Portland metro especially affordable housing and outdoor space for families within city limits. The proposed zone change will add much needed family housing within the city limits with access to a multitude of public transit and service options. The proposed zone change is part one of an overall goal of buildable single-family homes. The proposed R12 designation would be developed, and can be,to comply with all applicable zone code requirements. As part of the preapplication process, City of Tigard Engineering reviewed our potential preliminary subdivision plans, see preapplication notes attached. It was noted that there would be adequate public SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 4 OF 19 utilities available to the site, based on R1 density,with some potential upgrades and adjustments. The water line may require upsizing and the storm system may require repairs in the area for known maintenance issues. Both of these issues, as well as others, are correct-able as part of and over the course of this development. GOAL 3-AGRICULTURAL LAND: Only land that lies outside Urban Growth Boundaries can be classified as agricultural. COMPLIANCE:The proposed lots are within the City of Tigard and currently zoned R4.5,residential. Increased density within the city limits will slow expansion outside of the urban growth boundary thus reducing the conversion and/or loss rural agricultural land. GOAL 4-FOREST LAND: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base, and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use of forest land and, consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources, and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. COMPLIANCE: Not applicable,the properties were not designated forest land at the time of adoption of this goal. GOAL 5-NATURAL RESOURCES,AREAS,AND OPEN SPACES:To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. 5.1 Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide and,to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and high levels of biodiversity. 5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant resources. COMPLIANCE: The proposed area of zone change has no known natural resources within their boundaries. Increased density on existing developed land reduces the pressure on development in or around natural resources. GOAL 6-ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region. 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. 6.3 Reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills. COMPLIANCE: Increasing density of existing under developed land in areas with plentiful services, such as mass transit, and connectivity like bike paths&sidewalk promotes the use of such services thus reducing air pollution. Storm water issues were noted, as part of our preapplication conference, at both ends of the properties. The adjacent properties on the easterly side have consistent flooding at the termination of SW Tangela Street due to grading and clogged piping. The westerly side of the property has a series of underground and over land channels for storm water management. As part of the future development of these properties, SW Tangela Street will be extended to SW 951h. The street termination, prone to flooding,will be graded to transition to this extension. This will improve the storm water management of the street system in this area thus improving downstream quality. SW 95Th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 5 OF 19 As part of the future development, the subject properties will be required to hold and improve the quality of the storm water before being release to the system. This will also improve the quality of the downstream environment. GOAL 7-HAZARDS:To protect people and property from natural hazards. 7.1 Protect people and property from food, landslide,earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards. 7.2 Protect people and property from non-natural hazardous occurrences. COMPLIANCE: The subject properties are not heavy sloped, i.e. >25%, and thus not prone to landslides. Residential units, as part of the future development,will be wood framed and meet all current seismic codes. GOAL 8-RECREATIONAL NEEDS:To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate,to provide for the siting of recreational facilities, including destination resorts. 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on-and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails. 8.3 Provide Tigard residents with access to a broad range of recreational, cultural, and educational activities. COMPLIANCE: The subject properties are near higher density commercial areas and street systems. The proposed increase in density in this area will enhance the existing medium density buffer zone between these higher density areas/street systems(north and east)and the lower density residential &recreational areas(south and west). Increasing density in existing developed areas as well as providing density buffers improves the quality of the recreational areas as well as providing an increased tax base for further improvements to existing facilities as well as creation of new areas. GOAL 9-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. 9.2 Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses, including those that focus on environmental sustainability. 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. COMPLIANCE:While this zone change will not include commercial uses,the future development of these properties will provide improved connectivity, enhance the medium density buffer between commercial/dense areas and the lower density sections of the city. Increasing the density in this existing developed area will provide additional housing units while relieving the pressure of developing lower density residential and recreational areas of the city to meet future needs. GOAL 10-HOUSING:To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 6 OF 19 COMPLIANCE: The proposed increase in housing density will provide more affordable housing through economies of scale. Providing more units on the same amount of land reduces the economic burden of the fixed development costs which can be used to lower the overall cost of the homes. The R12's 3,050 sf lot size provides for some outdoor area for each home while providing a more affordable starter level home. GOAL 11 -PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. 1 1.1 Develop and maintain a storm water system that protects development, water resources, and wildlife habitat, 11.2 Secure a reliable, high quality,water supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community. 1 1.3 Develop and maintain a wastewater collection system that meets the existing and future needs of the community. 11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education, and leisure needs of all Tigard residents. 1 1.5 Private utilities provide the needed energy and communication services for the community. COMPLIANCE:As noted in Goal 6, Environmental Quality, the development of these properties will include improvements to the storm management system in the area. Extension of SW Tangelo Street to SW 95th will also allow a potential looping, as coordinated with Public Works, of underground utilities providing redundancy within the system during maintenance and localized failures. GOAL 12-TRANSPORTATION: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system. 12.1 Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community. 12.2 Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and goods. 12.3 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the mobility needs of the community. 12.4 Maintain and improve transportation system safety. 12.5 Coordinate planning, development, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system with appropriate agencies. 12.6 Fund an equitable, balanced, and sustainable transportation system that promotes the well-being of the community. COMPLIANCE: The properties are within a short distance, nine tenths of a mile, of several transit lines including Tigard Transit Center, which boasts numerous bus lines including a connection to the WES Commuter rail. The proposed project will include a dedicated right-of-way for extending SW Tangelo Street to SW 95th, including sidewalks, which will also improve the local transportation network. GOAL 13-ENERGY CONSERVATION: Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles. 13.1 Reduce energy consumption. COMPLIANCE: The proposed zone change will eventually be developed into medium density housing. The housing will be newly constructed and meet all current energy codes at the time of construction. As noted in Goal 12,the properties are within a mile of numerous mass transit connections. Once developed the area will have improved streets and sidewalks which will help promote use of mass transit, as well as other lower energy consumption modes of travel. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 7 OF 19 GOAL 14-URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use,to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,to ensure efficient use of land,and to provide for livable communities. 14.1. Provide and/or coordinate the full range of urban level services to lands and citizens within the Tigard City limits. 14.2. Implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement through all reasonable and necessary steps, including the appropriate annexation of unincorporated properties. 14.3. Promote Tigard citizens'interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state growth management decision. COMPLIANCE: The proposed Increase in density, i.e. R4.5 to R12, of these existing properties with the City of Tigard provides an efficient, as well as orderly,way to accommodate increased populations while reducing the need to annex properties to the City's inventory or transition rural lands. This also has the added benefit of keeping urban services concentrated in higher use corridors, i.e. 99W, increasing usage of existing services. Increasing capacity of existing urban services is generally less expensive and timelier than creation and/or expansion of services in lower density rural or remote areas. GOAL 15-SPECIAL DISTRICT:Areas identified as needing additional planning attention due to their unique circumstances and value to the community. 15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live,work, play, and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard. 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. 15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into downtown. 15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit. COMPLIANCE: The proposed area is not within any specific special districts. However,the proposed development will enhance the existing street linkages through the extension of SW Tangela Street to SW 95th In addition, pedestrian linkages will be improved through sidewalks and rights-of-way on the same street extension as well as along the properties SW 95th frontage. QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS:A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment or quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment shall be based on the following: a. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; and b. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property, the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use, and the characteristics of the property and development proposal, if any. COMPLIANCE: As described in above text, we have demonstrated that the proposed can and does comply with all comprehensive plan policies. As described in Goal 2.1 Policy 15, based on the preliminary engineering review there are some modifications needed for the proposed density but the modifications are possible as part of the eventual development of the properties. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 8 OF 19 18.110-Residential Zones REQUIRES: 18.110.020; The R-12 zone is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet.A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Table 18.110.1 Use Table Use Cate.ory R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 Residential Household Livin_ P P P P P P P P Grou s Livin. 1 RIC RC RC R/C R/C R/C R/C WC Transitional Housin. © N N ® N C C C '('able I8.110.2 llousinw„`1'}pes liousin, i es R-I R-2 R-33 R-4.5 R-'7 R-12 R-25 R-40 Sin Plc-Famil ,Units Detached P P P P P P P P Sin' e-Famil Units Attached N N N R 1 P P P Accesso Dwellin l Units 3 R R R R R R R R I► - N N © C P P P P Multifamil Units N N N N N P P P Manufactured Homes P P P P P P P P Mobile Home Parks N © C C P P P P P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted Table 18.110.3; Residential Zone Development Standards Standard R-4.5(existing) R-12 (proposed) Minimum Lot Size; Detached Unit 7,000 sf 3,050 sf Duplexes 10,000 sf Minimum Lot Width; Detached Unit 50 ft None Duplexes 90 ft Minimum Setbacks; Multi-Family/Single Front Yard 20ff 20ff/ 15ff Side Facing Street on Corner 15 ft 20 ft/ 10 ft Side Yard 5ff 10ff/5ft Rear Yard 15 ft 15 ff Maximum Height 30 ft 35 ff Maximum Lot Coverage None 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement None 20% Minimum Residential Density Requirement 80%of max density 80%of max density Maximum Residential Density 4.5 unit/acre 12 unit/acre COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process, the proposed lots would need to meet the following requirements. Proposed site area, after street ROW, is approximately 51,582 sf, Maximum number of lots 16; [51,582/3,050 sf = 16.911 Minimum number of lots 13; [16 x 0.8] SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 9 OF 19 18.310-Off-street Parking and Loading REQUIRES: 18.310.01 A; Ensure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards that will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets. 18.310.030 -General Provisions A. New construction.At the time of the erection of a new structure within any base zone, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in compliance with Section 18.310.070. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1, Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot as the dwelling(s) it serves. 18.310.040-General Design Standards B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 5.Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface.Any pervious paving surface shall be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and 1 able Iti.3111.2 Minimum and\Iatimum Off Street t 1,1116. and Hicxth Parkin.,,Requireinents Parking spare requirements ate based can square feet of floor area unless otherwise state See Chapter 18.610 for parking requirement in the.tft t-CBD;.ane. Vthicle Maximum Vehicle Maximum Use Category Vehicle Minimum iI l 13icyttt tlinimum 121 (Zone A)[11 (Zone Bl ill Resideettiai Household Living - Single Units.Attached See Multifamily Units See Multifamily Units Scc Multifamily Units none - Single Units.Detached I.0/dwelling unit none none none Accessory Units I.0tdwelling unit none none none -Duplexes I Aldwelling unit none none none -diutrifeimily Units 13] <500 sgft:I.0ldwelling unit none none 1.0+a dwelling units except 1 bedroom:1.25/dwelling unit elderly.which is 1.0120 2 bedroom:1.5/dwelling unit dwelling units 3 bedroom:1.75/dwelling unit COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process,the proposed lots would need to meet the following requirements for the intended single family detached homes. One(1) Off-street parking space per dwelling unit. On-street parking will be assumed to be required and provided to the greatest extent possible based on the 50 feet dedicated right-of-way. END OF R12 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R12 PAGE 10 OF 19 infin1T4 4IUIff4CtUR4 PO BOX 664 Donald, Oregon 97020 503.989.2992 infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net September 17, 2018 Comprehensive Plan & Quasi-Judicial Compliance - R7 GOAL 1 -CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT:To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A, opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. COMPLIANCE: As part of this Zoning Application process,the required neighborhood meeting was held and the intended project goals, i.e. eventual sub-division into single family homes, was discussed. We believe we listened to all the citizen's concerns and that they had all their questions and concerns discussed at this meeting. Meeting notes are attached to this application as required. Citizens will have further opportunities to express their concerns and/or support for this project to the City of Tigard at future planning &city council meetings regarding this application. GOAL 2-LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. 2.2 To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to ma)amize the economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees. 2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations. COMPLIANCE: The Comprehensive Plan does not show this area of the city as having any planned changes. Within a quarter mile, i.e. 1,300 ft., of the properties there are six different planning zones ranging from R4.5 & R25 to IL, CP&CBD, see exhibit Al. This area of the city is, as noted, essentially pockets of different usages. The subject parcels are adjacent to an existing R-7 zone,therefore, the proposed change would merely enlarge the existing R-7 zone. R-12 & R-7 are both medium density residential, per the Comp Plan, the change to zone R-7 would be fully in keeping with adjacencies for the Comp Plan designations as well as the individual zone designations. Higher density housing in this area will provide a buffer from the commercial &industrial zones to the north and east to the lower density residential zones to the south and west. Furthermore, increasing the density in this area also allows the larger swashes of lower density residential to remain while increasing available housing within the city limits. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R7 PAGE 11 OF 19 2.1 Policy 14: Requires;Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code,the Comprehensive Plan,and when necessary,those of the state and other agencies. Compliance:Applicant&Owner acknowledge that we bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this application is consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code. We have reviewed Tigard's Title 18 as well as Tigard's current Comprehensive Plan and to the best of our knowledge and understanding this applicant meets these requirements, as demonstrated by this document. 2.1 Policy 15: Requires; A: Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; B: Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; C: The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D: Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; E: Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; F: Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and G: Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Compliance: The property is contiguous with residential uses and activities with similar densities to the west and southeast. The current and proposed designations of the adjacent and the proposed properties are R4.5, R7 &R12 all of which are compatible adjacencies as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project areas will not adversely affect any natural open areas as there are none at the proposed site or adjacent to these properties. The existing properties are currently developed, albeit very low density, and therefore development of the properties will be less impactful compared to raw undeveloped land. There is still a very strong and continuing need for housing in the Portland metro especially affordable housing and outdoor space for families within city limits. The proposed zone change will add much needed family housing within the city limits with access to a multitude of public transit and service options. The proposed zone change is part one of an overall goal of buildable single-family homes. The proposed R7 designation would be developed, and can be, to comply with all applicable zone code requirements. As part of the preapplication process, City of Tigard Engineering reviewed our potential preliminary subdivision plans, see preapplication notes attached. It was noted that there would be adequate public SW 95h Zone Change;Application Compliance R7 PAGE 12 OF 19 utilities available to the site, based on R1 density,with some potential upgrades and adjustments. The water line may require upsizing and the storm system may require repairs in the area for known maintenance issues. Both of these issues, as well as others, are correct-able as part of and over the course of this development. GOAL 3-AGRICULTURAL LAND: Only land that lies outside Urban Growth Boundaries can be classified as agricultural. COMPLIANCE: The proposed lots are within the City of Tigard and currently zoned R4.5, residential. Increased density within the city limits will slow expansion outside of the urban growth boundary thus reducing the conversion and/or loss rural agricultural land. GOAL 4-FOREST LAND: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base, and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use of forest land and, consistent with sound management of soil,air, water, and fish and wildlife resources, and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. COMPLIANCE: Not applicable,the properties were not designated forest land at the time of adoption of this goal. GOAL 5-NATURAL RESOURCES,AREAS,AND OPEN SPACES:To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. 5.1 Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide and,to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and high levels of biodiversity. 5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant resources. COMPLIANCE: The proposed area of zone change has no known natural resources within their boundaries. Increased density on existing developed land reduces the pressure on development in or around natural resources. GOAL 6-ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region. 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. 6.3 Reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills. COMPLIANCE: Increasing density of existing under developed land in areas with plentiful services, such as mass transit, and connectivity like bike paths&sidewalk promotes the use of such services thus reducing air pollution. Storm water issues were noted, as part of our preapplication conference, at both ends of the properties. The adjacent properties on the easterly side have consistent flooding at the termination of SW Tangela Street due to grading and clogged piping. The westerly side of the property has a series of underground and over land channels for storm water management. As part of the future development of these properties, SW Tangela Street will be extended to SW 95th. The street termination, prone to flooding,will be graded to transition to this extension. This will improve the storm water management of the street system in this area thus improving downstream quality. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R7 PAGE 13 OF 19 As part of the future development, the subject properties will be required to hold and improve the quality of the storm water before being release to the system. This will also improve the quality of the downstream environment. GOAL 7-HAZARDS:To protect people and property from natural hazards. 7.1 Protect people and property from food,landslide,earthquake,wildfire,and severe weather hazards. 7.2 Protect people and property from non-natural hazardous occurrences. COMPLIANCE:The subject properties are not heavy sloped,i.e. >25%, and thus not prone to landslides. Residential units, as part of the future development, will be wood framed and meet all current seismic codes. GOAL 8-RECREATIONAL NEEDS: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate,to provide for the siting of recreational facilities, including destination resorts. 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on-and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails. 8.3 Provide Tigard residents with access to a broad range of recreational, cultural, and educational activities. COMPLIANCE: The subject properties are near higher density commercial areas and street systems, The proposed increase in density in this area will enhance the existing medium density buffer zone between these higher density areas/street systems(north and east) and the lower density residential & recreational areas(south and west). Increasing density in existing developed areas as well as providing density buffers improves the quality of the recreational areas as well as providing an increased tax base for further improvements to existing facilities as well as creation of new areas. GOAL 9-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. 9,2 Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses, including those that focus on environmental sustainability. 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. COMPLIANCE: While this zone change will not include commercial uses,the future development of these properties will provide improved connectivity, enhance the medium density buffer between commercial/dense areas and the lower density sections of the city. Increasing the density in this existing developed area will provide additional housing units while relieving the pressure of developing lower density residential and recreational areas of the city to meet future needs. GOAL 10-HOUSING: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R7 PAGE 14 OF 19 COMPLIANCE: The proposed increase in housing density will provide more affordable housing through economies of scale. While a change to R12 would provide more financial security and opportunities for the development as a whole, a R7 zone change would provide a suitable increase to meet the project goals as well as City of Tigard development codes. Providing more units on the same amount of land reduces the economic burden of the fixed development costs which can be used to lower the overall cost of the homes. The R7's 5,000 sf lot size provides for ample outdoor area for each home while providing the possibility of more starter level home lots. GOAL 11 -PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES:To plan and develop a timely,orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. 11.1 Develop and maintain a storm water system that protects development, water resources, and wildlife habitat. 11.2 Secure a reliable, high quality,water supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community. 11.3 Develop and maintain a wastewater collection system that meets the existing and future needs of the community. 11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education, and leisure needs of all Tigard residents. 11.5 Private utilities provide the needed energy and communication services for the community. COMPLIANCE:As noted in Goal 6, Environmental Quality,the development of these properties will include improvements to the storm management system in the area. Extension of SW Tangelo Street to SW 95th will also allow a potential looping, as coordinated with Public Works, of underground utilities providing redundancy within the system during maintenance and localized failures. GOAL 12-TRANSPORTATION:To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system. 12.1 Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community. 12.2 Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and goods. 12.3 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the mobility needs of the community. 12.4 Maintain and improve transportation system safety. 12.5 Coordinate planning, development, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system with appropriate agencies. 12.6 Fund an equitable, balanced, and sustainable transportation system that promotes the well-being of the community. COMPLIANCE:The properties are within a short distance, nine tenths of a mile, of several transit lines including Tigard Transit Center,which boasts numerous bus lines including a connection to the WES Commuter rail. The proposed project will include a dedicated right-of-way for extending SW Tangelo Street to SW 95th, including sidewalks, which will also improve the local transportation network. GOAL 13-ENERGY CONSERVATION: Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles. 13.1 Reduce energy consumption. COMPLIANCE: The proposed zone change will eventually be developed into medium density housing. The housing will be newly constructed and meet all current energy codes at the time of construction. SW 95Th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 15 OF 19 As noted in Goal 12,the properties are within a mile of numerous mass transit connections. Once developed the area will have improved streets and sidewalks which will help promote use of mass transit, as well as other lower energy consumption modes of travel. GOAL 14-URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. 14.1. Provide and/or coordinate the full range of urban level services to lands and citizens within the Tigard City limits. 14.2. Implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement through all reasonable and necessary steps, including the appropriate annexation of unincorporated properties. 14.3. Promote Tigard citizens'interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state growth management decision. COMPLIANCE: The proposed Increase in density, i.e. R4.5 to R7, of these existing properties with the City of Tigard while not as substantial as R12 will provide an efficient, as well as orderly,way to accommodate increased populations while reducing the need to annex properties to the City's inventory or transition rural lands. This also has the added benefit of keeping urban services concentrated in higher use corridors, i.e. 99W, increasing usage of existing services. Increasing capacity of existing urban services is generally less expensive and timelier than creation and/or expansion of services in lower density rural or remote areas. GOAL 15-SPECIAL DISTRICT:Areas identified as needing additional planning attention due to their unique circumstances and value to the community, 15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live,work, play, and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard. 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. 15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into downtown. 15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit. COMPLIANCE:The proposed area is not within any specific special districts. However,the proposed development will enhance the existing street linkages through the extension of SW Tangela Street to SW 95th In addition, pedestrian linkages will be improved through sidewalks and rights-of-way on the same street extension as well as along the properties SW 95th frontage. QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS:A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment or quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment shall be based on the following: a. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; and b. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property, the ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use, and the characteristics of the property and development proposal, if any. SW 95th Zone Change;Application Compliance R7 PAGE 16 OF 19 COMPLIANCE: As described in above text, we have demonstrated that the proposed can and does comply with all comprehensive plan policies. As described in Goal 2.1 Policy 15, based on the preliminary engineering review there are some modifications needed for the proposed density but the modifications are possible as part of the eventual development of the properties. SW 95^Zone Change;Application Compliance R7 PAGE 17 OF 19 18.1 10-Residential Zones REQUIRES: 18.110.020; The R-7 zone is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Table 18.110.1 Use Table Use Category R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 Residential Household Living P P P P P P P P Group Living[1] R/C RIC R/C RIC R/C R/C RIC R/C Transitional Housing N N N N N C C C Table 18.110.2 Housing Types Housin, 1' ,les R-1 R-2 R-33 R-4,5 ® R-12 R-25 R-40 Sin l Ic-Famil Units,Detached P P P P P P P P Sin le-Famil Units,Attached N N © R I R 2 /C P P P Accessory Dwellin_ Units 3 R R R R R R R R Duslexes N © C C P P P P Multifamil Units N © N N N P P P Manufactured Homes P P P P P P P P Mobile Home Parks ® N C ® P P P P P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted Table 18.110.3; Residential Zone Development Standards Standard R-4.5 (existing) R-7 (proposed) Minimum Lot Size; Detached Unit 7,000 sf 5,000 sf Duplexes 10,000 sf 10,000 sf Minimum Lot Width; Detached Unit 50 ft 50 ft Duplexes 90 ft 50 ft Minimum Setbacks; Single Front Yard 20 ff 15 ff Side Facing Street on Corner 15 ft 10 ft Side Yard 5 ft 5 ff Rear Yard 15 ff 15 ff Maximum Height 30 ft 35 ff Maximum Lot Coverage None 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement None 20% Minimum Residential Density Requirement 80%of max density 80%of max density Maximum Residential Density 4.5 unit/acre 7 unit/acre COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process,the proposed lots would need to meet the following requirements. Proposed site area, after street ROW, is approximately 51,582 sf. Maximum number of lots 10; [51,582/5,000 sf = 10.32] Minimum number of lots 8; [10 x 0.8] SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 18 OF 19 18.310-Off-street Parking and Loading REQUIRES: 18.310.01 A; Ensure adequate vehicle parking.These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards that will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets. 18.310.030-General Provisions A. New construction.At the time of the erection of a new structure within any base zone, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in compliance with Section 18.310.070. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot as the dwelling(s)it serves. 18.310.040-General Design Standards B.Access drives.With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 5.Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface.Any pervious paving surface shall be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and lahrr ltt..1n.1 minimum and Maximum 401 Street\chick and Bic%cik Polon.licyuittnamts Parking space requirements are based t+n square fret rr1floor area unless otherwise stated See Ch.filer 18.610 or acing re-ukrement in the,tfl.'-C1U)zone. Vehicle Maximum Vehicle Dlaximum Use Category V chick Minimum I l l {Zone A)111 (Zone B)l l l Bicycle Nlinirum 121 Residenliat 1fouschold Lir BEZNE See Multifamil Units See Multifamily Units Set Multifamily Units none - Sin k Units.Detached 1.01dwellin_unit none none - Accessory Units 1.0/dwelling unit none none none -Du ilexes 1.0/dwelling unit none none none -Alurrifurniit•C`nirs{31 <500sgtl:1.01dwellingunit none none I dwelling units except I bedroom:1,25/dwelling unit elderly.which is 1.0120 2 bedroom;1.5/dwelling unit dwelling units 3 bedroom;1.751dwelt unit COMPLIANCE: As part of a future subdivision land use process,the proposed lots would need to meet the following requirements for the intended single family detached homes. One(1)Off-street parking space per dwelling unit. On-street parking will be assumed to be required and provided to the greatest extent possible based on the 50 feet dedicated right-of-way. END OF R7 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE SW 95th Zone Change; Application Compliance R7 PAGE 19 OF 19 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING April 23, 2018 RE: SW 95th Zone Change Dear Interested Party: Infinite Architecture is representing the owner of the properties located at 11700 & 11730 SW 95th [tax map lots - 1S135DC3600, 1S135DC3700, & 1S135DC3800]. We are considering proposing a zone change at this location, current zone R4.5 to zone R12. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary land use approvals, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Friday, May 11, 2018 Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue— Station #50 Community Room 12617 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 Doors open at 6:00 pm with presentation at 6:30 pm. Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the city. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at (503) 989-2992 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian T Cobb Principal, Infinite Architecture SUBJECT PROPERTIES 11700 & 11730 SW 95'h Avenue bar t = F°+ t-> .' rib # !< fi I ,„...,_itt -.„,,,,:„_„_:, ,,_, ,1:_-: _,_ ; ,,,,,.-,,'7-!_-.4:_ - _- ;'- .is ;‘,--: 7(--- Mho , ` :, .it ,,,1:...041_, _ ' y 4 fi�a1 f ,,4 in ,. N "� a' a a 4r� „=„41,:„..sdet,, L,_.. .,i.1 .____ ..„ ..;..: ..,t,, _ __ . 7. ,, . .4_ 4,__ ,__ i__ „....,Ii .k.,....itt.,I.„ ..41.,,,.....r.; _ . , __ ...„.. : .. ,„,..„,,..if tt, .. # . , .",_,. 4 '4.- ' :„..„7-,=„1!!...,r---_-_„--7:&W,4; =4 : - -=-',.-7,- - '-: -- -:-' - .,. l''''''-._: I ,- 4.-7-' ':',' "7- iire101- - iirtipr- 4.---..,- -. "*.:-': ' ,. # l .�1. , , rr 1111f 4 1'4' Dove ct ,r-� .. Greenberg Oak:.. , --4. . Apartment iY • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT&COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: •- 1, 15 r i Q 6 I Coo being duly sworn,depose and say that on the j3� day of_ , 20 1 Jj ,I caused to have mailed to each� of the Liersons ontheattached list,a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 11700 A (173o C W -t 5TM�' 'l 6P 410 it-NK, a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes_plainly addressed to ssaidetsons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at ILA 3'33 5 W TDWA/Cl Vv1 GTS—LOO r 4 S Iii(/.Stw (,/(re oft. with postage prepaid thereon. `7 b70 (------) 17......,""---45.-: ::----7 Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING:jj I,____13r/Ail (2 Lh ,do affirm that I am(represent)the party initiating interest in a proposed land use application for '`(u C% i't, - _ affecting the land located at (state the app r_oximate location(s)IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s)currently registered) I l"71:27) 411,6I73o SW el 55'ih A-VE t 776 r1rt4 Ott, and did on theme A t1 day of_herd ,20 I g -personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a 2-"A; 1,((►4N4 6- land use application,and the time,date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. �- The sign was posted at_ 1 /700 / /1730 SW /T M ' - - —o-ot/ 6 l A26- t 4# 106r feerg-4141L•SoX. p r0t (State the location you posted notice on property) ) ' ' ---r.;-',.� � Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF 04(7t!A(:)I ) County of ,j \ "vyy J ...)ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 1— day of /(2020 i--'''' ' ;is ce,A. ,..,..f., VII FFICIAL STAMP xKALEESA DIANE THANASOUK NO ARY PUBLIC OF OREGON NOTARY PUBIJC OREGON My Commission Expires: G-5 (c /, COMMISSION NO.941484 �J �Il MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 30,2019 I:\CURPLN\Masters\Pre-Application Conference Packet\Affidavit of Mailing-Posting Neighborhood Meeting.docx Updated 3/25/2013 ALBERTSON,BARRY 1S135CD00101 15445 SW 150TH AVE ALEGRIA,JOSE M TIGARD,OR 97224 11555 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD13800 multiple:1S135DC04600 to 1S135DC04800 AMBERT,KYLE H&KIMBERLY M ANDOVER PROPERTIES LLC 9660 SW NACIRA LN ATTN EARL ERNEST GUILE TIGARD,OR 97223 5476 NW 146TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97229 ATTN:DONNY T.FE 1S135DC06600 SECTOR HOUSING OFFICER AVILES,JOSE ANTONIO 2185 SE 12TH PLACE 155 N 1ST AVE WARRENTON,OR 97146 TIGARD,OR 97223 IS135DC01702 BEACH,DAYLE D.&EVELYN O. BARKER-ARCH,HEATHER D 11530 SW 72ND AVENUE ARCH,RYAN R TIGARD,OR 97223 11830 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC05100 BEILKE,SUSAN BEDELL,JENNIFER&STEVEN 11755 SW 114TH PLACE 9430-9432 SW TANGELA CT TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S135CD10900 BONILLA,NACIA/STASNY,JAMIE BLAKELY,SCOTT MICHAEL&AYA T METROPOLITAN LAND GROUP,LLC 9735 SW NACIRA LN 17933 NW EVERGREEN PARKWAY,SUITE 300 TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 BUEHNER,GRETCHEN 1S135DC03400 PO BOX 230268 BUJAK,JONATHAN TIGARD,OR 97281 11670 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 CAFFALL,REX 1S135CD02401 13205 SW VILLAGE GLENN CALHOUN,JOHN CULLEN TIGARD,OR 97223 11945 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD13100 CAROL RENAUD CAO,MY DUC& COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE-COMMUNITY NGUYEN,LIEN THI PHUNG ENGAGEMENT 9595 SW PIHAS ST 254 N FIRST AVENUE MS20 TIGARD,OR 97223 HILLSBORO,OR 97124 1S135CD02402 1S135DC04100 CARTER,S 1'EPHANIE E TRUST CHAPMAN,WAYNE KENNETH 11895 SW 95TH AVE CHAPMAN,SHARON RAE TIGARD,OR 97223 11850 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD 1S135DC04700 ATTN:GARY PAGENS 1'ECHER COHEN,DAVID 13125 SW HALL BLVD. COHEN,SAMUEL TIGARD,OR 97223 9423 SW TANGELA CT TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC05300 CONNERY,ST'ACY COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDART. 12564 SW MAIN STREET PO BOX 23206 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97281 1S135DC05000 1S135DCO2100 COPPA,JAMES V&KARLA A CORIA,ARMANDO CHAVEZ 3134 SW 73RD AVE 12047 SW LINCOLN AVE PORTLAND,OR 97225 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB04900 CRAGHEAD,ALEXANDER CORTESE FAMILY TRUST 12205 SW HALL BOULEVARD CORI SE,ANGF.I 0&ROSINA A TRS TIGARD,OR 97223-6210 11856 SW 175TH AVE BEAVERTON,OR 97007 1 S 135DC01600 1 S 135CD03700 CRUICKSHANK,LAURA J DAW,LAWRENCE D 11780 SW 91ST AVE DAISY L TIGARD,OR 97223 11605 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 DEFILIPPIS,VICTOR 1S135DC01701 13892 SW BRAYDON CT DORSEY,ALTA M TRS BY MCGINNIS,MARLENE& TIGARD,OR 97224 GATCHELL,ERNEST A TRS 2285 NW 113TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97229 1S135CD02900 1S135CD03601 DOTSON,JASON B/SUED EATON,DICK&LINDA 9570 SW LEWIS LANE 9625 SW LEWIS LN TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC05500 ENGVALL,ANN ECKROTH,GRANT D&TANYA M 15461 SW 82 PL 11785 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC05700 FROUDE,BEVERLY FARIS,DAVID LYNN&KATRINA LYNN 12200 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD 11780 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB06000 1S135DC01500 GALEANA,EUNICE GHIONEA LIVING TRUST 11540 SW GREENBURG RD BY GHIONEA,RADU&ELENA TRS TIGARD,OR 97223 11695 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97224 1S135CD04700 multiple: 1S135CD14300 to 1S135CD14600 GOOD,JAMES JR&JULIA GREENBURG PINES HOMEOWNERS 11865 SW 95TH AVE ASSOCIATION TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 91459 PORTLAND,OR 97291 1S135DC04900 HADLEY,BONNIE CHAIR CPO 4B GRIMES,AMY L,KILLION,BEVERLY A 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY SUl'1'r,H BOX 242 KILLION,JACK T JR TIGARD,OR 97224 9350 SW TANGELA CT TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DCO2200 HAMILTON,LISA CPO 4B VICE CHAIR HALLE,GEFF R 13565 SW BEEF BEND ROAD 12081 SW LINCOLN AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135DB05000 1S135DB04800 HAROLD D DYER&DEBRA J DYER HARTMANN,PATRICK&SYLVIA 3635 SW 144TH AVE 11465 SW 92ND AVE BEAVERTON,OR 97005 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S135CD10700 1S135DC06200 HE,ZHIAN REIMS,AARON 6109 SUMMER WOODS ME 1'1'EER,JUSTINE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 11670 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 HERING,J.BLAKE. HOGAN,KEVIN NORRIS BEGGS&SIMPSON 14357 SW 133RD AVENUE 121 SW MORRISON,SUI11,200 TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97204 multiple: 1S135CD03900 to 1S135DCO2400 HOWLAND,HAROLD AND RUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 13145 SW BENISH WASHINGTON COUNTY TIGARD,OR 97223 111 NE LINCOLN ST#200-L HILLSBORO,OR 97124 1S135DC03001 1S135DB03600 HUANG,JIA-HWAY HULME,DAVID A&CASSANDRA M 8218 S 15TH ST 11480 SW 92ND AVE PHOENIX,AZ 85042 TIGARD,OR 97223 multiple: 1S135CD02702 to 1S135DC03600 1S135DB05200 HYPERFIGHT HOLDINGS LLC JAKOVICH,MARY LOU 9577 SW MOUNTAIN VIEW LN 11450 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135DC06000 1S135CD13700 JENSEN,DONALD CRAIG&JAMI DIAN JOHNSON,ALAN S&KIMBERLY L 11720 SW 92ND AVE 9680 SW NACIRA LN TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 multiple: 1S135DC04400 to 1S135DC04401 1S135CD10600 JOHNSON,DARRELL B& JOHNSON,JIM W&DOROTHY E WALKER,KRISTINE L 11676 SW NACIRA PL 12085 SW LINCOLN AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135DCO2500 1 S135LC05400 JOHNSTON,MARIE L TRUST& JONES,CARY DANTFT. NANNINI,SUZANNE M&BAUER,PATRICIA E 11765 SW 92ND AVE 11775 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD00205 1 S 135CD03500 JONES,JOSHUA DANIEL&MOLLY BET JOY,DANIEL J 9555 SW LEWIS LN 6408 SE 61ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97206 1 S 135DC03000 1 S 135DC06900 KEN CONDOS LLC KENNEDY,MARIANA PO BOX 5863 11660 SW GREENBURG RD ALOHA,OR 97006 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD02500 KIMMEL,DAVID KENT,ROBERT&ASHLI 1335 SW 66TH SUI fE 201 13155 SW 124TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97225 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD03000 KNAPP,MONA KIRK,JASON&ERICA 9600 SW FREWING STREET 9580 SW LEWIS LN TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD03400 1S135CD03100 KNEELAND,JAMES H&DEBORAH L KURTZ,GAREY L 9690 SW LEWIS LN 4929 SE 1'ENINO DR TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97206 1 S 135CD02701 1S135DC08500 LAWRENCE,JUSTIN R LAYTON SURVIVOR'S TRUST 1914 NW 112TH CIR 2901 E 2ND ST VANCOUVER,WA 98685 NEWBERG,OR 97132 1S135CD03600 1S135DC08900 LEWIS,SEAN M LIM,MICHAEL S 9595 SW LEWIS LN 11635 SW GREENBURG RD PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC08800 LISA HAMILTON CPO 4B VICE-CHAIR LIM,MICHAEL S&CARINA G 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY SUITE H BOX 242 PO BOX 231064 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97281 LONG,JIM CHAIR,CPO 4M 1S135DC05800 10730 SW 72ND AVE MAXWELL,GERALD W&MELISSA S PORTLAND,OR 97223 11760 SW 92ND AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 1 S 135CD03200 1 S 135DC06100 MCBRIDE,MITCHELL MCCORMACK,STACEY L 9630 SW LEWIS LN 11690 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DCO2602 1 S 135CD14100 Mendoza, Uriel Contreras&Contreras,Maria Soledad& MEUNIER,KELLY LEIGH Magana,Javier Mendoza 9580 SW PIHAS ST 11645 SW Greenburg Rd TIGARD,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 MILDREN,GENE 1S135DC03500 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP MONTGOMERY,CORY L 7650 SW BEVELAND ST,STE 120 MONTGOMERY,DEANA S MCFADDEN TIGARD,OR 97223 11680 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC04200 1S135DC03300 MOORE,MONTY L& MORRISON,JEFFREY&LISA MARGARET J 11640 SW 95TH AVE 11930 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC07100 1S135DC06500 MOYA,LAURA MUNOZ,JESUS&OLIVIA 11595 SW 91ST AVE 11665 SW 92ND AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 MURDOCK,NATHAN AND ANN NEAL BROWN.GM 7415 SW SPRUCE STREET MEADOWS INC REALTORS TIGARD,OR 97223 12655 SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 NEWTH,PATTY 1S135CD13900 12180 SW MERESTONE COURT NGUYEN,ANDRE TIGARD,OR 97223 SAUNDERS,CHI KIM PHAM 9640 SW PIHAS ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD02800 1S135CD03300 NICHOLSON,JADE M ORR,KAREN&LYNART 9550 SW LEWIS LN 9660 SW LEWIS LN TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC06800 1S135DC06700 PANTALEON,ERNESTO NIETO PHAM,LUONG G&VERONICA J FIGUEROA,ESPERANZA N PO BOX 23126 11630 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB05100 1S135DB04901 PILTZ,KENNETH RANDALL,BARBARA J 8407 SW 46TH AVE 14889 SW 116TH PL PORTLAND,OR 97219 'TIGARD,OR 97224 1S135DCO2401 ROGERS,KATE RETCH, AT,F,NANDRA T. 9527 SW BROOKLYN LN BOUS 1'EAD,ANNA L TIGARD,OR,97224 11795 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 RORMAN,SUE RUEDY,ROBERT 11250 SW 82ND AVE 14185 SW 100TH AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 1 S 135D C05600 1 S 135CD 14200 RUFENER,MICHELLE L TRUST RUTHERFORD,JANET M RUFENER,BRENT L TRUST 11785 SW 95TH AVE 10324 SW LADY MARION DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 1 S 135DC05900 1 S 135CD13000 SAUER,DAVID T JR SHARP,AUSTIN R&MICHELLE R 11740 SW 92ND AVE 9575 SW PIHAS ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DCO2600 1 S 135CD00202 SHIELDS,MARY M SMITH,JEFFERSON 11665 SW GREENBIIRG RD 11633 NE PACIFIC ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97220 15135DC05200 multiple: 15135DC07000 to 1S135DC09000 SMITH,MAHLON&NADINE SOUTHWOOD PARK LLC 11830 SW 95TH AVE 16615 MAPLE CIR TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 1S135DC08600 SPRING,BRAD SPECIALIZED HOUSING INC 7555 SW SPRUCE STREET 4140 SW 109TH AVE 'TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 STALZER,CHARLIE AND LARIE 1S135CD13200 14781 SW JULIET TERRACE STEINBRENNER,ERIN TIGARD,OR 97224 9635 SW PIHAS ST TIGARD,OR 97223 SUNDBERG,ROSS 1S135CD10800 16382 SW 104TH AVE SURJADI,OSCAR TIGARD,OR 97224 SETIADY,ETJ,FN 11688 SW NACIRA PL TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD14000 multiple: 1S135CD00200 to 1S135CD03800 TAMARGO,JEREMY&VI VELONI,RICHELE A 9610 SW PIHAS ST 9575 SW LEWIS LN TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135CD01701 1 S135CD00300 VEZEY,CHERYL ANN VI IR CO IIC PO BOX 230299 PO BOX 66362 TIGARD,OR 97281 PORTLAND,OR 97290 1 S 135DCO2000 1 S 135DC03100 Villa La Paz Limited Partnership VOSS,JASON By Community Partners For Affordable Housing Inc 11545 SW GREENBURG RD PO Box 23206 TIGARD,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97281 1 S135DCO2601 1S135CD06000 WAFFORD,ROBERT W&CHRISTINA M WAGNER,JESSE ANDREW&LYNN 11767 SW 191ST AVE 9710 SW LONDON CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 WEGENER,BRIAN 1S135DC06400 9830 SW KIMBERLY DRIVE WEYRAUCH,LORRAINE D AND GLENN W TIGARD,OR 97224 11585 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135DC06300 1 S135CD00100 WHITE,BERLEY&GRACE WILKER,G E 11595 SW GREENBURG RD 11525 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB05900 multiple: 1S135DC03700 to 1S135DC03800 WILLIAMS,CHRIS T&DANIELLE L WIN 1ERS SALVAGE YARD LLC 11550 SW GREENBURG RD 11730 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC03200 1S135CD02801 WINTERS,DEBRA FAYE&JOHN WIRKKALA,KRISTINE WINTERS,HAYDEN WILLIAM 14354 SE CAROL AVE 11590 SW 95TH AVE MILWAUKIE,OR 97267 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135CD13300 1S135DC04301 WONG,WENLYN K WOODARD,JOSEPH D&MEGAN WHITNEY,ERIC 11950 SW 95TH AVE 9670 SW PIHAS ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING April 23, 2018 RE: SW 95th Zone Change Dear Interested Party: Infinite Architecture is representing the owner of the properties located at 11700 & 11730 SW 95"' [tax map lots - 1S135DC3600, 1S135DC3700, & 1S135DC3800]. We are considering proposing a zone change at this location, current zone R4.5 to zone R12. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary land use approvals, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Friday, May 11, 2018 Tualatin Valley Fire &Rescue—Station#50 Community Room 12617 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 Doors open at 6:00 pm with presentation at 6:30 pm. Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the city. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at(503) 989-2992 if you.have any questions. Sincerely, Brian T Cobb Principal, Infinite Architecture SUBJECT PROPERTIES 11700& 11730 SW 95t Avenue Nei P - l :t _� ' i. 1 ^_ - . - year _ +r - .. -p# i1 :. ,*f. ,, ie1 ♦ C r 1* 1 , 11700 & 11730 t , SW 95th �� ' - ' "a' ,�k r 0. C r t t. t a1 i--• , 1 '' _ ,tt,,—_Whom Oakes • I Apar mc•nt-, r , L INFINITE ARCHITECTURE PO BOX 664 Donald, Oregon 97020 503.989.2992 infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net Meeting Sign In Sheet Meeting Date May 11, 2018 Meeting Time 6:30 pm Project Number Meeting Number 001 Purpose Neighborhood Meeting Location Name Address �D ill✓ WINTERS 1/590 5,uJ . `l$-'4 TIG-ARD,ORE&YoU 9714,3 2 1�. ebbs w'�v, -s 1159 RS.44. — oba cA oR. c‘") as 3 3 5� S©'n _S �555 $c.2 1,4,15 Lt� �I ia� 09_ ct--)223 4 3e„., �cc� �� gNZ svo <4-7,t, CA-. ---ci' Iiv cA2 'i71-z3 5 �2(rvtCS 9350 S/6 7fi-)3 Cr 1/6 fie,0 9? .3 6 /eo Zeit- e..�-- k) S5'= Aie_ 7 £,cw (I e ?-c-9 @w is ,4v i/76-,5'Ec-?/ JO5`4s sub ?c3-"4-f�-v�-e., T9 arch, D,r. ?7.Z-23 8 DR-6/41 9 _moo cy-N IC 7o Su L e ieS Ln. 113JL-( - 1-570 7r9a&, 1 f/Pl'e r 7WA�SS 11 'Sri CaPPilt °t . 9 t3 / SLtt "TANGt:f4 CT" 12 k)0.144140) S 5 cJ c c�.� G 'fir• 13 _. jai A 6444 AK? C' 3 - S 7e 14 s S�14 '% \N • ♦ ` -le O 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 27 28 29 3 intinrr4 4B(41r14C fllM PO BOX 664 Donald, Oregon 97020 503.989.2992 infinitearchitecture@wbcable.net July 1, 2018 Meeting Date 11 May 2018 Project Name SW 95th Zone Change Project Number 2008-03 Meeting Number Neighborhood 01 Purpose Required Neighborhood Meeting Location 12617 SW Walnut Street,Tigard, OR 97223 To the best of our knowledge,this is an accurate summary of the discussions that occurred during this meeting. Meeting Start Time; 6:30pm Presentation; Brian Cobb (BC)of Infinite Architecture read the required statement. BC then summarize the proposed application. 1) We noted that the three properties were being proposed to be changed from R4.5 to a R12 zone. Residential zones with R12 being a higher density, i.e. 12 units per acres instead of 4.5. 2) We explained that the properties are abutting a R-7 zone to the east&south of the property. We acknowledged that while this is technically a spot zone, as it isn't directly connected to an existing R-12 zone,that there is a large section of R-12 zone existing to the northwest approximately 500 ft. away. 3) We also noted the proposal would eventually include extending SW Tangela Street to SW 95th providing new street connectivity with a 50-ff. right-of-way. Discussion; Citizen Concerns &Comments 1) Concerns with spot zoning issue and Comp Plan not reflecting this area being chanced. Response:> Yes, this set of properties would technically be a "spot'zone for now. However, within 500 feet of these properties, there are numerous other zones making this entire 1/2-mile area a series of spot zones. Our approach is to plan further ahead and develop the land as R12. There is R12 within 500 feet of this area. While the Comprehensive Plan may not show any planned changes in this area we believe given the multitude of different zones in the area As the properties in this application are greatly underdeveloped, i.e. only have one structure a piece, developing these for further integration with the higher density R12, and skip R-7, would make more sense as its easier to develop in higher densities now then wait until there are 5-10 structures needed to be redeveloped. SW 95th Zone Change; Neighborhood Mtg Minutes PAGE 1 OF 3 2) How does it benefit the existing neighbors? Response:> The owner has improved these lots through fencing and renovation already so the neighbors are aware and acknowledged the improvements. Owner now wants to start this process to further improve the character of the neighborhood through quality single family homes, street connectivity, and tax revenue. Development will include storm water quality and flow management alleviating some of the existing known issues. 3) What prevents changing your mind and constructing multi-family development. Response:> Owner is not interested in multifamily or duplex housing; the intent is creating nice single- family homes that are affordable and improve the area. In order to accomplish this,we are requesting a reduction in the minimum lot size in order to increase the number of potential units. This creates an economy of scale to offset the street dedication as well as the area required for on-site water quality management. 4) Willing to condition the approval for no multi-family? Response:> Yes 5) What's to prevents someone with less intentions coming in and doing a similar rezone. Some concern about R7 to south and setting a precedent for their density increase and not being able to control their Quality and outcome. Response:> Nothing can be directly done to prevent another's application. However, like this application there are multiple opportunities for public comment,i.e. at the neighborhood meetings, planning commission meeting, as well as the City council meeting. In addition to this Zone Change application we, as would other properties,will also be required to submit a Subdivision application and that process also has multiple comment and review periods as well. 6) What is Subdivision Approval?What does it entail? Response:> A subdivision is another process in which we apply to have the properties divide in to buildable lots. There is a significant amount of additional information, research, and drawings that are produced for this part of the process. This includes surveying of the lots and their intended break down, research and design of the street& utilities, and things of that nature. Part of the approval of this process also includes multiple public comment and review opportunities. 7) What about parking?And traffic increases? Response:> Parking will be dealt with as part of the subdivision process. However, off street parking is required, one per residential unit. We anticipate providing at least the one spot off street, i.e. in the driveway, plus one in a garage possibly two where tandem parking is possible. On street parking will be provided to the greatest extent possible while meeting the City of Tigard street standards and requirements. 8) What about sidewalks on 95th and other streets? Response:> Sidewalks will be a part of the subdivision approval and be provided along the new street dedication as well as along the SW 95Th frontage of the subject properties. These properties are beyond the distance that would require Owner to extend the sidewalks beyond our property onto other properties. Furthermore, Owner wouldn't want to take people's land to put in a sidewalk without them wanting it as the cost of maintenance is typically put onto the owner of the property it is located. 9) Timeline? Response:> The Zone Change and Subdivision process could take about a year to complete at which point building permits for the homes can be submitted. Long term timeline is approximately 2 to 3 years to complete construction. SW 95'h Zone Change; Neighborhood Mtg Minutes PAGE 2 OF 3 10) Will these be rented or sold? Response:> Not sure yet. Owner's preference is to sell over owning them all and renting them out. Owner wants people in there that care about the area, like what Drew(Owner) did with the existing properties. 11) Why shoot for R-12 in lieu of R-7 when the property is contiguous with R-7 and would provide additional lots without being a spot zone? Response:> Future casting and the need for flexibility. We want something better for area. With the increased potential lot count, it would allow for other things such as a larger open area for activity other than just water management, flexibility on home style, size, and layout, etc. General Comments; CITIZENS; 1) Sharing the community is important, We moved here a quieter less crowded area. 2) Park and open community is important. OWNER; 1) I have improved the existing structure to be a quality single family home. I have put up fencing and screening to improve the area around the salvage yard. I care about the area, my daughter is living in the house, and want to come to improve the character. 2) I am not intending to build cookie cutter housing. I want upgraded nice homes the blend well but are more unique. Blending into the neighborhood is important. I don't want something crappy. 3) I want to address the concerns and build something nice. 4) Parking and overflow will the reviewed as we don't want any issues in the neighborhood either. 5) A small open space for community use is worth looking into. However, it will depend on density and standards approved under this application. 6) We want to keep it nice, maintain good traffic flow without parking problems and overlap. 7) The street extension will complete what the city intended, i.e. extending SW Tangelo Street to SW 95tH SW Tangelo currently ends in a dead end, i.e. no cul de sac, and is prone to flooding and other issues. Eventually, as part of future phases of this project, we will be dedicating a 50-ft. right-of-way for the extension of SW Tangelo Street to SW 95th. This connection will include street parking, trees, and sidewalks. Project Representatives; Architect-Brian Cobb Owner-Drew Jones Owner Rep-Joe Green Jr End Time 7:30 pm Recorded By Brian Cobb END OF MINUTES SW 951'Zone Change; Neighborhood Mtg Minutes PAGE 3 OF 3 a . ... vl. . , i,,,-, *1,..1:„ 'e.,L„.‘ ' % • oltt 11 • ; II .� r s N • l a _ gem it.F i b gi 0. ite$y{ g IP .' 'vim M �v .a I SM5- SaiSH 4K6"' tl41S6 47 ' an'u A, I Ai r_{4 �� I >f Tytl.-. *ark. a4 ' ��.� 9 f � ate ''. ''''' II-I ,„„,...T— '(• .'_ -414-. ":- .44 -' 14 it it_,- lit,.- ...,',.. , ,.. ,4261. , ! c sitl i ...„ , wy, £ 44 4 ilk a 1i SW 95TH REPLAT Imo.Imoswwn 'i or II IS §moi >.. : ?$� £ iii PREAPPLICATION _ � _ a _� :� Sege,aaot o, " ,. „ss, —._ a+ s,a „s1 a \r S a' t,...° „eau - S W Lewis I n nnsir n a s Cott Ct = a i raw , E • w t ..« ilea, '. °I,+t,., Yij,:ao11111:.g r,TJ6a.f,...— kern .- . ss �4, — _._... inn ,+eR asn �,. ,,.::..: naa s hI, >sIkIlF 3 11111N1 . n ax ,aa a diii __��__ as ,\., oo A oma, ; 992�Saa,iota .I16 r 00 idea, ,aa R4.5' •_ ry ® ( � „>aa aM........-- ' APPROX MINIMUM/SITE-- -3 k SV1 Pihas Cf Z SWp/� — { LOT SIZE SITE— pier a«, NNN ,,,,,,ii gT.n 011.1. 1sam ono ' airs -� St _ I:. aaao naa� t I e I s� 6e TgagMITIIgi �- - ss✓ aR, yr'v(n' I-� \~u j;ii ..f7n ,.eY ono oven .i.—�. -- I �/ W F \�.0;,..u,\ 111.. , f I I. SW Tangelo Ct », «, Q' „«« r ill \\ qq,„,,, ., , m.rs a,5, fii{'ip .DJ wa, s.,n m ® '1'11F'4. /, oat liPT Y ------1I R7 3 «.,fir . N SW Lo o�Ct?gill� ' ' ,' 11 , vu 7 ax3 \,,, ,�\ R25� �l t naan e l ,. «Tse ant I SIMILAR SIZE LOTS b DENSITY 3 I "1., 1 --- - X72, « . 1 � Eax, etr., Ronin:I,pes INOWRTimos R-I R-2 R-3.5 'R-4.5 R-7 b0 R45 R.45 I 11-12 Slsodaed I 0.1.5 I R-1 Use Category I R-4.5 I R-7 I R-Il I Q Single-Family Units.Uetachod P I' P P P P P P Standard Nultlfamih Single Minimum Lot Site Residential Single-Family l:niui,Attached N N N R[I[ R121'(' P P P Family Ilou.ch„III Listag I' I' I' Accessory 1/wellingllnits 131 R 0 R R R R R N -INrrrched mil 7.5f10 sq.II 5,0(MI W.R' (hotlyI.Is in' I RI' R( Rl ' a Iklplcxcs N N C' (' P P P P Minutia edt titre .Ana,. ones 111 Not 1 1 MuhifamilY linin N N N N N P P P -Iartuched unn 3,050 will. 3,050 sq.R. applicahle 5'""i'n' Transitional lhxsing Si ( re Manufactured flows P P P P P P P P '•arrnrhr-1 unir per unit per unit .Duplere. LL Mobile Dome Parks N N C C P P P P -Duplcres IIr,I00 x1.11. III,00 0 sq.11. -Bearding. 2 P-Pcrmined R-Restrict d (-Conditional the N-Not Permin.Jl.dMinimum Lot Width ,Tin�}�•. [I I Attached single-family units permuted only as pan of an approved planned development. room,:g demure .Detached tour 50 n. 50 n. In [21 Permitted by right if no more than 5 units in a grouping,permitted as a conditional use if 6 or Inure Minimum Lot Width None Nom all n.- -A/rarhed unir I I I Not 1 units per grouping. applicable R g Minimum Setbacks Ill Pennines!subject to requirements in 18.410.Accessory I/welling Units. -Frons toed 20 n. 15 n. 'Duplexes 90 n. 51111 ,^ -'AdeMsing street Minimum Setbacks ,/' - ins rr ae 20 fi. 101t a,xars rhrnugh lir -Front rvrd 20 R. 15 m. -Sal.lard 10 0. 5 8.111 -Side e Icing suers on 15 II. I0 ft. - -------- -Rear torr 20 n. 15 11. corner et through Ink -Side i.e rear rued -Side yard 5 t1. 5 0. awning more 30 R. 30 R. •Rear Bard 15 n. 15 n. R-12 rewretire -Side or rear am(uharrirrg Not 30 ln. lvlaneM•norn more rerrrrcn,e applicable R-. de 23RD.9 Ion,IF d.gd atcdnxhed.nglc family holm, wal«v, ,n rc,Je nmhor, or)Na poem fmrrMMrn'lnrr and 20 n. 20 n -Dtsioncr Ieloren 11,1,.c.vc Ivnmaedcamnion.i,,..m,cis”-am iiwvam..1.m are atm Pm,alcd (sur nlgonias properly line and front nJ 200 2011 avnJ lly • aurone M Height 35 ft 3511. R - lean ,m R de:a,vd ora w nrJ Ir Maximum I.ot Maximum Sleight 30 n. 35 R. R-4.5 I fulT Mme d vled f I M1vma M a I i. aa R .unI.. I .d crape m Rx r nRu.wt Ir rt whirM parks I. ermined ph Some Mml and Re.arc a. M cd Coverage I'I Minimum BUi _ • Maximum Lot t(outsse[21 None W. - - R-7 c.o. ..... SE11120.2013 I .,ma Ih Landscape 2074 209: Minimum Lml9Pe Requirement NOM 20% _..-. tae m MO.R Requirement mil dTh R-12 drxgnrJ W R x Minimum ft sicnllal 010° 1 Ra of P ,te1...u2,Pr I s csfJ,nM par na+.1a,dr mac of cow And llwnuuomluam Minimum BU' t HO° of maximum makmum m lwmmnmd..,diwaalh.it Residential fh uy rima m Density Requirement an Regdm leem density density density 'len iy • R-25(PD) Maximum Maximum Residential - •._ SITE STANDARDS 121ma acre 12 Intl acre d_5 unn/acre 7 unit nacre MU-C13 A055 't Residential Manly Denuly 11 575 `�` 11675- 1166(1 14(1 1165(1 SW Lewls ( n 11640 /1.-.115,5 �,�. q6 19 I Select taxlot on `, I'I$7I 11635 \ EMI ..,, 116 70 F-( 66 S `�� 1 %.9.1 I 9530 9570r 1'1630 ' 11632 , 9660 j 9630 ! 11690 �r+ ~',..., ,d 1 1 6,,5 s-.arsri-�al > . i Y j 932 5 I 11639 11665 R4.5 - V I 1172(1 / Ma l i APPROX MINIMUM __ - / 11645 ,/ Z i _ SITE _ 1 - SI/�/• / 9595 :1575 — _- LOT SIZE 11 743 1'1767 ��5 11( ll1 9735 S� ;13311 ' I i :' 9670 - � ,` 1 ) ' _ � 1'I 760. 11775 I acl ra ;� ---� �� 9423 . .11765 I 1 •,1720 071(1 0680 1360 9640 96I(I 95.70 117::5 =1345 �p� e^ 11730 a . SW Ta, ngela_Ct 1170511II 11, 'I17:b;i 7`-15 > 7$3 -.....\\„_____. - _ 1 4-1 9706 97(10 97.1,,1 1103:'1 =1432 939•1 1-1 I _ Cil I'It •n. . ,,, 9712 971 3 % R7 9701 r+ 9714 i CO 9715` 1 11x:;5 111 I 9737 971 3 Q 1 1 1,1 1 1845 ..�w;' ,R25 R 5 P , x!71 I'I,;.'-i 5 L!1 11: 0-1 I'1:1'111 9 731 r t,'' 972 1 S ',I SIMILAR SIZE LOTS&DENSITY 9722 11930 12005 II 12(147 50�.:-: _- ,. 1 X11945 INFINITE If DATE: P.O.Box 664 ! REFERENCE DRAWING. 05/10/18 Donald,OR 97020 SITE DIAGRAM SCALE: ....._j I (b) 503.989.2992PROD.NO2018..01 OWN BY$TC A 1 (f) 50503.989776.2992 SW 95TH REPLAT 9013 ARCHITECTURE 111700&11730 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223 II a City of Tigard Pre-Application Conference Notes TI G A R D Residential Developments Meeting Date: April 3, 2018 PRE2018-00009 Applicant: Infinite Architecture Agent: Brian Cobb Contact: infinitearchitecture@wbcale.net Contact: 503-989-2992 Property Location: 11700& 11730 SW 95th Avenue Proposal: Zone change from Low Density R-4.5 to Medium Density R-12 and a 16-lot subdivision Base Zone: R-4.5 Sensitive Lands: NA Overlay Zone: NA Plan District: 0 Yes ® No If yes,which plan district: Required Applications: Zone Change (ZON);Subdivision (SUB) Planner: Gary Pagenstecher Contact: 503-718-2434 Engineer: Khoi Le Contact: 503-718-2440 Applicable Chapters ® 18.110 Residential Zones ® 18.710 Land Use Review Procedures ❑ 18.220 Residential Design Compatibility 0 18.720 Annexation ® 18.310 Off-Street Parking and Loading 0 18.740 Conditional Use ® 18.320 Landscaping and Screening 0 18.750 Historic Overlay Zone ❑ 18.410 Accessory Dwelling Units 0 18.760 Home Occupations El 18.440 Temporary Uses 0 18.770 Planned Developments ❑ 18.450 Wireless Communication Facilities 0 18.780 Site Development Review O 18.510 Sensitive Lands 0 18.790 Variances and Adjustments ® 18.520 Urban Forestry ® 18.795 Map and Text Amendments O 18.620 Bridgeport Village Plan District 0 18.810 Lot Line Adjustments&Consolidations ❑ 18.630 Durham Wasterwater Treatment 0 18.820 Land Partitions Plan District ® 18.830 Subdivisions ❑ 18.640 River Terrace Plan District ® 18.910 Improvement Standards ❑ 18.650 Tigard Downtown Plan District ® 18.920 Access,Egress&Circulation ❑ 18.660 Tigard Triangle Plan District ® 18.930 Vision Clearance Areas ❑ 18.670 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District 18.710 Land Use Review Procedures 18.795.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments A.Approval process. 3. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments that require a comprehensive map plan amendment shall be processed through a Type III-Modified procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080,which shall be decided by the city council with a recommendation by planning commission. B.Approval criteria.A recommendation or decision for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment or Quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment shall be based on the following: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; and 2. Demonstration that adequate public services exist to serve the property at the intensity of proposed zoning. Factors to consider include the projected service demands of the property, the Ability of the existing and proposed public services to accommodate the future use, and the Characteristics of the property and development proposal,if any. (ord. 17-22§2) A neighborhood meeting is required,refer to Section 18.710.030.B and Pre-application packet for requirements. For submittal requirements,refer to Section 18.710.030.0 and Pre-application packet for requirements. Prior to submittal of the application,you will need to schedule an appointment with the Permit Counter,503-718-2421. 18.110 RESIDENTIAL ZONES Applicable Zone: R4.5 (without zone change);R-12 with zone change Minimum Lot Size: in R-4.5 is 7,500 sf.in R-12,3050 sf. Please review the development standards for the applicable zone in Table 18.110.3. Density calculation example: Total Site 71,438 square feet Sensitive Land Areas - 0 square feet Land Dedicated to the Public for Park Purposes - 0 square feet Land Dedicated for Public Rights-of-Way - 19,800 square feet Net Development Area 51,638 square feet Net Development Area 51,638 square feet Minimum Lot Size — 3,050 square feet Maximum Number of Residential Units 16.93 Maximum Number of Residential Units 16.93 x 80% Minimum Number of Residential Units 13.54 Please refer to Section 18.40.020 for calculating density. 18.310 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING o Single-family: 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit;and 1 space per unit less than 500 square feet. o Multifamily: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms;and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. o Bicycle Parking (MF): 1 space per 2 units, except elderly,which is 1 space per 20 units See Section 18.310.040.M for parking dimensional standards. 18.320 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Street trees are required at a rate of 1 tree for 40 lineal feet of frontage. Street Trees Required: approximately 10 trees each side of the street for a total of 20 street trees. 18.520 URBAN FORESTRY The following shall be prepared by a landscape architect or both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor,as provided in the Urban Forestry Manual Section 10 (except for MLPs): o Tree preservation and removal site plan-Section 10,Part 1 of Urban Forestry Manual o Tree canopy site plan- Section 10, Part 2 of Urban Forestry Manual o Supplemental report- Section 10,Part 3 of Urban Forestry Manual 18.530 SUBDIVISION 18.830.040 Approval Criteria—Preliminary Plat A.Approval criteria. The approval authority shall approve or approve with conditions an application for a preliminary plat when all of the following are met: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable regulations; 2. In addition to the base zone regulations,the proposed lots shall meet the following: a. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2.5 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 2.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable base zone; b.The side lines of lots shall be at right angles to the street upon which the lots front, unless impractical; and c. Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street,other than an alley,for a width of at least 25 feet. Lots for attached single-family dwelling units,shall abut upon a public or private street for a width at least 15 feet. 3. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; 4. The streets and roads shall be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width,general direction and in all other respects unless the city determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and 5. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. 18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.910.030 Streets F. Future Streets Plan and Extension of Streets A Future Street Plan is required with an application for a subdivision or partition.The plan shall: o Shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division o Shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and o Shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. o Shall identify existing or proposed bus routes,pullouts or other transit facilities,bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land,streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. 18.910.040 Blocks The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceeds 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography,wetlands or other bodies of water or,pre-existing development. ALL OTHER ITEMS IN 18.910 ARE ADDRESSED IN ENGINEERING'S CHECKLIST. 18.920 ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION Table 18.920.1 Vehicular Access/Egress Requirements: Residential Use (Six or fewer units) Number Dwelling Minimum Number of Minimum Access Minimum Pavement Unit/Lots Driveways Required Width Width l or 2 1 15' 10' 3-6 1 20' 20' 18.930 VISION CLEARANCE AREAS Vision Clearance Areas shall be: o Maintained between 3 and 8 feet in height at road/driveway,road/railroad,and road/road intersections. o The size of the vision clearance area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the vision clearance area. o Vision clearance areas shall be shown on the site plan,and identify any obstructions in these areas. Service Provider Letters AmiL The following service provider letters are required: Clean Water Services O Tualatin Valley Water District O Pride Disposal O Waste Management Additional Comments or IssuesillIMMIMMINNIIII APPLICATION FEES (through June 30,2018): Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $11,335.00 Quasi Judicial Zoning Map Amendment 4,264.00 Subdivision 8,988.00 + $93/lot Additional Information ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS (Chapter 18.910 and 18.920) All requirements relating to street and utility improvements are provided in the Engineering Checklist. SUBDIVISION/PLAT NAME RESERVATION Applicant shall complete and file a subdivision/plat name requires with the Washington County Surveyors Office. The approved Subdivision Name Reservation shall be submitted to the City at time of application submittal. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS Development permits will not be accepted until a land use approval has been granted. Comments from the Building Department are not included in these notes. For specific questions,please contact a Plans Examiner for any building code related questions or issues. Final inspections shall not be granted until all land use condition of approval are satisfied. DISCLAIMER The pre-application conference and notes cannot cover all applicable requirements related to the proposed development. Failure of the staff to provide information required by Title 18 shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable criteria, regulations or standards. It is recommended that the applicant read Title 18 or contact city staff with any questions prior to submittal. PRE-APPLICATION NOTES s > ENGINEERING SECTION < rI AR mod 11gar4 Onegan Community 43eve(opment Sfiapii q)l(Fetter Community PUBLIC FACILITIES Project 95th Replat Site Address: 11700&11730 SW 95th Name: Land Use Residential Tax Map(s): 1S135DC Type: Use Type: SUB Zone: R-4.5 Tax Lot(s): 3600&3700 Date: 3/23/2018 Project Number: PRE2018-00009 Visited Site: j Yes ® No 0 SUBMITTED PLANS Yes No Others Cover Page ❑ Site Plan with Aerial ® ❑ Existing Conditions ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Preliminary Site Plan ® ❑ Preliminary Utility Plan ❑ Grading and Erosion Control ❑ Tree Protection Plan ❑ Circulation Plan ❑ Construction Detail Plans ❑ These notes were prepared based on information provided by the applicant showing a proposal for The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies,City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY(TSI) Traffic impact study shall be provided in accordance with TDC 18.910.030.CC. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SUBMITTED Yes No Comments ❑ ❑ To comply with Code Section above ACCESS MANAGEMENT Access Management shall be addressed per TDC 18.920.H PRELIMINARY SIGTH DISTANCE CERTIFICATION Yes No Comments Proposed Improvements: • Site plan submitted showing the following items: o Preliminary Plat Comments: • Provide Preliminary Sight Distance Certification at submittal 2 TRANSPORTATION SW 95th Ave: Existing Conditions Post Development Applicable Codes Other Notes Street Classification Neighborhood Route Neighborhood Route Maintenance City of Tigard City of Tigard Responsibility Traffic Volume 600 ADT 600 ADT plus additional trips from the proposed development Post Speed 25 MPH 25 MPH Right of Way Width 60' 60' Per 1DC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.3 (Parking) On Street Parking Yes Yes Per 1'DC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.3 (Parking) Bike Lane No No Per TDC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18,910.3(Parking) Right of Way 30'From Center line 30'from Center line Per 1DC Table Dedication 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.3(Parking) Pavement Width 23' 16'from Center line Per 1DC Table 18.910.30 and PW Table D-1 and D-2 Curb or No Yes PW Standards D.6 on Curb/Gutter page 17 Sidewalk No Yes. 5' Per 1DC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.4 and TDC 18.910.070 Sidewalk Gap No No Per 1DC 18.910.070.B.2 fill sidewalk gap within 300 feet of the site on either direction Planter No Yes. 5' Per TDC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.03 (Parking) Street Tree No Yes Per 1DC 18.910.4 and Urban Forestry Manual Street Light At SW Tangela Ct and SW Yes Run a photometric 95th analysis on existing lights. Provide new or additional light as necessary per IDC 18.910.030.Y and PW Standards D.15 on page 19. Contact PGE for additional information Overhead Utilities Yes,on both sides Place existing utilities on east side Per 1DC 18.910.120 underground.Pay fee-in-lieu for west side Driveway Approach Yes No Per PW Standards Detail 142. 3 Adjustment to standards must follow 1 DC 18.910.020.D and 18.370.020.0.11 Per Municipal Code 15.10.020 Driveway Spacing No No Per'MC 18.920.030.H Curb Cut No Yes Per 1 DC 18.910.030.0 and Municipal Code 15.10.020 Mail Box Yes No Per 1'DC 18.910.030.W Cul-De-Sacs, No No Per PDC Turnarounds, 18.910.030.L and PW Stub Streets Standards D.5 Street Grades and Per TDC Curves 18.910.030.N and PW Standards D.3 Street Profiles 10%on Arterial, 12% on others, 15% for no greater than 250' Eyebrow Corner Per Washington County DWG 2220 Horizontal Per TDC 18.910.030 Alignment H and PW Standards D 3- Table D3 Vertical Alignment P\XT Standards D3— K-Value Table D4 and 5 Intersection Angle Per TDC 18.910.030 I and PW Standards D4 Intersection Curb Per PW Standards Radii Table D6 Controlled No Yes. SW 95th and SW i angela St Per 1'DC Intersection 18.910.030.H and PW Stop Sign Standards D.3 and Traffic Signal D.4 Uncontrolled No No Per 1'DC Intersection 18.910.030.H and PW Standards D.3 and D.4 Designated No No Crosswalk Striping No No Per PW Standards D.17 Street Sign No Yes Per 1DC 18.910.030.Z Developer to install all street signs Adjacent to Rail No No Per 1'DC 18.910.30.P Road Right of Way Rail Road Crossing No I No Per 1'DC 18.910.30.0 4 Private Street No No Per TDC 18.910.30.T and 1'DC Table 18.705.1 20'pavement with curb and 5'curb tight sidewalk when serves 3 or more lots. Associated with a No No TSP Table 5-6 CIP listed in TSP Associated with a No No TDT Appendix C TDT project listed on the TDT Project List http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/lAmRaugePlanning/PlatntingPrograms/'1'ransportationPlanning/transhortatio n-development-tax.cfm SW Tangela St Existing Conditions Post Development Applicable Codes Other Notes Street Classification Local Route Local Route Maintenance City of Tigard City of Tigard Responsibility Traffic Volume 50 50 plus additional trips from the proposed development Post Speed 25 MPH 25 MPH Right of Way Width 50' 50'to match existing R.O.NX' Per 1DC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.5 (Parking) On Street Parking Yes. On one side Yes. On one side Per IDC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.5 (Parking) Bike Lane No No Per TDC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.5 (Parking) Right of Way 50' 50' Per 1'DC Table Dedication 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.5 (Parking) Pavement Width 34' 28' Per 1'DC Table 18.910.30 and PW Table D-1 and D-2 Curb or Yes Yes PW Standards D.6 on Curb/Gutter page 17 Sidewalk Yes Yes. 5' Per TDC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.5 and 1'DC 18.910.070 Sidewalk Gap No No Per TDC 18.910.070.B.2 fill sidewalk gap within 300 feet of the site on either direction Planter yes Yes. 5' Per TDC Table 18.910.1 and Figure 18.910.03 (Parking) 5 Street Tree No Yes Per TDC 18.910.4 and Urban Forestry Manual Street Light Yes,at 9930 SW Tangela St. Yes Run a photometric analysis on existing lights. Provide new or additional light as necessary per TDC 18.910.030.Y and PW Standards D.15 on page 19. Contact PGE for additional information Overhead Utilities No No Per TDC 18.910.120 Driveway Approach Yes Yes Per PW Standards Detail 142. Adjustment to standards must follow 1DC 18.910.020.D and 18.370.020.C.11 Per Municipal Code 15.10.020 Driveway Spacing Yes Yes Per WC 18.705.H Curb Cut Yes Yes Per IUC 18.910.030.0 and Municipal Code 15.10.020 Mail Box Cluster on 92nd Yes Per TDC 18.910.030.\V Cul-De-Sacs, Yes No Per TDC Turnarounds, 18.910.030.L and PW Stub Streets Standards D.5 Street Grades and Per TDC Curves 18.910.030.N and PW Standards D.3 Street Profiles 10%on Arterial, 12% on others, 15%for no greater than 250' Eyebrow Corner Per Washington County DWG 2220 Horizontal Per WC 18.910.030 Alignment H and PW Standards D 3- Table D3 Vertical Alignment PW Standards D3- K Value Table D4 and 5 Intersection Angle Per TDC 18.910.030 L and PW Standards D4'° Intersection Curb Per PW Standards Radii Table D6 Controlled Yes. SW Tangela and SW 92nd Yes. SW Tangela and SW 95th Per TDC Intersection 18.910.030.H and PW Stop Sign Standards D.3 and Traffic Signal D.4 • Uncontrolled No No Per 1'DC Intersection 18.910.030.H and PW 6 Standards D.3 and D.4 Designated No No Crosswalk Striping No No Per PW Standards D.17 Street Sign Yes,SW Tangela and SW 92nd Yes,SW Tangela and SW 95th Per IDC 18.910.030.Z Developer to install all street signs Adjacent to Rail No No Per 1'UC 18.910.30.P Road Right of Way Rail Road Crossing No No Per 1'DC 18.910.30.0 Private Street No No Per IDC 18.910.30.T and TDC Table 18.705.1 20'pavement with curb and 5'curb tight sidewalk when serves 3 or more lots. Associated with a No No TSP Table 5-6 CIP listed in TSP Associated with a No no 1DT Appendix C TDT project listed on the TDT Project List http://www.co.washington.or.usLLUT/Divisions/l.ongRangePlannutg/PlanningProprams/1TransportationPlanningf iransportatio n-development-tax.cfm STREET LIGHTS: Portland General Electric provides streetlights for roadways within the City of Tigard. Contact: Jose Grejada at 503-672-5602 of Jose.Grajeda@pgn.com,for information regarding street lighting. A two-year street light fee for pole maintenance and light energization shall be paid prior to the issuance of the PFI permit. Existing, • 9330 tangela st and 95th and tangela ct Proposed: • None Comments: • Provide photo analysis 7 SANITARY SEWER APPLICABLE CODES: TDC 18.910.090,CWS Design&Construction Standards,and Tigard PW Standards Section F City of ' ® CWS System 0 Tigard System Sewer Reimbursement District: Is this proposed development part of a Sewer Reimbursement District? Yes 0 No 0 If yes,SRD No. Amount of Fees$ Public Main on Private Easement In Place Property Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No ❑ ( Unknown] 0 Existing Conditions: • 8"SS main on both SW 95th and SW 92nd Proposed Improvements: • No utility plan was submitted Comments: • Either connect to existing main on SW 95th or SW 92nd. • Both existing mains are 8"non-reinforced concrete pipes. 8 STORM WATER APPLICABLE CODES: TDC 18.910.100,CWS Design&Construction Standards,and Tigard PW Standards Section F City of ® CWS System ❑ Tigard System Fanno Creek ® Other ❑ Basin Directly ❑ Adjacent to Fanno Creek Public Main on Private Easement In Place Property Yes ❑ No ® Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown ❑ Existing Conditions: • 10"Concrete storm with catch basin on SW 92nd • 12"PVC main on SW 95th Proposed Improvements: • No utilities are proposed Applicable Codes: As stated in 18.910.100, all proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site,and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. Provide a plan that shows how the storm drainage system for the site connects to the public system and how the development would meet the standards of Clean Water Services and other applicable standards.An appropriate storm drainage plan and calculation shall be submitted with the application in order for it to be considered complete. Surface Water Management(SWM)regulations established by Clean Water Services (Resolution and Order No. 07-20)which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed,it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created;for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof. Please contact the Building Division for the current fee. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ® Construction of a water quality facility. ►1 Comply with provisions of Chapter 4 Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Runoff Treatment and Control).Table 4-1 of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards applies. ® Water quality and detention facility design and construction must be certified by an Oregon professional engineer as meeting Clean Water Services requirements. ® After completion of the construction of these facilities,the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city for long-term maintenance of the facilities.This agreement will use city-furnished forms and shall be recorded. City staff will be periodically inspecting the facilities for compliance with the terms of the agreement. STOW DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMIMD so Yes No Comments ❑ ® Provide Drainage report 9 Proposed Improvements: Utility plan submitted showing the following items: • No storm proposed Comments: • Provide Water Quality and Quantity for private lots and Right-of-Way EROSION CONTROL APPLICABLE CODES: CWS Design&Construction Standards,DEQ Regulations,City of Tigard PW Standards Section E 4 NPDES 1200-C(>5 acres)or 1200-CN permit(<5 acres). Proposed Improvements; • No EC was proposed Comments: • Grading and erosion control plans will be required at land use submittal.(Grading plan is submitted but no EC) • Construction gravel entrance • Sediment fence • Bio-Filter bags • Stock pile area • Staging area • Equipment maintenance and fueling area with spill protection • Tree protection fencing WATER SUPPLY APPLICABLE CODES: Tigard PW Standards Section G or Tualatin Valley Water District Standards City of T ® TWWD ❑ Tigard System System Zone 1 410 Existing Conditions: • 8"CI water main on 95th and 6"DI on Tangela St Public Main on Private Easement In Place 1 Property Yes 0 No ® Yes ❑ No 1 0 Unknown 0 New Main Replace Looped New Fire i Replace New 1 Replace On CIP Existing Hydrant(s) Existing Meter(s) r Existing Project Main _ FH(s) Meter(s) List 8" -4 8"DI E ® 0 ® 0 ❑ Proposed Improvements: Utility plan submitted showing the following items: 10 • No utility plans are submitted Comments: • Upgrade 8"CIP on SW 95th to 8"DIP • Loop 8"main on SW 95th to 6"main on SW Tangela st FIRE PROTECTION: APPLICABLE CODES: Fire Codes and Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue Standards Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District(Contact:John Wolff,503.259.1504)provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems,the need for fire hydrants,or other questions related to fire protection. Require ® FIRE FLOW TVF&R TEST APPROVAL Required EASEMENTS: APPLICABLE CODES: TDC 18.910.050 and CWS Design&Construction Standards A.Easements.Easements for sewers,drainage,water mains,electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions,and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainage way,there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B.Utility easements.A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city,the applicable district,and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development.The city's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company,applicable district, or city engineer. C.Public Sanitary Sewer and Storm System Design,2 Sewers in Easements;Sewers within easements will be permitted only upon a showing of the infeasibility of providing services from a line within a right-of-way.These sewers,where permitted,will require a 12-foot wide(paved) access sufficient to provide adequate access for maintenance vehicles. Comments: 2. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES The Washington County Transportation Development Tax(TDT)became effective 7/1/09, The TILT program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the IDT incorporates the proposed use of the land and the size of the project The 1'L)T is calculated,due,and payable at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances payment of the IDT may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TDT exceeds the TUT rate for a single-family home. The Permitee shall pay fees as required.TDT credit available? Yes 0 No El In April 2015,the City of Tigard adopted a Transportation System Development Charge(TSDC) for residential development with an effective date of July 1,2015.The fee will apply to building permits issuing on or after July 1,2015. The fee is in addition to and similar to the TDT.It is collected from new development,and redevelopment projects in some cases,based upon the projected impact of the proposed development on the city's transportation system.TSDC estimates are included in the city's pre-application conference notes and arc also calculated at the time of building permit submittal.They are due upon building permit issuance.In addition to TSDCs, development is responsible for paying all other SDCs that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance,including but not limited to parks,sewer,and stormwater.The city is currently considering the adoption of a new non-residential TSDC and an update to its Parks SDC. The Permitee shall pay fees as required.TSDT credit available? Yes 0 No PERMITS Public Facility Improvement(PFI)Permit Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure,plans prepared by a registered Oregon professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond,or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required,the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement,which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. NOTE: When a PFI Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permit: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter. Site Improvement Permit(SIT): This permit is generally issued for all new commercial,industrial and multifamily projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation,grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20%and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit(BUP): This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after,or concurrently with,the SIT permit Master Permit(MST): This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction,including sub-trades (excludes grading,etc.). This permit cannot be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition,the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required,and return a copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. 12 Other Permits: ,There are other special permits,such as mechanical,electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 100/n and 20%,as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition,each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall indude topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY: Jonny Gish REVIEWED BY: Khoi Le DATE:4/3/2018 ENGINEERING DIVISION STAFF Phone:(503)718-2440 Fax:(503)684-8840 13 Private Development Contacts for Franchise Utilities and Government Organizations with Tigard Organization Contact Phone Email City of Tigard Rob Block 503-718-2607 Rob@Tigard-or.gov Storm Supervisor City of'1'igard John Goodrich 503-718-2609 johng@tigard-or.gov Utility Divisions Manager Sam Morrison Water Operations 503-718-2600 samm@,tigard-or.gov Supervisor Comcast Margret Porter (W)503-596-389 Margret_porter@cable.comcast.com (C)971-801-5709 Comcast Ken Parris 971-801-5699 Kenneth_parris@cable.comcastcom s 4 Frontier Communication Russ Wells (W)503-643-1001 Russ.WeIls@ftr.com (primary) (C) 503-312-7330 Frontier Communication Tam Nguyen 503-641-4463 Tam.nguyen@ftr.com (secondary) Portland General Jose Grejeda 503-672-5602 Jose.Grajeda@pgn.com Electric Street lighting Portland General Chris Jewett j 503-672-5481 Chris.jewett@pgn.com Electric Undergrounding Northwest Natural Gas Ryan Truair 503-2264211 Ext.4361 Ryan.truair@nwnatural.com (C)503-708-3699 Northwest Natural Gas Peter Cathcart 503-226-4211 Peter.Cathcart@nwnatural Ext.4429 503-715-7441 14 Private Development Contacts for Franchise Utilities and Government Organizations with Tigard Organization Contact Phone Etlntil Tigard/Tualatin School Maryann Escriva 503-431-4049 mescriva@TTSD.k12.or.us District Washington County Naomi Vogel 503-846-7639 Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us Washington County Emergency 503-846-7661 Dispatch ODOT Marty Jensvold 503-731-8219 Martin.r.jensvold@odot.state.or.us ODOT Jim Nelson 971-673-6200 James.A.NFT SON@odot.state.or.us ROW Permits ODOT Aref Bozorgnia (971)-673-1268 aref.bozorgnia@odot.state.or.us Access Management Clean Water Services Steve Olson 503-681-4474 OlsonS@CleanWaterServices.org Clean Water Services Jackie Humphreys 503-681-5101 15 A f H www.tvfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue April 3, 2018 Brian Cobb/Applicant Gary Pagenstecher!Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: 95th Replat Pre-App 2018-00009 Tax Lot I.D: 0S135DC03600 &03700 11700 & 11730 SW 95th Tigard Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. These notes are provided in regards to the pre-application meeting held on April 3, 2018. There may be more or less requirements needed based upon the final project design, however, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue will endorse this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: 1. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (OFC 503.1.1) 2. DEAD END ROADS AND TURNAROUNDS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. Diagrams can be found in the corresponding guide. http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1438(OFC 503.2.5&D103.1) 3. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 20 feet(26 feet adjacent to fire hydrants(OFC D103.1))and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (OFC 503.2.1) 4. NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Signs shall read"NO PARKING-FIRE LANE"and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background.(OFC D103.6) 5. NO PARKING: Parking on emergency access roads shall be as follows(OFC D103.6.1-2): 1. 20-26 feet road width—no parking on either side of roadway 2. 26-32 feet road width—parking is allowed on one side 3. Greater than 32 feet road width—parking is not restricted Command and Business Operations Center and South Operating Center Training Center North Operating Center 8445 SW Elligsen Road 12400 SW Tonquin Road 11945 SW 70th Avenue Wilsonville,Oregon Sherwood,Oregon Tigard,Oregon 97223-9196 97070-9641 97140-9734 503-649-8577 503-259-1500 503-259.1600 6. PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red (or as approved) and marked"NO PARKING FIRE LANE"at 25 foot intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background (or as approved). (OFC 503.3) 7. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road,the minimum road width shall be 26 feet and shall extend 20 feet before and after the point of the hydrant. (OFC D103.1) 8. TURNOUTS: Where access roads are less than 20 feet and exceed 400 feet in length, turnouts 10 feet wide and 30 feet long may be required and will be determined on a case by case basis. (OFC 503.2.2) 9. SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.(OFC 503.2.3) 10. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point.(OFC 503.2.4&D103.3) 11. ACCESS ROAD GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 15%. 12. ANGLE OF APPROACH/GRADE FOR TURNAROUNDS: Turnarounds shall be as flat as possible and have a maximum of 5%grade with the exception of crowning for water run-off. (OFC 503.2.7& D103.2) 13. ANGLE OF APPROACH/GRADE FOR INTERSECTIONS: Intersections shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. (OFC 503.2.7& D103.2) 14. ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site.Temporary address signage shall also be provided during construction. (OFC 3309 and 3310.1) 15. TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES: Shall be prohibited on fire access routes unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC 503.4.1).Traffic calming measures linked here: htto://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1578 FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES: 16. FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY FOR INDIVIDUAL ONE-AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS: The minimum available fire flow for one and two-family dwellings served by a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is(are)3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to OFC Appendix B. (OFC B105.2) 17. FIRE FLOW WATER AVAILABILITY: Applicants shall provide documentation of a fire hydrant flow test or flow test modeling of water availability from the local water purveyor if the project includes a new structure or increase in the floor area of an existing structure. Tests shall be conducted from a fire hydrant within 400 feet for commercial projects, or 600 feet for residential development. Flow tests will be accepted if they were performed within 5 years as long as no adverse modifications have been made to the supply system.Water availability information may not be required to be submitted for every project. (OFC Appendix B) 18. WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION IN MUNICIPAL AREAS: In areas with fixed and reliable water supply, approved firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 3312.1) Residential One-and Two-Family Development 3.4—Page 2 FIRE HYDRANTS: 19. FIRE HYDRANTS—ONE-AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS&ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Where the most remote portion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road,as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.1) 20. FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Table C 105.1. (OFC Appendix C) 21. FIRE HYDRANT(S) PLACEMENT: (OFC C104) • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. (OFC 507.5.1) • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants unless approved by the Fire Marshal. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets may be considered when approved by the Fire Marshal. • Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants only if approved by the Fire Marshal. 22. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT IDENTIFICATION: Private fire hydrants shall be painted red in color. Exception: Private fire hydrants within the City of Tualatin shall be yellow in color. (OFC 507) 23. FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC C102.1) 24. REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of blue reflective markers. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the center line of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In the case that there is no center line,then assume a center line and place the reflectors accordingly. (OFC 507) 25. PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle,guard posts,bollards or other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6&OFC 312) 26. CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5) BUILDING ACCESS AND FIRE SERVICE FEATURES 27. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers; building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, including monument signs. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch. (OFC 505.1) Provide a physical address on the new home, as well as, near the intersection of the private drive and public road visible from both approaches of[enter road intersections here] Residential One-and Two-Family Development 3.4—Page 3 If you have questions or need further clarification, or would like to discuss any alternate methods and/or materials, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504. Sincerely, vog John Wolff Deputy Fire Marshal II Email John.Wolff(c)tvfr.com Cc: A full copy of the New Construction Fire Code Applications Guide for Residential Development is available at http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1438 Residential One-and Two-Family Development 3.4—Page 4 II )J �r.. a� Comprehensive Plan �' __ s o� __ ,,I 1-, �' w Effective 12/14/17 I �� -., I Q il I City of Tigard,Oregon w 1; 1/4"MILE RADUIS FROM PROPERTY CENTER roll..,13,-? ,`,,``,/1111111 IIIIIl1iii0/ S,, ,,��I `, ♦ 14, 40 • —500 FT RADIUS FROM _.. I PROPERTY CORNER /I j ler *S •.4 W W O N J, OW i ME aa. ■ W �.'� !; 19W NW ; ■ — MI • W O ;i M W O a 1 r OW :• W O . •i WO WO 00 ,,,a.a_na.SI•*a� - ,.. WO �,` 00 OW „ , I L, ... •�';.� 6J'CFL310-0 ,., „ u , ......„ . , ..,..„ ., ..„. , T ,. U��/1111111.111111%%Ill INFINITE DATE 07/09/18 P.O.Box 664 REFERENCE DRAWING: EXHIBIT Donald,OR 97020 PROJECT AREA ZONINGA`F f\J, (b) 503.989.2992 SW 95TH REPLAY PROJ NO2ois-ozNB�BTc L A �f (f) 503.776.9013 /'"'� ARCHITECTURE 11700&11730 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223 1/4"MILE RADUIS FROM PROPERTY CENTER b1 t.I,F..). MUFF-2 ERMAMUC ``,``%%.lfl IIII �����/i��iiiii. MUR-1 �• R-4.5 IIS °o �, -500 FT RADIUS FROM �I , `�• PROPERTY CORNER I� • C-P aft i (-25 = ... .,. = ( ', MU E , .. ; . • . -• 11,-..- \ , , '•..,...,.,••• R-7 som 40 frM 111111111111111111111111- INFINITE REFERENCE DRAWING: DATE 07/09/18 EXHIBIT P.O.Box 664 PROJECT AREA ZONING SCALE Donald,OR 97020 /� 1,),„_ (b) 503.989.2992 PROD.NO.:2018 0Y OWN BVBTC A - (f) 503.776.9013 SW 95TH REPEAT /Y-\L ARCHITECTURE 117008 11730 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done = r TIGARD 95th Avenue Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Low-Density to Medium-Density Residential R-4.5 to R-12 or R-7 City Council Hearing April 2, 2019 Community Development CITY OF TIG ARD Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Proposed change from Low- Density Residential, R-4.5 to - _______---- NUHIHDANOIA Si Zoning Map Medium-Density Residential, Generalized Zoning Categories R-12 or R-7 R-12 0 LATER T t 'a a ZOIlins Lkscriotioa R-4.5 n S a m a = Residential D n N m m °i - Mined Use Residential 1.64 acre site bordered by R- °�eial (;R Ciro., Pkorn e '>' 4.5 and R-7-zoned properties e Mixed Use Niro � � "'Triangle Mixed IN,: P ■Mixed Use Employment R-12 ".-.. b„...,,,, I:,.i k,and Recreation SI Proposed change from R-4.5 to R-12 1 P4' V k-CNTY R-7 allows increased density CT g r. Fa i thcrlavZce' R m f R 1 up to four additional units! PiNs , nt a Cli -x l q s , t,m1,rie District ;eto..rlay -io te ;$'14Nq ? Planned Uevelopmem Ch erlai, T NACiRn 01 R 7 a > Sahicn sit,.and increased height to 35 7ANGLtA T feet. MIN _� .. I-P R-25 (PD) Z y �oN�o � R-12 allows increased density rM.9E.M'ar>s°Man 2699e91 up to ten additional units, "� R-4.5 N`�N R-' - < I-P increased height to 35 feet, - 4�°` Fps P,� u--s C(IMVUNTVeEVELUA#EMTE FTMENT g `r � /4t s atiaO St ��y ii CAI s Tam c:. a ?� R_12 j k�kG' (IiWr'�1'f Tip rn 97 2? and multifamily housing type. e t� " ay s^;: R-Z5✓PRSQAG J wenx CITY O IF TIG ARD Existing Zoning and Adjacent Development "Permitted land uses compatible with P-12 Apartments surrounding land Apartmrntc uses." Apdrtrl;frits Immediate neighbor- R-4.5 hood has retained 1 1980's zoning. Legal non-conforming apartments exist with- Apartments Apdrtnnnr. in the R-4.5 and R-7 • zone. 17-25 (PD)_ CITY OF TIGARD Oregon White Oaks and Tree Canopy on Site "Demonstrate f Amendment does U ,. not detract from the 1 viability of the City's 4. r natural systems." , u,; Extension of Tangela «. __ . ... Street shows net developable areas i 1 north and south ,@ ,,,,s containing Oregon -4‘riFtil* ---it*1100111114,�a 4 .; , 1 - --_ .44.----...- , -AT": !ea white oaks and other trees. m. iK 2L/,j t.„,, N 4,yp �' .. 't�"`. CITY O F TIGARD Tree Removal Prior to Council Hearing These images show four Oregon white oak stumps in the southeast corner of the property that appear to represent healthy trees in potential back yard areas outside of the Tangela Street right-of-way extension. 5'"rc'h'b+Vf h ,... a' � �I j h Y ti " ,*.. ,' r ,f --., �--' .r iitY ` ot. 0:100. W1y ' c _ 1 w ri4 -d..i JSP « e♦ CITY OF TIGARD Ensuring Development is Compatible ( R-7) and Natural Systems are Protected (PD) This image looking northwest includes potential lot areas between the future Tangela ROW on the left and existing development on the right, zoned R-4.5. $10 0 4° l' "' '' i.. 4 .,,,,,,, . ,.,, ,"-, , • ‘ 4 " ; - i e 4. b' „) *" .44t. - ..-.4 0:-it • 4 i )4 ,0,' ..i , 4 1407.A,'''?"'a %, ' .,- ' 00 400 ,... '''' • .7i.' '' hfr" ,1""v 0', • , 4 -' . ‘t. . s''t • '• ' 441,19:1 ' zierotO•t ".41* 1`. ------ ,... - 4 . ‘i414 A 1 • r rw I Ell - I, - S' Ell ... , CITY OF TIGARD Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the Tigard City Council APPROVE the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation change from low to medium density residential . Additionally, staff and the Planning Commission recommend changing the zoning classification from R-4.5 to the R-7 zone, with future development reviewed through a planned development process, as conditioned . CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done IN a TIGARD 95th Avenue Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Low-Density to Medium-Density Residential R-4.5 to R-12 or R-7 City Council Hearing April 2, 2019 Community Development SUpPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR 6Nreent (PATE OF MEETING) Wayne K. Chapman,property owner at 11850/11900 SW 95th Ave., Tigard, OR 97223 Date: March 25,2019 RE:Comprehensive Plan Amendment/95th Avenue Zone Change, Case ID CPA 2018-00003;Zoning Map Amendment(ZON)2018-00004. Dear Members of the Tigard City Council— This letter updates the one I submitted to the Tigard Planning Commission on February 18,2019,after the City Council remanded the zoning change request to the Planning Commission due to the surprise clear- cutting of properties at 11700 and 11730 SW 95th. Subsequently,the Planning Commission upheld its recommendation in favor of a zoning change from R-4.5 to R-7, which I support since a zoning change to R-12 is not in the interest of the residents of the neighborhood. Having voiced opposition to the applicants' request for a zone change to R-12, I was grateful to see all of my objections addressed in the Commission's original staff report. As the record shows,my sister, Sharon Chapman,and I wish to see development that is consistent with features most valued in the neighborhood. The Commission addressed matters with which we agree—for instance,those elements in its discussion of Land Use Planning Policy 15,parts F and G,regarding compatibility with environmental conditions. Clear-cutting was a shock to residents,as a petition shows that was submitted in February. Policy 23 asks for compatibility with"adjacent existing and future land uses,"and the staff report found in favor of R-7 in that respect.Policy 23 is about blending development with the surrounding community. So the absence or presence of trees does not absolutely change the applicability of this policy 23. Because our property lies within the R-7 zone,which is notably adjacent to the land in question,we would expect this policy to be relevant to planned development and in line with the recommended R-7 option. On livability(Housing Goal 10.2,Policies 5 and 7),the staff's report acknowledges that greater density "may not support the conservation of[the site's] natural resources"though"the proposed R-7 zone best matches the existing land use pattern and site conditions."Clear-cutting has hastened the need for the remediation of soil and water waste conditions that have been exacerbated by the sudden removal of trees and associated vegetation in a time of heavy precipitation.Nor is any good accomplished with an R-12 designation when a half-acre right of way is subtracted from development for a through roadway, Tangela Street,permitting only shallow-depth lots north and south. If one allows for the presumed retention of the renovated house at 11700 SW 95th,installation of at least one storm-water swale,and the owner's avowed commitment to single-family housing with driveways and garages, it is hard to see how this intention is accomplished with R-12 zoning,which is meant for a different type of housing, including apartments,to which the community is on record to be strongly opposed due to increased noise and traffic. In conclusion,while I remain opposed to rezoning to R-12 in the neighborhood,I do endorse the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve a zone change to R-7"to mitigate adverse impacts to adjacent properties and to . . . on-site natural resources."Therefore,I ask the City Council either to approve a change to zone R-7 or to leave unchanged the current R-4.5 zoning in that section of the neighborhood. Thank you for inviting and considering these comments. Sincerely, Wayne K. Chapman CASE ID#: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2018-00003; RECEIVED Zoning Map Amendment ZON 2018-00004 MAR 26 2019 Dear Mr. Pagenstecher, CITY OF TIGARD, PLANNING/[:NCIt,.;EF:" I am Julia Good, a homeowner at 11865 SW. 95th Ave. I am a voting citizen and am proud to represent my values, share about my neighborhood, and inform you, my representatives, about my stand regarding the proposed zoning change on 95th Avenue. The residential zoning for 95th Avenue is set. I imagine it was set by a panel much like you. Did they fail to envision a safe and comprehensive neighborhood? That is not my experience. Their work and thought need not be reconsidered. Our neighborhood offers a variety of housing options. The property to which I refer is embedded within an area zoned at R-4.5 & R-7. Within 500 feet of this zone exist a variety of other residential zone ratings. However, their existence does not presuppose changing this plot of land. When the folks who own the land purchased it, they were aware of the zoning and I would applaud their vision to complete the neighborhood quilt following the established R4.5 zoning. A 4.5 zoning build preserves the tradition and stability of the neighborhood, which would maintain the essence of those of us who live here having a value for land, environment, and family atmosphere. The "development" proposal before you is a request, not to double, but nearly TRIPLE housing DENSITY. If their desire is to develop a more dense neighborhood, there are other areas which might topographically tolerate such a project. 95th Avenue Is Not That Area. I have previously spoken and shared concerns, as have my neighbors raised by neighbors, of the limitations of the infrastructure of our neighborhood. We regard our neighborhood as successful. We would welcome new neighbors, we do not, however, vote to "pave paradise to put up a parking lot"? R12 would create that scenario plopped amongst us. From the Tigard City Comprehensive Plan: GOAL: 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. POLICIES: 1. The City shall adopt measures to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of its residential neighborhoods The definition of integrity applies here as a state of being whole and undivided. The 10.2 Goal lists 10 policies followed by "Recommended Action Measures", the second of which states: ii. Develop infill design and/or cottage cluster housing standards to ensure that new housing constructed within existing residential neighborhoods complements and is compatible with existing development. It is incumbent on this panel of planners to maintain and preserve the established zoning and recommend development at the "compatible and complementary rate of R4.5" which will "protect and enhance the integrity" of our residential neighborhood. An affirmation of the R-12 zoning reassignment proposal before you, requesting nearly triple density, requires you disregard the testimony of concerned, invested landowners and residents of 95th Ave who are directly affected and actively contributing to this process. 11E6 fr)?zz? s-10—‘ 327 AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: April 2,2019 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on: CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR 95TH AVENUE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from R4.5 to R-12, preferably or R-7. LOCATION: 11700& 11730 SW 95th Avenue;Tax Map: 1 S135DC lots: 03600,03700&03800. ZONE: R-4.5 to R-12,preferably R-7. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.795; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1,Housing. Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: April 2, 2019 PLEASE PRINT Proponent— (Speaking In Favor) Opponent— (Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. ra + R.Qp. -1Yu.1cQeYI2 cja76.2O Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name.Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony AIS-3804 7. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/02/2019 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Resolution establishing a program for Youth City Councilor Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Resolution Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Snider establish a program for a Youth City Councilor to serve an advisory role to City Council on behalf of Tigard youth? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Mayor Snider has long been interested in providing Tigard youth with some of the same opportunities he had as a high school student, like finding a way to get students more involved in municipal government and decision-making on issues that affect youth. Seeing the energy, initiative, and impact Tigard students bring to a wide range of community issues, Mayor Snider asked city staff to establish a Youth City Councilor position as a way to cultivate an interest in public service and encourage youth to share their talents and viewpoints in an advisory role to City-Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Mayor Snider could not create this advisory role. COUNCIL OR TCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Council Goals have not been adopted at this time, but this program could support Council efforts to engage and involve residents in community decision-making. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time this has come to City Council. Fiscal Impact Cost: 2,800.00 Budgeted (yes or no): no Where Budgeted (department/program): 100-0500 Additional Fiscal Notes: This would provide the student with a $300 meal allowance for a delivered dinner before City Council meetings and $2,500 travel/training budget to cover expenses associated with attendance at one national conference. � e Attachments Resolution Establishing Youth City Councilor Youth City Councilor Program Outline CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR A YOUTH CITY COUNCILOR. WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council appreciates the talents and perspectives found among the city's youth;and WHEREAS,the Mayor and Council recognize the contributions young people can make to city government;and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council wishes to encourage youth participation in municipal government by creating a position for a Tigard student in their junior or senior year of high school to advise the City Council on community issues from a youth perspective;and WHEREAS,participation in governmental proceedings will help develop responsible and knowledgeable future citizens;and WHEREAS,the student representative will serve as a liaison between the City Council and the young people of the community. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby establishes a program for naming a junior or senior high school student representative to the City Council with the following criteria for this role: a. Youth must reside within the city limits of the City of Tigard. b. Youth must have their parent/guardian's approval to participate in the program. c. Complete the appropriate application and participate in the interview process directed by the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee. d. Once appointed,the Youth City Councilor will serve as a non-voting member of the City Council for a term of one year,beginning July 1 and ending June 30 of the following year. e. Only one (1)Youth City Councilor will be appointed to Council at any given time. f. The Youth City Councilor will attend and participate in at least 75 percent of the regularly scheduled Council meetings and community events provided they do not interfere with school commitments. g. The Youth City Councilor will sit with the City Council and may participate in all council proceedings except Executive Sessions;student will not have access to confidential information intended for Executive Session discussion. h. Youth must comply with council rules of procedure and conduct themselves in a professional manner. RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 1 i. The Youth City Councilor serves without pay but may be reimbursed for out-of- pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their duties when such expenses have been authorized in advance. j. The Youth City Councilor may apply for reappointment to the position for a second term provided they meet eligibility requirements. k. A youth councilor may be removed for cause prior to the end of the term with a majority vote of the full City Council. 1. The Mayor or his designee will serve as a mentor to the Youth City Councilor to offer support and guidance to the student member throughout their tenure on the council. m. The Youth City Councilor will have a meal allowance for one evening meal before City Council meetings when requested and a travel&training allowance sufficient to cover registration,travel,hotel and per diem expenses for attending one national conference (ex: National League of Cities Congressional Cities Conference,Washington,DC). SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2019. Jason B. Snider,Mayor City of Tigard A'1TEST: Carol A. Krager,City Recorder RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 2 igr i e TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD YOUTH CITY COUNCILOR PROGRAM Goal: This program would allow the Mayor to appoint one Tigard student to serve as a non-voting, de facto member of the Tigard City Council. The aim of the program is to advise the City Council on community issues from a youth perspective, increase student participation in local government and provide input on issues of importance to Tigard youth. Expectation: - The youth councilor will attend regular meetings of the City Council(155,2nd,3tx and 4th Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at Tigard City Hall,Town Hall) but will not attend executive sessions or be given confidential information for executive sessions. - The student will be seated with the City Council at meetings and must comply with council rules of procedure and conduct themselves in a professional manner. - The youth councilor is invited to participate in all City Council activities outside of regularly scheduled council meetings (National Night Out,Meet&Greets,Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony,etc.) as long as the activity does not interfere with school commitments. - The Youth City Councilor serves without pay but may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their duties when such expenses have been authorized in advance. Eligibility: - Only one (1)Youth City Councilor will be appointed to Council at any given time. - Students are invited to apply at the end of their sophomore or junior year for participation in the following school calendar year. - Student must be a resident of the City of Tigard but may attend a public or private school serving Tigard residents (Tigard High School, Westview High or Muslim Educational Trust,Jesuit, St.Mary's of the Valley, etc.) and maintain passing grades in their classes. - The student's parent or guardian must give permission for the student to be appointed. Term: - The Youth City Councilor shall serve a one-year term that commences after July 1 of each year and ends on June 30 of the following year. - The Youth Councilor is required to have at least 75 percent attendance at council meetings but during the summer may be excused for family vacation,travel or school commitments. Application Process: - Vacancy should be publicized on the city's website and through outreach to local high schools. - City Council will identify the questions and form for application. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov - Applications shall be forwarded to the city council for consideration and follow the selection process used by the Mayors Appointment Advisory Committee. - The youth councilor may apply for reappointment to the position for a second term provided they meet eligibility requirements. - A youth councilor may be removed for cause prior to the end of the term with a majority vote of the full City Council. Time Commitment: - The student selected to serve as the Youth Councilor will be required to attend an orientation to acquaint student with activities of City Council no later than August 1. - Students can expect to spend between 12—20 hours a month in meeting preparation and attendance. Program Impact • Position Support o The Mayor will serve as the Youth Councilor mentor to assist with questions and advice o The Mayor's Executive Asst.will assist with scheduling, travel,etc. • Budget: o $300: Meal before City Council meeting(25 meals at$12) o $2,500: National Conference (ex:NLC in Washington,DC) travel/training expenses • Effectiveness Measure: o Youth engagement will increase as noted in a yearly evaluation. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET IliFOR 4[a-1►s, nvn -� a -- of Ti (DATE OF MEET Y i G„R L, Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilors From: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director Re: Resolution in Support of Application for Metro 2040 Grant to Fund Washington Square Regional Center Update Project Date: April 2, 2019 Cycle 7 of the Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grant Program is underway. The city has successfully competed for grant funding from this program in the past,including but not limited to planning and development work for River Terrace and the Tigard Triangle. Pursuant to City Council Goal 2,which was adopted March 26, 2019, the city is in the process of applying for another grant from this program for the Washington Square Regional Center Update Project in the amount of$250,000. The grant application requires, amongst other things, that the city attach a Resolution from City Council that formally confirms the city's commitment to and support for this project. Staff recently learned of this requirement and of the cancellation of Council's next two April meetings. Since the grant application is due April 19, 2019, staff respectfully requests that Council consider a motion on the attached Resolution at tonight's Council meeting. 1 Page 1 of 1 r l CITY OF TIGARD OREGON SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FOR -s► RESOLUTION NO. 19- (DATE OF MEET" A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A METRO 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT TO FUND THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER UPDATE,PROJECT. WHEREAS, Metro has a new cycle of funding available for the 2040 Planning and Development Grant Program, which has targeted funds for projects that facilitate development in centers, corridors, station areas, and employment areas;and WHEREAS, the Washington Square Regional Center is the city's only regional center and one of eight centers identified in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept;and WHEREAS, the Metro 2040 Growth Concept was adopted in 1995, and Tigard adopted the Washington Square Regional Center Plan five years later;and WHEREAS, Washington Square has much greater potential for high-density residential and employment-rich development than has occurred thus far. It has been 20 years since the original vision and regional center plan were developed, and this is an opportune time to review and update all applicable plans, policies, and regulations;and WHEREAS, this project advances the region's planning and development goals in important and synergistic ways, specifically as it relates to urban growth expansion development to the west, Southwest Corridor transit planning,and regional housing needs;and WHEREAS, this project is supported by the owner of Washington Square Mall, the single largest property owner in Washington Square. The mall owner, Macerich, is interested in redeveloping the mall site, which would be difficult or impossible to effectively redevelop under current regulations;and WHEREAS, this project is timely for the city and advances City Council Goal 2 to promote economic growth and community vitality by identifying and removing barriers to redevelopment in Washington Square. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Council approves the submittal of an application for a Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grant to update the plans, policies, and regulations associated with the Washington Square Regional Center. SECTION : This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 1 PASSED: This day of 2019. Mayor-City of Tigard A VI EST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 2 T SUPPLEI l TASL P A CKE FOR 1111 ■ q City of Tigard (DATE OF MEETING) TIGARD Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilors From: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director Re: Resolution in Support of Application for Metro 2040 Grant to Fund River Terrace URAs Planning Date: April 2, 2019 Cycle 7 of the Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grant Program is underway. The city has successfully competed for grant funding from this program in the past,including but not limited to planning and development work for River Terrace and the Tigard Triangle. To help facilitate coordinated planning with ongoing upcoming planning studies in Washington County and King City, the City is in the process of applying for a grant from this program for the planning of the West and South River Terrace URAs in the amount of$300,000. The grant application requires, amongst other things, that the city attach a Resolution from City Council that formally confirms the city's commitment to and support for this project. Staff recently learned of this requirement and of the cancellation of Council's next two April meetings. Since the grant application is due April 19, 2019, staff respectfully requests that Council consider a motion on the attached Resolution at tonight's Council meeting. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FORlall�� nv�n a RESOLUTION NO. 19- ( Th OF MEETING) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A METRO 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT TO FUND THE WEST AND SOUTH RIVER TERRACE URBAN RESERVES CONCEPT PLANNING PROJECT. WHEREAS, Metro has a new cycle of funding available for the 2040 Planning and Development Grant Program,which has targeted funds for projects that facilitate urban reserve area planning;and WHEREAS, the West and South River Terrace Urban Reserve Areas are identified by Metro as the last remaining urban reserves in Tigard;and WHEREAS, the West and South River Terrace Urban Reserve Areas are adjacent to key developing areas including North River Terrace and the King City UGB expansion area;and WHEREAS, concept planning the West and South River Terrace Urban Reserve Areas provides opportunities to strategically coordinate transportation connections and utility infrastructure with neighboring developments and planned improvements in nearby jurisdictions;and WHEREAS, this project advances the region's planning and development goals in important and synergistic ways,specifically as it relates to urban growth expansion development and regional housing needs. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Council approves the submittal of an application for a Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grant to facilitate concept planning efforts for the West and South River Terrace Urban Reserve Areas. SECTION : This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 1 PASSED: This day of 2019. Mayor-City of Tigard A n EST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 19- Page 2